I confess...

At the end of the day

At the end of the day - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH-uliJNyRk

The law doesn't require a front or rear brake, just two brakes. It's purely about redundancy should one break.

As I said, anyone will skid when the adrenaline's pumping, so no need to worry about practicing.

In fact skidding isn't the best method of slowing down, you want to be applying a bit less force than the amount needed to skid to be slowing best.

As soon as you skid you have gone just past the quickest way to stop if you can only slow down the rear end, the important thing is that you look like a boss as you slow down in an inefficient manner.

At the end of the day - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH-uliJNyRk

If you're bareklsse, it's more like

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMWNwHof0kc"]The
Kinks- All Day and All of the Night - YouTube[/ame]

Apart from "cos sheldon sez", why is it that front only braking slows you faster than F+R or rear alone?

Intuitively I'd have thought the wheel with more weight over it could apply more friction to the road before skidding.. but clearly that's not the approach. Enlighten me, physics PhDs?

Momentum during deceleration makes the weight shift forwards onto the front wheel, so the rear wheel doesn't have the same traction while braking.

Edit: APPARENTLY, according to Internet (IANAPPhD)

You don't need a phd, a btec is plenty. When you are braking as hard as you can without hoofing over the bars, ignoring air resistance it is friction at the point where the wheels meet the ground resisting the momentum of your mass travelling forward. You can see that these forces are pretty much trying to spin you around forward (imagine pushing the top of a box one way and the bottom the other, it would flip over). Your front wheel is what's stopping this happening, and so it's the relevant wheel in this condition.

Braking. Because this:

As soon as you skid you have gone just past the quickest way to stop

This. Why do you think ABS or anti lock brakes etc exist in motor vehicles?

Skidding is only for people who want to look cool, it is in no way a better solution to slowing down than a brake or controlling the speed of you rear wheel without skidding.

I find a strategically placed person in a comedy fat suit facilitates a shorter stopping distance.

Look at polo (go on), loads of people used to be rear brake only, now it's either dual or front brake only. People used to stop a lot less quickly and go through a lot more tyres, but also looked cooler skidding and had more fun, s'all srs bznz now.

I confess that this whole discussion on skidding is boring the tits off me

also I confess I haven't ridden fixed for about 2 years. if I did I think I'd forget to keep pedalling.

If they come off can I have them, I doubt I'd be bored.

Is there a Tester in the house?

lowering a broom in front of your bike also makes you go faster, as the brooming away of road debris causes an increase in asphalt traction with the rubber molecule, resulting in a velocity smoothness of 0.3423%

Like curling then?

You don't need a phd, a btec is plenty. When you are braking as hard as you can without hoofing over the bars, ignoring air resistance it is friction at the point where the wheels meet the ground resisting the momentum of your mass travelling forward. You can see that these forces are pretty much trying to spin you around forward (imagine pushing the top of a box one way and the bottom the other, it would flip over). Your front wheel is what's stopping this happening, and so it's the relevant wheel in this condition.

Ok, I'm willing to believe that, although my poor btec-less brain will probably have trouble.

Next question - I can see that in optimal physics thought experiment type situations your best way to stop then is max force on the front wheel such that the "box" (you) is almost tipping over, but in real life scenarios the back wheel remains on the ground the whole time. In which case would it not be beneficial to have at least some braking force applied at that tyre/road interface, even if the majority is at the front?

Intuitively I'd have thought the wheel with more weight over it could apply more friction to the road before skidding.. but clearly that's not the approach. Enlighten me, physics PhDs?

All covered over here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.lfgss.com/thread1194.html

This. Why do you think ABS or anti lock brakes etc exist in motor vehicles?

Primarily to allow drivers to steer while braking without mastering the skill of threshold braking. ABS has very little (albeit some) effect on stopping distances on dry roads, although it improves things slightly (compared to locked wheels) on wet roads.

This is true too.

Ok, I'm willing to believe that, although my poor btec-less brain will probably have trouble.

Next question - I can see that in optimal physics thought experiment type situations your best way to stop then is max force on the front wheel such that the "box" (you) is almost tipping over, but in real life scenarios the back wheel remains on the ground the whole time. In which case would it not be beneficial to have at least some braking force applied at that tyre/road interface, even if the majority is at the front?
Yes it would.

It's reasonable to assume that with a back brake, or leg braking, even in an emergency braking situation, you are likely to engage the rear wheel in braking somewhat, prior to it lifting entirely.

The whole idea of a front brake alone being more effective than a combination of front and rear braking system is unconvincing, outside of a thought experiment.

Yeah, 2 brakes are better, but just a front is better than just a rear.