# No rear brake



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Before you try this, have you ever tried actually going a whole ride without using your rear brake? You'll notice you have to plan your breaking way ahead, and basically ride a whole lot slower and more conservatively, defeating the purpose of having a light bike to begin with. And that's not even bringing in the obvious safety issue: your stopping distance will be dramatically greater in an emergency stop - hiker, oncoming biker around bend, etc.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Between you and this guy, we're in for some exciting cycling:
http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/safe-use-only-rear-disc-brake-trail-riding-836962.html


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

Are you riding on or off road?


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

Who am I kidding....it doesn't matter. Both would be crazy unless you're sporting a fixie rear setup.


----------



## sodak (Oct 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> Lol, actually I've never been on a MTB with a rear brake.


Whoa! Subscribed.... You've NEVER ridden with a rear brake? You riding a Tri-cycle? Please post pics of this setup, I am interested.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

sodak said:


> Whoa! Subscribed.... You've NEVER ridden with a rear brake? You riding a Tri-cycle? Please post pics of this setup, I am interested.


I looked; he's brand new to MTB. I think he said January.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> Yes, January. I've left the tabs on the frame and wave the centerlock rotor so its always an option. I just haven't needed one thus far and was amazed no one else uses this setup ESPECIALLY since there seems to be a no front brake cult following...


tell me about this "no front brake cult" - I must have missed it


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

You can also ride without a helmet to save weight.

With the exception that riding without a backup for your brake is even dumber than riding bare-headed: a helmet will never prevent an accident, just protect your head in case you get into one. A brake could very well prevent the crash to begin with. 

Brakes fail. Riding without a fail-safe (another brake) should mean you're riding more carefully (like with brakeless fixies), but if you ride a one-brake bike as fast as one with two brakes, you have a hole in your head.

(Closed tracks are a different thing, like BMX and velodrome. My strong position for two means of stopping applies to traffic and open trails.)


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

I think riding without a rear brake is flawed logic. The whole point is to have a lighter bike? No offense but you're on a boat anchor of a bike. The logical way to lighten a bike is to upgrade to lighter parts or lighten yourself. The flip side is ride it how it is and actually get faster/better by riding instead of worrying about bike weight.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

That's in the dirt jump bike section. Think of that as a big bmx bike. My DJ bike has no front brake but I'm also not barreling down trails at double digit speeds with trees everywhere; I'm in a controlled area.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

You must not go very fast.

I'd like to see a spec sheet on this revel. We sell revels and they're boat anchors of a bike


----------



## Kiwiplague (Jul 22, 2011)

The short answer will be no, no one around here is going to have _only_ a front brake with no rear, as we all kind of like being able to keep living. Dirt jump MTB's are the only bike that deliberately run one brake, but as mentioned, they are in controlled environment (most of the time).
If you are riding on trails (or roads for that matter) and you have something unexpected happen, you are going to find it very very difficult to stop safely without causing yourself injury.
As has been mentioned above, you have a very flawed idea of how to save weight on your bike.
_Put the rear brake back on your bike!_


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Keith Medlock said:


> When I built my new MTB, I didn't get a rear brake, grinded of the rear rim brake mount/cable holders, and had the rear wheel built with a centerlock hub so I could also shave the weight of the 6 bolt flange as well as the centerlock lockring. Before I decided to do this I did TONS of research on pros and cons and didn't really find ANY info on the popularity of this light weight one brake setup. Obviously it's not an ideal setup for 99% of you, but is there seriously nobody else who favors this setup, or do my googling skills need work?


IMO Nobody has been rude, and 99% are simply trying to grasp the concept of acceptable risk.

By sharing your love of extreme sports, and wingsuit flying, it's become clear that your definition is a step beyond what most of us mere mtbr's would consider rational, let alone wise..


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

You have loads of places to drop weight and I find it more than a little stunning that you chose your rear brake. 

You have at least two people depending on your health. I don't get your rationale at all but let us know how it goes for you.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

I suppose if you do not ride on any long, steep downhill runs, you'll be OK. I just hope you don't have to stop suddenly which could send you flying OTB.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> Thanks. Im done losing weight until something breaks, but just to be clear the decision had nothing to do with weight otherwise I would have bought a lighter front tire or something similar. That would stun me as we'll. even if the rear brake was weightless, I wouldn't buy something just to not use it. What I mean is I'm not choosing between the weight and the brake. I have just not had a problem stopping with my front and FAST. Something's being lost in translation here. Perhaps you guys are all hardcore and so far removed from the recreational type of riding I do that you can't fathom how its not an issue?


We aren't riding what you are riding. No way I could ride my downhill runs w/o the help of a rear brake and if you saw it/rode it, you'd agree. This is coming from a semi-weight weenie on an XC bike.


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

Keith, I didn't say you have a hole in your head.

I did say if someone rides a bike with a single stopping method as fast as a bike with two, they have a hole in their head.

It's precisely the kind of risk assessment you mentioned: if you only have one brake, you need to adjust your riding style. It's not just about possibility of failure, but the physics of decelerating a bicycle. Sure, you can stop a bike really fast with just the front brake, but with help from a rear brake it'll be _faster_.


----------



## sodak (Oct 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> The weight savings is a definite benefit, but I never bought a rear brake because I've never used my front brake and felt like I needed to be able to stop more, if you can understand what I mean.


Does OTB mean anything to you? Seriously, running only a front brake is a sure cause for a severe Over The Bars experience.. Those can be career ending at speed. just sayin...


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## sodak (Oct 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> When experimenting and intentionally using the front brake too hard too fast I still didn't go OTB. The front wheel locks up and slides sideways as I go down on my side before I can blink. Still not OTB. How do you manage that?


Hmmm....:skep: I'm done... spectating only now..


----------



## RollingWanderer (Jul 23, 2007)

Ok, I’ll try to offer my .02 without seeming like an a-hole. I have finished a ride without a rear brake before, and I gotta say that I did not enjoy it. I’ve also finished a ride with no front bike, and didn’t like that either. I quite enjoy having both brakes at the speeds that I ride and for when there may be a mechanical or wreck induced problem with one of the brakes.

No offense, but a 26 lb hardtail is a pig. My full suspension bike weighs just under 26. I’ve read your list of bike parts, and there are many places to trim weight other than eliminating the rear brake. Personally it’s not something I’d do, but to each their own.

One point I will add, is that I’d never ride without bar end plugs in place or atleast grips that completely cover the end of bars. I once watched a buddy take a “core sample” of his leg with his handlebars in a fairly slow speed crash and it was very ugly. 


-RW


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> I don't understand how that happens. I can feel the weight shift and put my butt farther back as I feel the rear wheel get lighter. The front digs in very well and I stop very fast, especially going downhill. When experimenting and intentionally using the front brake too hard too fast I still didn't go OTB. The front wheel locks up and slides sideways as I go down on my side before I can blink. Still not OTB. How do you manage that?


Find some grass so that if/when you go down, you won't get hurt. Ge up to speed, lots of speed. Hit the grass and lock the brakes. Squeeze the lever as hard as you can and as fast as you can. You will almost certainly crash, if not OTB, then you'll slide out to the side and roll. If you think this test is unrealistic, I got news for you, it is. Eventually, you will be in the same scenario but you'll be on hard or rough terrain and when you go down you're gonna get hurt.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> But you have more experience than me, so if you don't reply to my follow up questions how can I learn anything?


Everybody is telling you the same thing: you need rear brakes mountain biking.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> Yep, you just reiterated the results of my experimenting (and quoted it). The front wheel locked up and slid out from under me sideways VERY fast, no OTB. Learned not to do that, lol.


But you did crash or lose control, right? That's my point. With a rear brake as well as a front, you can control how your bike moves to a degree. What I am saying is that you are much more likely to lose control (when you experience a situation) when you have to hit the brakes hard and fast by only having one brake verse two. In a nutshell, you are more likely to get hurt on your one brake bike, than I am on my two brake bike. Sorry...


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## R+P+K (Oct 28, 2009)

I think the feeling of light weight is in your head.
Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> Lost control is an understatement! I was on the ground a split second after I felt the tire lose traction, but before I even had a chance to let off the brake lever. Obviously it's safer to have 2 brakes. That's just simple physics. But It still amazes me that there's not a vocal group that don't use a rear when some are pro no front (DJ, fixie), and none at all (BMX) since the front is better at stopping. Thanks for the replies, and I'll post the video the first time I wipe out from no rear (I record everything in 1080p 30fps wearing my skydiving helmet/cam when we're MTBing)


Well, I hope you don't get hurt!

