Thomas Strandtoft wrote:

> Catman wrote:
>
>> Not sure about that, old chap. I understood that the reason that front
>> brakes are more powerful than rears was simply because when you brake,
>> the weight of your vehicle shifts forwards, reducing the donwforce on the
>> rear
>> wheels. You learn about this in a hurry when biking.
>
> Yeah, but as a biker you also know how important rear brakes are
> for stability while stopping, they make quite a difference in
> combination with the front brake even if they are lousy on their
> own..

Indeed so

>> There is simply no point in having more powerful brakes on the rear since
>> they will always lock before the fronts (in a straight line of course)
>
> And if the lock, you lose stability, again proving my point that
> it is important to make sure they don't lock easily = put on good
> tyres.. :-)

Indeed, I was certainly not arguing that, I was just questioning a 'device'
that reduces braking power to the rear wheels, or whatever it was.

>> However, I may have misunderstood / not explained very well. But I do
>> have
>> an excuse for the latter: It's my birthday and I'm rather well down this
>> rather good bottle of wine
>
> Greetings, mate..

TYVM

>> Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
>
> No more Monster 600?
>
Not since December last. Sadly it was loosing out in brakes, suspension
and power terms to my riding. Plus it was doing a passable impression of
an 80s Alfa. There were som other econmic reasons as well. I woul *love*
another one if I get to a situations where I can have a toy bike as well as
toy cars
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk