[32849]

In loose relatively deep gravel, getting on the front has always met with less than ideal results for me. the back alone is better in that bad situation in my experience. the back brake can be used to stabilize the bike a tad starting a wheelie. and i use it on hills at stop lights. otherwise i could do without a rear brake. i've never ridden or owned a cruiser but it seems to me with so much more weight on the rear, the rear brake might be more effective. but i don't know and i have no current plans to find out, unless a goldwing qualifies as a cruiser.

oh and if your fronts don't work because your pads dropped out because when you changed the pads you forgot to put the retainer in like an idiot, or if a tankslapper backs the pads into the caliper and your so freaked you forget to pump them back up, the back brake might keep you from dying. or at least give you something to stand on while you're having a bad time of it.

 

[32849]

Re: It REALLY depends on the bike...

braking discussion aside, i must say you've made a very intelligent choice of rides. ;-).

 

[32849]

i agree with your observations. i've just never been able to have that much feel and then there is the whole running out of room thing, as in: you get pushed wide through no fault of your own and end up in the gravel headed toward the airfence. i find i can skid the rear, stay up awhile and feel like i'm doing something instead of just going down that way. but you make a great point, i just really hadn't analyzed it that way.