BTW, since nobody is speaking up about also using only a front brake, you are most likely the only mountain biker on planet Earth who does so.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Bwahahahaha Keithy, great thread mate, for a new member id say this is one of the better piss takes/threads ive seen, cheers mate, i actually think it deserves some +rep, comin your way bro....


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Kiwiplague said:


> The short answer will be no, no one around here is going to have _only_ a front brake with no rear, as we all kind of like being able to keep living.


don't be so sure...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> I don't know what qualifies as a boat anchor. Mine weighs 26lbs right now.
> 
> Giant Revel 3 frame with a lot of crap grinded off
> Continental vertical 2.3 wire bead front tire
> ...


it's the BMW hydraulic brake fluid that makes it so light. every hard core rider knows that you can save quite a bit of weight here as the BMW fluid is easily 2lbs. lighter than other brands in the front brake system and you've removed the rear brake entirely. you can shave off about 4 more lbs. by replacing the oil in your fork with the BMW fluid as well. the stuff that rockshox uses weighs a TON.

you could easily get this bike under 20 lbs by removing your saddle, seat post and clamp, every 2nd pair of spokes on your wheels, removing the wire beadS from your tyres, and drilling multiple holes in your frame/cranks/bars.

keep us updated on your project! :thumbsup:


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

If it's really about the preference to ride without one even if it weighed nothing, I think "Weight weenies" is the wrong area for the discussion. People instantly think you just want to shave weight and draw quick conclusions: save elsewhere, not worth it etc.

The bikes in the pics posted above could be fixed gear. It counts as one stopping method. I sometimes flip the rear wheel of my MTB and replace the disc with a bolt-on sprocket. The result is front brake + fixed gear as my stopping methods.

In defense of the front brake I think a lot of OTBs are incorrectly attributed to it. Most of the time it's more about incorrect weight shifting on part of the rider: they weren't low and back enough. Of course if you shift your weight too far back or too soon (before braking), you won't have enough traction in front and will slip the front wheel. The perfect balance is to put enough weight on the front wheel to keep traction but also avoid the rear from unweighing too much. If you get to a point where the rear tire lifts off the ground, your center of gravity moves up and forwards: you are not stopping as effectively as you could.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah. This thread was probably posted in the wrong sub forum as the op has stated his objective was not weight savings.

Can't wait for the videos. Especially as you become a better biker.


----------



## HiddenStar (Apr 17, 2010)

As is mentioned, relying solely on the front brakes is fine if you are in a controlled environment. I have to agree that the stoping power of the front is good enough once you get used to it. However, when you do ride on the bike lanes/trails, it is hard to avoid encountering 'sudden' situations. It is in these situations where our reflexes kick in and it is difficult to predict what actions our reflexes will bring. However, based on my experience, you would tend to jam whatever brake there is. And with only the front brake available, you would flip over the bars.

In Denmark, most bicycles work on coaster brakes (i.e. having to back pedal to activate the rear brake). Therefore, there is only one lever on the handlebar for the front brake. As I was getting used to the braking system on those bikes there during my exchange studies, I started with relying heavily on the front brake because I was not used to back pedalling to brake. It was all fine, and it shows that front brakes do suffice for your ordinary journey. However, I witnessed a cyclist who was rounding a corner at normal speed. He spotted another cyclist who was riding head-on towards his direction at the very last minute because of the corner's blind spot and as you have guessed, his natural reflexes kicked in, causing him to squeeze the only lever available to him. Of course, he flew over the handle bars but was fortunate to come out of it unscathed because he was in thick winter clothing.

Front brakes may suffice but I highly doubt you'd find a large pool of 'followers'. Nonetheless, it's interesting to learn that some have been relying solely on it.


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

HiddenStar said:


> I witnessed a cyclist who was rounding a corner at normal speed. He spotted another cyclist who was riding head-on towards his direction at the very last minute because of the corner's blind spot and as you have guessed, his natural reflexes kicked in, causing him to squeeze the only lever available to him. Of course, he flew over the handle bars but was fortunate to come out of it unscathed because he was in thick winter clothing.


Riding around a blind corner at normal speed is a hint: not a very good eye for traffic.
That he hadn't practiced how to brake effectively beforehand is also obvious.

I wouldn't be too quick to blame the bike.


----------



## Bill in Houston (Nov 26, 2011)

ddprocter said:


> You'll notice you have to plan your breaking way ahead,


Oh, I'll think he'll find that he gets plenty of breaking.


----------



## HiddenStar (Apr 17, 2010)

True indeed, the cyclist must not have been very experienced. Just citing an example of a 'sudden' situation though where your reflexes may kick in; in a way you may not want it to even if you have practiced.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

View attachment 784342
View attachment 784342
View attachment 784343


No rear brake. My Stump Jumper dumpster-dive fixie MTB project.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> I cant see the attachment, but isn't a fixed gear useful as a rear brake?


Yes, in urban settings where you're not messing up the trail by skidding all over the place.



Keith Medlock said:


> Since getting multiple comments about how heavy (boat anchor) my Revel frame is, I've been trying to research how it compares to other MTB frames. I only bought the frame because it was dirt cheap, but all the info I can find seems to indicate that its not much heavier than the high end Giant aluminum frames, especially since I've ground off all the unnecessary stuff. Why does the Revel frame have a reputation for being heavy?


I really don't get why it matters at this point. You have a really heavy front tire, heavy parts, and then saving ounces on the frame is not that worthwhile. You should either be committed to doing a lightweight build or just not worry about it.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

You aked what qualifies as a "boat anchor" in the weight weenie world: A 26lb hardtail. There are lots of budget built hardtails on here under 20lb.
I could ride with only a front brake if I chose to but it wouldn't be as fun and I'd have to go a lot slower. I go through 3 sets of rear brake pads in the time it takes to wear out 1 set of fronts.
If you want to ditch a brake ditch the front. Again, you lose braking power but you can at least brake hard while maintaining front wheel traction for turning. I've never seen anyone ride with only a front brake and the only people I've seen with only a rear were on dirtjump bikes or in a hillclimb race.


----------



## roaringboy (Aug 26, 2009)

I never ever use my rear brake, but i wouldn't remove it - i like to know it's there in the event my front fails.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Since you asked Keith, I think that the weight benefits of losing a brake are FAR outweighed by the safety implications--not to mention the downright fun factor.

The truth is that two brakes make for more controlled riding. While the majority of braking power comes from the front, the rear helps with stability. It's just a lot more fun to be able to control the behavior of both wheels on descents (and even on technical climbs sometimes).

But if you want to ride with one brake, nobody is going to stop you. You wanted opinions, so you got them.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## sodak (Oct 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> if it weren't for the rules in place where we ride I wouldn't wear a helmet in many of our rides either.


Okay.. so I am back.. ^ This is a can of worms you will want to avoid opening on this site... may be too late, but I warned you. haha..


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Keith Medlock said:


> Saying everyone NEEDS a rear brake is like saying everyone NEEDS a full face helmet. FYI, I do wear a full face, not because I bought it for MTB but because its my wingsuit helmet. Please don't take this as argumentative and please do respond. This isn't why I started the thread but I'm enjoying sharing ideas about risk assessment. Ever heard of risk homeostasis? Interesting topics. Blue skies, brother!


If you want to control both of your wheels, then, you do NEED two brakes. There are benefits to controlling both wheels--both from safety and control perspectives.

But, no, you don't need two brakes to ride a mountain bike. I've ridden with just one (after having one fail), and I managed to limp along fine. Was it as fun? No. Was it as safe? No. Was it as fast? No. I didn't let it ruin my day, but that's because I could probably ride a 1980's Huffy and still have fun outside! But I have a lot more fun with a bike that gives me control and confidence.

If there were some terrific advantages of riding with one brake that offset the obvious risk, then more people would do it. But, for most skilled riders, that just isn't the case. The minor weight savings certainly don't even come close to providing any worthwhile risk/benefit ratio.

I think that your wingsuit experience is totally irrelevant. While I haven't base jumped before, I have participated in other mountain sports since I was a kid--and none of those experiences weigh on my decision to ride with two brakes.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Keith Medlock said:


> Makes sense. I understand and agree with all save for one exception. Do you really feel that your experience in non related extreme sports did nothing to shape your ability to calculate and manage risk in other areas?


Honestly, very little. While some very basic mountain-living technical skills often cross over nicely (staying warm and dry, navigating through unknown terrain), the actual risks and benefits of various sports are pretty different. Participating in different sports has probably made me more thoughtful (a good thing)--but I always try to approach everything that I do with a fresh and open mind. There's so much to learn, and already "knowing too much" is a great way to miss out on the lessons of a new sport--not to mention getting yourself killed or hurt.

Maybe the thing that has crossed over the most for me is thinking about the consequences of screwing up. There are some things that I don't do anymore, because getting killed would really make life hard for people that I love and who depend on me. When I was 20, I was willing to put a little more on the line--and to believe that I will come out the other side unscathed. As I've gotten older, and had friends die, I'm a lot more aware of the reality that "risk management" is sometimes less controlled than we like to think. It's also a numbers game, where luck plays a significant role.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Keith Medlock said:


> When I don't wear my helmet cycling, I'm usually following my daughter with her training wheels down the sidewalk...


Some of my worst crashes have occurred on flat terrain. Like the time that I decided to play polo with cow pies on a gravel road. Or the time that I was riding on a path with my family, and tried to see how far I could wheelie with clipless pedals. Doh...

By the way, training wheels suck. Get her a Stryder ASAP. Or a scooter. Kids learn so much faster that way!


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

I vote for you not wearing a helmet, like ever. Live free, dude.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

Keith Medlock said:


> She's tiny and can't get both of her feet on the ground so the plan is training wheels til she's a bit taller, then remove the pedals balance bike style, then reinstall the padals and voila!


That's what we tell people to do at the shop. Always works great!


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

No helmet? No rear brake? Skydiving? Wingsuits? You are an extreme adrenaline junky and I think it's fair to say that you are at a very high risk of dying from severe injuries by the risks you seem to think are "OK". I suppose your reply will be, "I'm not crazy, I'm just having fun".

Nope, you are flat out _crazy_.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Just be careful bud!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Lelandjt said:


> I go through 3 sets of rear brake pads in the time it takes to wear out 1 set of fronts.


that ratio will become inverse should you ever begin using your front brake to its potential.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Kiwiplague said:


> The short answer will be no, no one around here is going to have only a front brake with no rear, as we all kind of like being able to keep living.
> 
> 
> monogod said:
> ...


they are. but a "stopping method" is not necessarily synonymous with having a "rear brake". after all... hitting a tree at full speed counts as one stopping method as well but also isn't a brake. :thumbsup:


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

The point is, a bike you ride outside of controlled environments (velodrome, BMX track...) should have two methods of stopping in case one fails, so you don't have to use a tree as a "stopping method". Fixed drivetrain counts as one. 

Of course it's not as effective as a front brake, but neither is a rear brake.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

This has been a fun thread, but at the end of the day I don't really see any controversy here.

From what I've read, the OP mentions that he's typically riding slowly, with family members. I don't see any massive braking demands from what he describes.

Worst analogy in the world, but take the example of a driver in Phoenix, Arizona, who has never put snow tires on his car. "Why the heck would I ever need snow tires? I've never used them." The driver simply hasn't been in conditions that would require snow tires. So, thus far, seems to me that the OP hasn't been riding in conditions (trail, speed) that would make him question his front-brake-only position. 

It would be great if he could take a ride with my buddies and I. I'd be very interested to see if he could keep up, and to know if he could really manage with front brakes only. My personal take is that he'd start to consider a rear brake - but who knows - maybe he still wouldn't need it. I'd be really impressed if that were the case.

(BTW, I'm not touching on the safety aspect here of having a secondary brake.)


----------



## maxforce (Mar 8, 2011)

Riding slow and safe is still fun. Seeing what's around you and enjoying the time on the trail has huge rewards. I sometimes go for a spin on my old-rusty-steel-rigid-department-store-bike barefoot and with out tools/spares. If this is how you ride, you don't need a rear brake. 

I love how the original poster made the bike from parts, learning from his mistakes, just having fun. That is real passion. It is a genius idea to grind off the tabs and unneeded mounts. Also, I would never have thought to use a centerlock hub without the lock ring to save weight. 

No rear brake is a great idea for a cool custom bike. Even if you decide to go stupid and race around with only one brake, chances are the brake will never fail. I have never had a cable snap.

OP did you make it 1x9 gearing? What size chain ring did you use?

Please post some pictures, I love custom bikes with unique ideas.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Although I didn't read the whole thread since every reply seemed the same, commenting on the OP's sanity, he must have his answer; apparently nobody else rides this way. At least he's having fun arguing with all the "experts" who didn't answer his question.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

^ So you're trying to make fools of everybody who replied?


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

I cannot get your video link to work???


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

There are two ways to add risks to sports:

1. Push the envelope. That means attempting bigger drops on you bike--and wearing pads when necessary. Flying closer to features in a wingsuit--after refining the gear choices and knowing the route. Climbing harder routes on bigger mountains--with carefully selected tools and gear for the season. Riding in multi-day ultra-endurance races--with carefully selected equipment.
2. Use the wrong gear. That means rock climbing in tennis shoes. Skiing big chutes without a beacon. Kayaking without a life jacket. Paragliding without a spare parachute. Riding a bike without proper brakes.

In the former, successful athletes use appropriate equipment to add control and increase safety. Still lots of excitement and risk. In the latter--well, those people either end up dead or in the hospital.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Sometimes the former do indeed get killed or injured. But not terribly often. Most accomplish awesome things, and live full and rich lives.

The latter, however, accomplish very little. And they pretty much all get injured or killed.

I don't know of one extreme athlete who intentionally increases risk, just for the sake of enjoying more risk, by limiting equipment. Yes, many of them take less gear sometimes--but only because it has some other benefit. For example, some people climb big peaks without oxygen. But they don't do it to increase risk, but rather to achieve a higher level of style. Not having oxygen can increase risk, but they mitigate that by acclimating better and making more conservative decisions. They don't do what you do, however, which would be akin to climbing without crampons--knowing that they would be unable to self-arrest should they slip.

If you want to add risk to your lifestyle, maybe you should let an untrained kid pack your base-jumping parachute. Now that would be cool! You'd be giving up so much control--and adding a lot of risk! Or maybe you could ride your bike without ANY brakes--just rub your shoe against your tire!


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Maybe the wingsuit acts as a second brake.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> Oops, sorry that was a mobile link since I've been making posts from my I phone (hence the bad auto correct spelling). This link should work...
> 
> Arbor Hills Singletrack Mountain Bike Trail - YouTube


Cool, thanks for fixing that. Upon watching the video, I think that speed is fast enough to warrant a rear brake, but YMMV.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Saul Lumikko said:


> The point is, a bike you ride outside of controlled environments (velodrome, BMX track...) should have two methods of stopping in case one fails, so you don't have to use a tree as a "stopping method". Fixed drivetrain counts as one.


the point is, it's still not a rear brake. my comment, tongue in cheek, was in response to not having a "rear brake" rather than a "stopping method"....


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Keith Medlock said:


> So hypothetically, if you rode the same trail where would you make use of the rear brake and to what benefit? Excuse my ignorance I have no concept of the rear brake other than physics knowledge. Would you have used it on the straights or the turns? As I mentioned, that was the fastest I ever go and when I started riding that trail there was only one part that made me go oh **** and wish I had another brake. There is a part where it goes downhill over two 1 ft drops one after another, followed by a quick sharp turn over rocks and a bit steeper downhill. I felt like I needed speed to go down the drops smoothly, but then found it hard to brake enough on the short straigh part before the turn. After some practice I figured out I coul brake in the turn and the wheel actually gives subtle feedback about when it going to lose traction. When I feel that I let go of the lever immediately and then squeeze it again and like magic the about to loose traction feeling was gone. Sorry for my lack of terminology but that's the best I can manage to explain it.


Sorry, man I didn't mean to get you upset. You continue to look at it from a point of view as though everything is fine and dandy. I am looking at it from the standpoint of, "oh sh!t!" Meaning, I need to stop or maneuver radically right NOW! You've got to be on alert at all times. Having a rear brake (just in case, if for nothing else) makes sense from a safety POV. That's all.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

OK, no problem.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Yup. There are times when you would not want any rear brake force and times when may need as much as 50/50 front/rear rake force plus anything in between. Front/rear brake pressure is an imperfect science do to constantly changing circumstances/needs during each ride.


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

Somewhat entertaining thread. For crissakes let him ride and figure it out. If you do anything highly technical like Moab or similar drop/rocks/etc. you will figure out what works and does not work with your bike. Hope you dont get cracked up.

*No one has mentioned it, but your other mods also seem ill-advised, such as cutting the seat post so it only inserts about 1.5" or so? Converting to folding bead tires and no tubes will save more weight I would guess than brakes. *

(GRIN) Or you could remove those pesky big and small chain rings and rear cogs you are not using that might slow you down .07%. Or just take a big dump before you ride to rid you of about 2-3 lbs !!

It did not dawn on me for bit that this post was in weight weenie section but I figured it out. a 26 lb hard tail by most regards is Not a pig, at least IMHO but I'm not a weight weanie. My old beater bike is a cannondale with a nice frame, headshock ultra, front disk rear V brake and wire bead tires, it weighs with shitty seat and bottle cage, heavy tubes about 27lbs but feels great to me. My FS bike (trance custom build) goes about 28 with a 140mm front, I really don't get the weight watching thing when taken to extreme, but thats getting off topic. Never mind!


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

Your post length is fine.


----------



## sgill32 (Aug 28, 2005)

@Medlock
Is Arbor Hills the only offroad trail you have ridden w/o a rear brake?


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## sgill32 (Aug 28, 2005)

That being the case I think you're fine w/o a rear brake as it seems you're not going Ricky Bobby on the trails and/or riding any trails that are technical or with steep and/or loose downhill runs. I live in the DFW area and have ridden just about all of them. You'd definitely regret not having a rear brake on some of the trails here not to mention trails in say CO or CA. There's no way I would ride w/o a rear brake because I like to push it hard and rely on it in combination with the front for faster stops. And definitely couldn't run w/o a rear brake racing unless your goal is to finish last or in the hospital. I've raced on some trails in NC and GA that I'd have ended up flying off the trail over the handlebars w/o a rear brake. But if I were just out riding with my wife I wouldn't need a rear brake either.


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

I was not familiar with your frame but as long as you have minimum insertion to not stress frame under extreme situations.

If you are riding very mellow trails, why all the bother with even discussing it and doing mods to your bike? Quite a few folks here (not me particularly) are pretty serious at least by the talk and pics, so you will get a hardcore perspective.

Enjoy, and sure you can find weight reducing tips in this section. 

I have ridden motorcycles most of my life and bikes, have done a few mtb races and such, so understand that in many street situations the front does 90% or more of the braking. Try it for a few months. But I don't know the physics of it, however when I get off-line or out of kilter, for some reason a dab at the rear brake will quickly bring me back on line. suprised no one mentioned this yet. I don't even think about it, its instinctive at this point. and when I brake hard I do use mostly front but some rear. So good luck. Try various things, for your trail it may be great. If you get into some steep/extreme looking drops and tight winding switchbacks, etc you may find you are at a big handicap.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## sgill32 (Aug 28, 2005)

Keith Medlock said:


> Thanks for the input. I may end up getting a rear brake in case I get frogy and feel like hitting a harder loop while the wifey tackles the easy loop but for the most part the MTB is a leisurely activity to share with her. I push hard like you as well but I save it for my wingsuit. Where are you in DFW? Maybe if you feel like being bored one day you could teach me a thing or two on one of the intermediate trails. I'll trade you your knowledge and experience for free lunch and drinks after!


You're welcome...I'm just south of Denton in a small country town called Argyle. My wife is from the Plano area and thinks we live in Green Acres...ha. But we plan on moving over that way in the near future. We just had a little one so life if far from boring these days! Wish I could meet up with ya but my schedule is really jam packed. I'd like to try one of those wingsuits! Anyway, I'll send you a message if I can get some spare time to meet up at a intermediate trail...Big Cedar Wilderness Trail south of Dallas comes to mind...a bit of everything there. Check ya later


----------



## Smudge13 (Mar 14, 2013)

Avid Elixir 1 with a 160mm rotor = 415g = .91lbs... On a 26lb bike. We're not talking about weight savings at this point, we're trolling...


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Smudge13 said:


> Avid Elixir 1 with a 160mm rotor = 415g = .91lbs... On a 26lb bike. We're not talking about weight savings at this point, we're trolling...


Then what about this mod I just did today? Along with those brakes the added weight would only be 414.9 instead of 415!

I removed the raised MRP logo from the 1.x chain guide and polished the face for aerodynamics, lol! Still runing the wire bead front tire though... 

Before and after...













It's still black, but in this pic its so shiny that it reflects the blue sky from the window!


----------



## maxforce (Mar 8, 2011)

Keith Medlock said:


> I removed the raised MRP logo from the 1.x chain guide and polished the face for aerodynamics


LOVE IT!

You seem eccentric but genius.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

*.*



Ilikebmx999 said:


> Your post length is fine.


That's what my wife says, but I think she's just trying to make me feel good.


----------



## Mazukea (Jul 9, 2012)

can you take a video of yourself riding with your no rear brake set-up? 

just trying to imagine the ride and speed. Thanks!


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Mazukea said:


> can you take a video of yourself riding with your no rear brake set-up?
> 
> just trying to imagine the ride and speed. Thanks!





Keith Medlock said:


> Oops, sorry that was a mobile link since I've been making posts from my I phone (hence the bad auto correct spelling). This link should work...
> 
> Arbor Hills Singletrack Mountain Bike Trail - YouTube


On the trail in that video in those conditions you probably wouldn't use the rear brake much, even if one was fitted.

There are a few reasons why you may still want to consider having a rear brake though. Being able to brake and feel the grip levels through the tyres is a learned skill that comes in useful in many situations. If you're just starting out then it makes sense to get into the habit of using both brakes together, so that if you decide that you enjoy mountain biking and want to move on to harder trails it's already a natural technique to use both brakes. If you learn as you mean to go on then you'll be in a better position to ride well in future.

Some examples of where you would find a rear brake useful on a mountain bike: 

Riding in very slippery conditions (slick mud, ice etc). If you were to even touch the front brake as a way of controlling your speed the front tyre could lose traction immediately and you'd be down. A light touch or gentle application of the rear brake is less likely to cause a crash. Even if the wheel does lock momentarily in slippery conditions rear wheel skids are much easier to control and recover from than locking the front wheel.

On extended downhills where you need to control your speed having a rear brake spreads the braking load between both wheels, making it less likely that you will overheat your brakes and experience brake fade. Relying purely on a single brake is more likely to cook a disc brake than if you were using front and rear brakes together. Brake fade is very scary when it happens. It takes a lot less than you'd think to make typical mountain bike disc brakes fade too, so anything that reduces the likelihood of brake fade is worthwhile.

Applying the rear brake to quickly lock the rear wheel mid corner can help you turn the bike tighter by sliding the rear tyre. It's not recommended to do it all the time (as it can cut up the trail) but is a useful skill to have available in an emergency.

When wheelying you can use the rear brake as a way of controlling your attitude, so that you don't loop out backwards. If the bike starts to go over backwards behind its balance point a dab of rear brake will bring the front wheel back down.

Whilst doing trackstands, side hops etc being able to hold both brakes on fully makes it easier to balance.

If you need to do an emergency stop (such as if someone pulls out on you from a junction on the road) then using both front and rear brakes together will stop you more quickly than just the front brake alone. Although most of the braking is done by front brake the rear brake still does something too. When you're desperately trying to avoid a car that's oblivious to your presence that small amount of extra braking power can be a life saver.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## TheRedMantra (Jan 12, 2004)

Better to have it and not need it. I couldn't imagine riding the black diamonds I rode today w/o a rear brake. I understand that you are not riding advanced trails but I imagine that you can still benefit from dual brakes. I have a buddy that rides some crazy gnarly trails w/o a rear brake but he's riding a fixed gear (rigid). Just make sure to wear a helmet.


----------



## LyncStar (Feb 16, 2006)

Saul Lumikko said:


> The point is, a bike you ride outside of controlled environments (velodrome, BMX track...) should have two methods of stopping in case one fails, so you don't have to use a tree as a "stopping method". Fixed drivetrain counts as one.
> 
> Of course it's not as effective as a front brake, but neither is a rear brake.


Actually, I had my rear disc brake fail on a steep downhill during a mtb race. The front disc cooked out in seconds, and in fact stopping power went to almost zero. I'll let you imagine what happened next!

Needless to say, this is NOT an argument to go without a rear brake!!!!!!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

LyncStar said:


> Actually, I had my rear disc brake fail on a steep downhill during a mtb race. The front disc cooked out in seconds, and in fact stopping power went to almost zero. I'll let you imagine what happened next!


you went home and ordered a better brake system that wouldn't fail after a few seconds of use?


----------



## LyncStar (Feb 16, 2006)

monogod said:


> you went home and ordered a better brake system that wouldn't fail after a few seconds of use?


A retaining bolt sheared off and the pad popped out. Long story.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

LyncStar said:


> A retaining bolt sheared off and the pad popped out. Long story.


i was referring to the front brake which "cooked out in seconds". even without the assistance of a rear brake a decent brake system won't do this. :nono:


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

Since this is in the WW Forum I wanna see full commitment. A rear wheel with no provision for braking will be a very light wheel:
American Cassic 210 hub (no disc mounts)
NoTubes Alpine rim (no brake track)
28 DT Revolution spokes (no burliness)

Also cut the caliper mounts off the frame. Total weight drop: Approx 2lbs for $300.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lelandjt said:


> Since this is in the WW Forum I wanna see full commitment. A rear wheel with no provision for braking will be a very light wheel:
> American Cassic 210 hub (no disc mounts)
> NoTubes Alpine rim (no brake track)
> 28 DT Revolution spokes (no burliness)
> ...


How about dropping the rear wheel altogether? Unicycle.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

LyncStar said:


> Actually, I had my rear disc brake fail on a steep downhill during a mtb race. The front disc cooked out in seconds, and in fact stopping power went to almost zero. I'll let you imagine what happened next!
> 
> Needless to say, this is NOT an argument to go without a rear brake!!!!!!


Remember your epic tale, and am truly glad to read this ^. Imagine being Lawn Darted by a dude without ANY rear brake, and while you're lying there he's busy bragging about saving 300g..

Lacking a back brake, or fixed gear, the OP would be wise to only ride flat, straight, empty trails, or learn to run r-e-a-l-l-y fast cause.. if the trees don't put a hurt on you, the person you hit, damage, or injure may pummel your WW azz.


----------



## maxforce (Mar 8, 2011)

Keith Medlock said:


> View attachment 786815


I am impressed, such clean lines, so simple. Conservative parts, Acera, Alivio, nothing fancy, they work. Nothing unnecessary left on it at all, no bar plugs, no cycle computer, no reflectors, no lights, no water bottle cage.

I have a cheap frame I am not using, it has no disk mounts at the back so I will also run no rear brake. The only difference is I will have matching wheels and tyres, water bottle cage, front derailleur as the chain guide and I will have reflectors and lights for road sections (legal requirement).

Apart from my bikes, I have never seen a bike setup like yours before. Very well thought out.

Please tell me more about handlebar manufacturing flaws and how much you cut off.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## droanx (Jun 10, 2012)

I've gone without a rear brake before. It was back in the day of center pull brakes. Was riding Tsali behind my dad and was booking it around a switch back when SNAP cable broke. Let's just say the rest of the ride was interesting after that. Made the ride last longer than it should have. I was not able go nearly as fast as I could with a rear brake and nearly endoed a few times. 

I'd never purposely go with only one brake on any mtn bike set up ever. Good way to hurt yourself or others or the trail.

Was reading through and seeing that the OP has a 26 pound HT. My FS weighs about that and I didn't even pick out "weight weinie" parts.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

monogod said:


> i was referring to the front brake which "cooked out in seconds". even without the assistance of a rear brake a decent brake system won't do this. :nono:


If you're dragging the brakes on a steep downhill they can start fading surprisingly rapidly. In the right circumstances (steep downhill, fairly high speeds 20-30mph, dragging both brakes continuously) it can only take a few minutes before mountain bike disc brakes begin fading. With just one brake I'm sure you'd be in trouble even sooner.

I've had it happen a few times in the past, fortunately rarely. Notable brake fade examples (resulting from dragging the front and rear brakes continuously to try and control my speed) being:

18 June 2009: Avid Juicy Ultimate disc brakes 185mm front/160mm rear rotors, metallic pads, 10% gradient, average speed 21.7mph, maximum speed 26.9mph, 2 minutes 5 seconds until I lost the brakes. Big crash.

21 August 2011: Hope Tech X2 disc brakes 183mm front/160mm rear rotors, metallic pads, 9.6% gradient, average speed 20mph, maximum speed 28.9mph, 2 minutes until the brakes faded. I didn't crash but I couldn't stop either and barely made it round the group of horse riders coming up the hill. It was a very close call as I squeezed past, almost touching the horses with my bars. I replaced the bike's brakes with a set of Shimano XTR M988 disc brakes with Ice-Tech rotors and finned brake pads soon afterwards.

When I had Shimano Deore XT v-brakes my rear rim's sidewall split on a mountain bike club ride in 1998. The rear rim had worn through on the brake track so I put a new tube in and disconnected the rear v-brake to allow the wheel to turn. Without a rear brake I had to get home by descending a steep 1 mile hill. Using just the front v-brake to control my speed the wheel rim overheated, puncturing the front tyre's inner tube near the bottom of the descent. I stopped, fixed the puncture and managed to limp the 20 miles home safely after that. That's the only time I can ever remember blowing out a tyre by overheating the rim. It served as a clear lesson to me that relying purely on a front brake was nowhere near as effective as two brakes together.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

^ Wow, those are some crazy experiences. My Marta SLs (with organic pads) haven't faded on many, many 3 mile downhill blasts with average of 12% grade even when dragging the brakes. Heck, at that grade, it's hard not to drag the brakes, LOL! Not saying it wouldn't happen, though. Had the same brake system on 3 different bikes, 26 & 29 inch wheels. So far, so good.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

monogod said:


> i was referring to the front brake which "cooked out in seconds". even without the assistance of a rear brake a decent brake system won't do this. :nono:
> 
> 
> WR304 said:
> ...


"2 minutes 5 seconds"? you were actually timing it that precisely? :skep:

fwiw, i've gone faster and farther down much steeper grades that have caused my rotors to glow red without complete failure and only minimal fade.

be that as it may... "2 minutes 5 seconds" (which is definitely abnormally fast brake fade/failure) is quite a bit different from "cooked out in seconds" which is what i disputed. thank you for proving my point. :thumbsup:


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Those two examples were using the front and rear brakes together, not just a front brake. I've edited it into my original post now.

To find the elapsed time I opened the recorded ride files and read off the time on the graph from the top of the descent.

From a quick search here's where someone's Juicy 5 brakes were fading in the first mile of a descent too:
http://forums.mtbr.com/brake-time/front-brake-fade-avid-juicy-5s-224517.html


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

be that as it may, a decent front brake system will not be "cooked out in seconds" without a rear brake even under the most extreme of circumstances.


----------



## 2x9x29 (Jan 18, 2006)

*I have no rear brake either.*

Hey...Check it out. I have no rear brake either and also don't feel like I need one. I stop just fine with the front.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Just to close the loop on this thread Keith, I noticed that you are seeking advice (separate post) on a new WW build - great - sounds like a great project.

However, as part of that thread, you mentioned you will "add a rear brake" to your existing bike, and donate it to your wife.

So, have we finally pounded you into submission? Are you suggesting that a rear brake might actually make sense?


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> ... my new MTB will be built full rigid with a stout 35mm front rim and the brake tabs cut off the rear.


Here we go again...


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

monogod said:


> be that as it may, a decent front brake system will not be "cooked out in seconds" without a rear brake even under the most extreme of circumstances.


Have you seen any tests for how long you'd normally expect mountain bike disc brakes to last before they begin to fade? I can vaguely remember having seen one in a German bike magazine some years ago, but I couldn't find it again.

The Bikeradar tests from 2012 only ranked the disc brakes on power, rather than resistance to brake fade.

https://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/fitness/article/how-we-test-hydraulic-disc-brakes-24345/

They've got an awesome quote in that article: 

_"If you're a heavy rider, or just heavy on your brakes, then more power is an advantage. If you regularly ride proper mountains, choose brakes that mean less arm pump and can cope with prolonged pulls without fading or boiling. Don't think that because your favourite pro uses them they'll suit you though. Most of the fastest riders hardly use their brakes - which is why they're fastest."_ *Bikeradar.com*

There is some discussion of brake fade in the launch material for the new SRAM Red 22 hydraulic disc brakes. The section about developing the brakes and pad deterioration is worth a look through. Five minutes of constant dragging before their rim brake overheated and blew the tyre, 12 minutes before their disc brake faded significantly. That 12 minute figure before significant fade sounds as though it should be what you'd hope for with mountain bike disc brakes too. On the graph included with the Bikerumor.com article their brake rotors were reaching around 600c.










_"Hydraulic brakes product manager Paul Kantor said they expected to boil the fluid during long descents while dragging the brakes, but that didn't happen. Nor did it overheat during very rapid deceleration, but those tests did cause quick pad deterioration. So they switched from drilled alloy-backed pads to solid steel, and that held up better. The alloy backed pads with holes in the back were getting odd temperature spikes. They also switched to a different organic compound, a variant of what's used on the mountain bikes. Metallic and semi metallic created too much heat.

With heat testing as a non-issue, and more power available to the rider, are there any other benefits to going to disc? Possibly. They found that sustained braking for five minutes generated about 550 watts of energy on a rim brake with carbon fiber rim, which made enough heat to blow out a tire. However, on discs, they could drag for 12 minutes, producing about 800 watts, with no brake failure and, obviously, no rim/tire failure."_ * Bikerumor.com*

https://www.bikerumor.com/2013/04/1...rim-disc-brakes-unveiled-details-first-rides/

What I found very interesting was the rapid pad deterioration with the metallic pads. There isn't any more detail about what that involved. How long can you expect your brakes to last if you have contaminated/ glazed pads, so your brakes aren't at 100% to begin with, and _then_ start dragging the brakes down a steep hill? I don't know. Two minutes perhaps?

Rear brake video. Tandem so heavier than a solo bike and typical rider but it does show that a rear brake can come in useful too.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

monogod said:


> _a decent front brake system will not be "cooked out in seconds" without a rear brake even under the most extreme of circumstances." _
> 
> 
> WR304 said:
> ...


a direct quote from all the crap you posted in refutation: _"...on discs, they could drag for 12 minutes, producing about 800 watts, with no brake failure..." *Bikerumor.com.*"_

hmmmmm..... 12 minutes of constant dragging with no brake failure? granted i'm not albert einstein, but that certainly sounds congruent with "not being cooked out in seconds", huh? :skep:

thanks for once again proving my point. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

He probably had air bubbles or something. (No I did not read any of that).


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

monogod said:


> a direct quote from all the crap you posted to refute my comment: _"...on discs, they could drag for 12 minutes, producing about 800 watts, with no brake failure..." *Bikerumor.com.*"_
> 
> hmmmmm..... 12 minutes of constant dragging with no brake failure? granted i'm not albert einstein, but that certainly sounds congruent with "not being cooked out in seconds", huh? :skep:
> 
> thanks for once again proving my point. :thumbsup:


Sorry, I thought you'd appreciate the background links and information.

In that post I was trying to look at what the expected normal performance of a disc brake should be before it begins to fade on a descent. That expected performance is far more than a few seconds clearly, as shown by the SRAM disc brake testing with a time of 12 minutes before fade that I quoted. My reference starting point for the next part of the post.

From that starting point I was then trying to move on to consider what additional factors could possibly occur to degrade that performance in use. The comments about the rapid pad deterioration and heat results from the initial tests, before they finalised their brake pad design and compound, seemed relevant to that. In an ideal world maybe every disc brake would be perfect, never fading under any circumstances, but in practice it doesn't work like that, with some brake combinations fading earlier than others. There are always outlier cases. Attempting to understand why those outliers happen is what I find interesting, if only so that they aren't repeated in future.

The tandem was just what I see as extreme circumstances, where the added weight of two riders can easily make even decent disc brakes overheat rapidly on steep descents.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

*..*



monogod said:


> a direct quote from all the crap you posted in refutation: _"...on discs, they could drag for 12 minutes, producing about 800 watts, with no brake failure..." *Bikerumor.com.*"_
> 
> hmmmmm..... 12 minutes of constant dragging with no brake failure? granted i'm not albert einstein, but that certainly sounds congruent with "not being cooked out in seconds", huh? :skep:
> 
> thanks for once again proving my point. :thumbsup:


That's a bit harsh man. He was just adding information to the thread about brake fade.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Keith Medlock said:


> When I built my new MTB, I didn't get a rear brake, grinded of the rear rim brake mount/cable holders, and had the rear wheel built with a centerlock hub so I could also shave the weight of the 6 bolt flange as well as the centerlock lockring. Before I decided to do this I did TONS of research on pros and cons and didn't really find ANY info on the popularity of this light weight one brake setup. Obviously it's not an ideal setup for 99% of you, but is there seriously nobody else who favors this setup, or do my googling skills need work?


Not having read this whole thread I will say this:

Yes, the front brake is clearly the more important brake the vast majority of the time. So from that point of view, in most situations I would miss the front more than the rear. However, there some circumstances (albeit the minority), when you need to stop/slow down, and the front is not a good option. Not having a rear brake in those situations could be really sketchy.

So, given the option of one brake for MTB, I would go with rear-only. Even though it would be detrimental most of the time compared to front-only, the worst case scenario is not as bad as with front-brake-only.

But really, weight and simplicity is a stupid reason to get rid of a brake.

So, to answer your question directly, I don't think there is anything wrong with your Googling skills. You will find fixies with this setup, but that's about it.


----------



## tooclosetosee (Aug 2, 2011)

A good analogy that I think you might understand is it is similar to putting holes in your parachute with the reason being "when it's open I can descend faster". 

Most people would say, "well if you didn't have holes in your parachute you could drop a greater distance before you would have to open"


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

phlegm said:


> That's a bit harsh man. He was just adding information to the thread about brake fade.


you clearly haven't been following the thread.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Keith Medlock said:


> I came across that article during my research and MANY like it always people talking about only rear brake and never only front brake. Strange since the front brake is the one that stops you.


Well, it's the only one that stops YOU!


----------



## Andrewfuzzy (Jan 25, 2012)

Keith Medlock said:


> I came across that article during my research and MANY like it always people talking about only rear brake and never only front brake. Strange since the front brake is the one that stops you.


Very strange, I ride varied types of venue and most of the time I really only use rear brake, yes I use a front brake but not nearly as much as my rear.....and I'm stopping fine.....I think it's very dependant on our type of riding.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

Glad you're still alive Keith. Keep on keeping on buddy!


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Keith Medlock said:


> For those considering no rear brake, after another 4 months of front only riding, I'm certain that for casual riders like myself a rear brake is an unnecessary expense, weight, and increases the overall maintenance requirements of your MTB. For the safety Nazis or aggressive riders, keep it on.


Well, you're probably right. I think that the next logical step is to remove your chain and crankset. You'll save a ton of weight, and overall maintenance requirements will be drastically reduced. With a lower seat, you'll be able to kick along on flats and slight inclines at a pretty good clip. My son't Stryder was awesome!


----------



## Desidus (Jun 27, 2013)

TobyGadd said:


> Well, you're probably right. I think that the next logical step is to remove your chain and crankset. You'll save a ton of weight, and overall maintenance requirements will be drastically reduced. With a lower seat, you'll be able to kick along on flats and slight inclines at a pretty good clip. My son't Stryder was awesome!


No way next logical step would be to get rid of a wheel. Unicycle needs no brakes, no handlebars, no gears, its the ultimate weight weeny bike.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Keith Medlock said:


> For those considering no rear brake, after another 4 months of front only riding, I'm certain that for casual riders like myself a rear brake is an unnecessary expense, weight, and increases the overall maintenance requirements of your MTB. For the safety Nazis or aggressive riders, keep it on.


Who needs brakes anyway?.






Aaron Chase rides Hellion BRAKELESS from Aaron Chase on Vimeo.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Desidus said:


> No way next logical step would be to get rid of a wheel. Unicycle needs no brakes, no handlebars, no gears, its the ultimate weight weeny bike.


I've discovered the ultimate in weight savings without brakes: no bike. I now slither on my torso like a snake.

The grip? Amazing. 
Stopping power? I can stop on a dime. (Actually, a dime on the trail will actually block me, cause I'm that low to the ground.)
Maintenance? Zero, aside from picking grit out of my skin.
Chicks? Dig it.
Hydration? I strap a bottle to my butt. Can't reach it, but good to know it's there.

I did my 2km loop in a record 37 hours yesterday. The weight savings are intoxicating!

Drawbacks? Only 2:
-Logs are tough. Takes a long time to chew through.
-My shirt gets a bit dirty


----------



## Ryandurepo (Nov 29, 2012)

i dont know why you are so worried about the added performance benefit from your weight savings if your just a casual rider, if thats so, then weight shouldnt really matter. having said that i took both my brakes off as well as my tires, the rolling resistance of two thin rim side walls has greatly improved my on road performance, brakes? ill just put my foot down when a car pulls out!


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

I am also an extreme sports athlete, and I do not agree that riding without a rear brake is a personal risk assessment choice. Unless you are riding in a closed environment, your ability to come to an emergency stop protects both you and others who share the trail, whether they be local fauna, hikers, or fellow cyclists.

It's your decision, but please be aware that others are affected by your choice.

Now, another matter to consider is that there are intermediate and advanced techniques that use the rear brake. If you haven't been exposed to them, of course you won't perceive that you are missing anything by riding without one. If you are having a good time without using any of these techniques, that's fine. But please be aware that by forgoing the rear brake you are limiting yourself. Whether that matters is your affair: I ride a single speed, and I am very happy with the limited gear choice.

Finally, you cannot ride corners as quickly with only one brake. In a straight line, the front does all the work. When cornering, if you make the front do all the work you will wash out unless you curtail your speed. This is not pure theory or a race-only concern: Flowing smoothly through twisty single track is all about carrying speed so you do not have to over-brake and then accelerate.

Good luck out there.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

raganwald said:


> Finally, you cannot ride corners as quickly with only one brake. In a straight line, the front does all the work. When cornering, if you make the front do all the work you will wash out unless you curtail your speed. This is not pure theory or a race-only concern: Flowing smoothly through twisty single track is all about carrying speed so you do not have to over-brake and then accelerate.
> 
> Good luck out there.


This is a really good point. Personally, I have run a single brake before, but only on a commuter bike. If you are riding the trail there is always going to be time when you are on the limit of traction either front or rear and hitting that brake will take you immediately past the limit...I can't imagine going downhill without a rear...If you do, I would recommend that you run a rear instead of the front...not for power but for stability. If you live on the flats in the Midwest then jeez, you can totally get away with one brake.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

worst thread ever. cant wait to get a wingsuit and brag about how awesome I am for endangering others out on trails. IF you get serious about riding, you WILL get serious about braking. There are technical trails around here that are so steep you need to lock up the back and stay away from the front brake or else.

having said that, a buddy has completed 2 nue events with a failed rear brake. He survived but it sucked greatly and stole much fun which is the main point anyway.
Good luck.


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

I like the idea, but you need to carry it further. When trying to lighten a boat anchor bike like that, you need to think beyond the usual boring techniques of weight shedding. Think how much weight you could shed by taking off one crank arm and pedal. All you really need is one anyway. take off the front chainrings except for the middle one, then take a hacksaw and ditch the left side of your handlebars (move brake to right). There's more! tires and tubes are very heavy, since your trails are smooth, take off the tires and tubes, just ride on the rims. And you probably don't need all those spokes either, a few grams each adds up. Just remove every 3rd one. Don't forget the ball bearings in your hubs, you really don't need like 9 each side, just use about 6, save 3 balls each side. I think you could get that bike below 23 lbs that way, it will be awesome!


----------



## Dexter192 (Sep 15, 2013)

I am also a front brake only rider, though I only started riding without the rear due to having no mounts for disks and no braking surface for v's but after taking it to the youyangs national park in australia I found it makes you learn to be much less dependant on skidding around corners and ruining trails, and as far as otb is concerned its called weight distribution and speed. Another bonus for not having the backup rear brake is that it teaches you good braking practices such as braking before the corner rather than braking in the corner when you s#1t yourself due to lack of planning.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Dexter192 said:


> I am also a front brake only rider, though I only started riding without the rear due to having no mounts for disks and no braking surface for v's but after taking it to the youyangs national park in australia I found it makes you learn to be much less dependant on skidding around corners and ruining trails, and as far as otb is concerned its called weight distribution and speed. Another bonus for not having the backup rear brake is that it teaches you good braking practices such as braking before the corner rather than braking in the corner when you s#1t yourself due to lack of planning.


This thread has been entertaining, so thanks for keeping it alive.

I've been running Renegade tires, and I've been amazed by the lack of weight and ability on dry/semi-dry tracks. However, if the trails are muddy and wet, I'm in for a much slower than normal ride. I can get through the trails by adjusting my approach, but it is more dangerous and I'm way behind my pals.

Likewise, I'm sure you can adjust your riding to compensate for a single brake (either front or rear), but there's no way you'll be able to keep up. Simple as that. The OP has indicated himself that he is only a casual rider, but anything beyond that would start to show the weaknesses inherent in that setup. (Not to mention, if that one brake fails, you are done.)

Just to confirm my understanding Dexter (and welcome to the forum, BTW), are you saying there is no overall speed/performance hit?


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Andrewfuzzy said:


> Very strange, I ride varied types of venue and most of the time I really only use rear brake, yes I use a front brake but not nearly as much as my rear.....and I'm stopping fine.....I think it's very dependant on our type of riding.


If your type of riding is _fast_, then utilizing one's front brake is a very good thing. Brake's aren't about stopping, usually, but controlling one's speed, and the later one brakes before going into a corner or technical section, the faster one is.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

bamwa said:


> worst thread ever. cant wait to get a wingsuit and brag about how awesome I am for endangering others out on trails. IF you get serious about riding, you WILL get serious about braking. There are technical trails around here that are so steep you need to lock up the back and stay away from the front brake or else.
> 
> having said that, a buddy has completed 2 nue events with a failed rear brake. He survived but it sucked greatly and stole much fun which is the main point anyway.
> Good luck.


What does a locked up rear wheel accomplish?


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Dexter192 said:


> ... I found it makes you learn to be much less dependant on skidding around corners and ruining trails, and as far as otb is concerned its called weight distribution and speed. Another bonus for not having the backup rear brake is that it teaches you good braking practices such as braking before the corner rather than braking in the corner when you s#1t yourself due to lack of planning.


It's very possible to practice good braking technique without depriving oneself of a rear brake. But if that's what it took you to stop skidding on trails, then I guess that I'm all for it!


----------



## Dexter192 (Sep 15, 2013)

Phlegm thanks for the welcome, and I would say that my overall speed has taken a hit due to front brake only but its forcing me to plan ahead and pick smother lines. I suppose for me taking a break from all out speed and going back to basic technique will hopefuly make me a better and more decisive rider. Me thinks I got a little bit slack riding the 6 inch travel dualy for so long.


----------



## Niner'd (Feb 13, 2013)

Lol my bikes 10 pounds lighter and has front and rear. Faster more reliable and confidence inspiring.


----------



## Andrewfuzzy (Jan 25, 2012)

Too each their own and i make no judgement to anyones preferences....for me i prefer two brakes and the extra speed, i will modulate my brakes with self control to avoid skids....so far its working.


----------



## Nic688 (Apr 21, 2010)

How do you know you like only having a front brake if you have never had a rear brake?? You don't know how fun it is speeding up to a corner, slamming on BOTH brakes. Coming to a controlled slower speed in the space of a meter and taking the corner at speed with modulation in the front and rear brake to control the bike without washing out. That's half the fun of singletrack an MTBing, gaining and washing off speed in small sections. Braking meters before a corner and going around slowly just doesn't sound fun at all.

My advice. Reduce the risk of a multi thousand dollar hospital bill, buy two light weight brakes, come out the same weight and have fun. Oh and you will also have thousands of more dollars in your pockets instead of at the hospital. At least borrow a rear brake from someone and TRY it.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

I'm curious what weight my bike should be since do many think its a boat anchor. Feels incredibly light to me at its current 22.3lbs but I guess because I have nothing to compare it to. What is a good weight for an aluminum 1x10 mtb with steel fork and tube 26" tires?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> blah, blah, blah... troll, troll, troll...


----------



## joeadnan (Oct 21, 2003)

Keith Medlock said:


> You have an inaccurate impression of me. I don't intentionally add risk to any activity. Also I've never hon BASE jumping. All my wingsuit flights are from aircraft because BASE is a bit outside of my acceptable risk/reward ratio. I believe in risk homeostasis theory which basically states it is impossible for an individual to increase total risk in their life because an increase in one activity will results in a decrease in another activity thus never exceeding ones total level of acceptable risk. I know this to be the case for myself as we'll as the majority of the skydiving community. I'm not savvy about the MTB community obviously, but I bet you could find evidence of this in your sport. For example, maybe the invention of suspension didn't reduce the number of injuries/fatalities? Sure you have better traction and it should have made MTBing safer, but I would be willing to bet that you guys just started going faster and more extreme things because the suspension allowed this. See, if you wanted to spin it that way you've increased risk to an area not accepted by me. Why do you unnecessarily speed downhill? Sure you have two brakes, but why not just also cruise along flat land at a leisurely pace like me? Risk assessment is and will always be very personal. My wife would never do the things I do, but I would never do the things BASE jumpers do. None of us are wrong or foolish, but simply have a different total risk threshold. Funny anecdote. I used to always have a fast car and got speeding tickets constantly, but when I started skydiving, I suddenly hade no desire to speed. Haven't had a ticket since. I was too busy using up all my acceptable risk in the air, lol!
> 
> I love the off topic discussions here. I'm learning a lot seeing all of the different viewpoints. Thank you all!


Thanks for this post. Risk homeostasis is an interesting idea, and is something I can relate to.

I am not sure if you are familiar with the book Deep Survival by L. Gonzales. One of the categories of persons described in the book who are prone to misjudge risk is an expert in one field (eg mountainbiker) undertaking an activity in another (eg whitewater rafting) in which he or she is inexperienced. Often these experts bring into their new field an unwarranted confidence.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

joeadnan said:


> Thanks for this post. Risk homeostasis is an interesting idea, and is something I can relate to.
> 
> I am not sure if you are familiar with the book Deep Survival by L. Gonzales. One of the categories of persons described in the book who are prone to misjudge risk is an expert in one field (eg mountainbiker) undertaking an activity in another (eg whitewater rafting) in which he or she is inexperienced. Often these experts bring into their new field an unwarranted confidence.


Not familiar with that book. I'll have to check it out.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

*Update*

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> ...
> 
> So for those casual riders wondering if they need a rear, in my experience it's just an unnecessary expense and weight.
> View attachment 963328


Well, I'm glad you're still alive and haven't succumbed to an endo on the trails.

I still fundamentally disagree with your assertion, although you have specifically used the word "casual" which is important.

However, casual or otherwise, a situation may arise that requires you to stop immediately. That brings up 2 issues:

1. You risk flipping over the bars.
2. You would not stop as quickly as someone using both front and rear brakes.

So, while I actually agree you can get away with just the front brakes in normal riding (although you'd be slower on average), the sudden stop scenario is problematic.

Maybe I'm just proving the Risk Homeostasis point posted above.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Keith Medlock said:


> Update:
> Just over two years now with the front brake only setup and still no issues or need for a rear. Only changes I've made swaping in a carbon fork and seatpost which dropped the weight to 20.1lbs. Would love to have it even lighter, but there's not really anywhere else to take weight off of, so I'll just deal with it.
> 
> So for those casual riders wondering if they need a rear, in my experience it's just an unnecessary expense and weight.
> View attachment 963328


update: with each subsequent post you validate all of your "haters".

without a doubt "casual rider" are the key words here. if one desires only to poke along the neighborhood, ride the sidewalk or bunny trails, or ride with a slow spouse this is fine. but, short of being a skilled scorcher pilot, you couldn't hang with even cat 3 riders on any real trails at an actual riding pace with only one brake.

but since you don't ride real trails with it why are you such a weight weenie? it's not like the LESS THAN ONE POUND you have shed off this now ultra svelte machine would even be noticeable at the poky puppy pace you're laying down at the flatlands upon which you unleash it.

and holy weight weenie, batman! no more ways to drop weight? au contraire. there are lots of places to take weight off that monstrosity:

lighter wheelset
lighter tyres
tubeless
lighter cranks
carbon bars
lighter stem
convert to ss
ditch the time trail seatpost

why, you could even take off the front brake too and that wouldn't cost you a dime. think of how much more awesome this bike, and by extension you, would be with NO BRAKES!

it would be lighter. more streamlined and aerodynamic. no adjustment to fuss with. no pads to change. and just think of how you could crow on here about kicking it up a notch by getting rid of those pesky, unneeded, boat anchors (i.e. brakes) the rest of us are dragging around!

woooooo doggies.... then you'd REALLY be da man! :thumbsup:


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

^ truly classic mono. 

...sent by dixie cup/string


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

monogod said:


> There are lots of places to take weight off that monstrosity:
> 
> lighter wheelset
> lighter tyres
> ...


Well Mr Smarty pants, too obvious. None of _those_ solutions are _clever_.

amirite? uramirite?


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Keith Medlock said:


> Update:
> Just over two years now with the front brake only setup and still no issues or need for a rear. Only changes I've made swaping in a carbon fork and seatpost which dropped the weight to 20.1lbs. Would love to have it even lighter, but there's not really anywhere else to take weight off of, so I'll just deal with it.
> 
> So for those casual riders wondering if they need a rear, in my experience it's just an unnecessary expense and weight.
> View attachment 963328


Sorry for the behavior of our fellow mtbr member. Please don't let him set the example of what you can expect from other members here or other mtbrs out on the trails. Most are pretty cool.
Thanx for the update, someone might find it useful. Sharing knowledge and good times is what makes this site great.
And must say it's great that you get out on the trails as a family, and that your wife stricken with MS is out there and keeping up too. Cudos to you, and your ride is no slouch neither.


----------



## theboomboomcars (Sep 10, 2007)

This is a great article that discusses different braking techniques, and when they are more appropriate.

Braking and Turning Your Bicycle


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

theboomboomcars said:


> This is a great article that discusses different braking techniques, and when they are more appropriate.
> 
> Braking and Turning Your Bicycle


I'll start by saying I've learned a ton from Sheldon Brown's site, and continue to do so today.

However there is a road bias to the advice & facts presented. There are many references to pavement, and the assumption of solid, sustained traction on the front wheel.

While there's no debate that the front does most of the work, Brown's article cites some conditions where the rear brake should be used:

-"slippery surfaces"
-"bumpy surfaces"

Those 2 scenarios pretty much sum up my entire ride.


----------



## Keith Medlock (Mar 23, 2013)

Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Huh?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Thank god people use the quote option. 

How's it going, Keith?!


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

OK, huh again?!


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Keith Medlock said:


> Deleted. Please remove/ban me. Thanks.


Why ban you? Your front-brake-only idea is a bit silly--but not offensive.

If everyone was banned for posting silly ideas, there wouldn't be any members left!


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

TobyGadd said:


> If everyone was banned for posting silly ideas, there wouldn't be any members left!


Too true. I would have been banned years ago.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

KeithMed, Sadly I am pretty sure you cannot request to be banned. But if you'd really like to be banned there are various ways.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Procter said:


> KeithMed, Sadly I am pretty sure you cannot request to be banned. But if you'd really like to be banned there are various ways.


You can request to delete your account. But that would be the worst possible case scenario because I feel like there should be annual updates to this thread.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Agreed. Although if the updates drop off we'll all assume the worst.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

this is off topic but given the thread went here think it's worth sayin... 
It's clear why op wants out. It's not clear why no one stuffs a shoe in the mouth of the constant offender. Saw this happen to many members, because of that same reason. Get this is an interwebz forum, and all the [email protected] drama that can stir, but


----------

