From: netwise@teal.csn.org (Netwise Inc)
Newsgroups: rec.skate
Subject: Re: alternative brakes [Re: Rollerblading]
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:05:58 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <ABOULANG.92Apr16170206@kariba.bbn.com> aboulanger@bbn.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.184338.14487@netwise.com> pae@netwise.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>A similar program of education and possible penalties for out-of-control
>>skaters should be instituted.
>
>I think (personally) that it will take a combination of equipment evolution
>and education.

There are two major problems with this attitude. First, it doesn't address the
issue of what we do *now*. It sets the attitude to people that "maybe it's OK
that I can't control my skates. After all, the really good braking equipment
is still evolving." It lets these people off the hook; they may not take
responsibility for being safe themselves.

Second, this hypothethetical evolution of speed control simply may not exist.
It has never been found in the multiple booms of outdoor quad skating. Why
not? Any decent means of deceleration will demand decent weight
transfer/weight distribution; most beginners are not good at these skills.

I think your "evolution" of braking devices is a pipe dream. A trivial method
of slowing down on skates may never exist. It would be nice if we had it, but
it's not necessary to have it for skaters to be in control.

>>I see no advantage to a skate's having both a front and a rear brake
>>simultaneously (whether or not the rear brake is loose :-). Too much
>>clearance is consumed by having both brakes there; only a person adept at
>>both braking styles could possibly benefit from having both brakes on the
>>skate.
>
>The advantage I claim is mostly for beginners.

Beginners will have better luck with a toe stop than a heel stop? I see no
reason why.

>>The current wheelbase of 4-wheel skates provides stability. Moving the front
>>wheel further back would decrease the skate's fore/aft stability.
>
>Are you positive about this? Any theory or experiment to support this?
>(The Biskates is a empirical design datapoint.)

You bet. When I move from my Racerblades to my 4-wheelers, I'm far more prone
to fall forwards *and* backwards off of the skates. My fore/aft centering 
skills have to be a lot sharper on the shorter wheelbase.

>It is used in a "put one foot behind and drag on toe-stop" stop for
>beginners.

Dragging a toe-stop behind you will not be as effective as effectively using a
heel brake, unless you can put 80-100% of your weight on the foot you're
dragging.

>>There is a certain amount of skill to decelerate with in-lines, using a rear
>>brake, while going 25 mph. There's a certain amount of skill to decelerate
>>with quads, turning backwards and using a toe stop, while going 25 mph.
>
>I am not sure this would be the most effective way of stopping with
>quad radical skating.

You don't know the effective means of stopping quad skates, yet you think
that toe stops would be useful to add to all skates.

You acknowledge that the outdoor roller skating industry has never created
a trivial, effective way to slow down skaters, but demand that the in-line
skating industry create such a mechanism. I'm not disagreeing that it would
be nice, but I'm not sure that it is feasable. It also sets a tone that such
magic equipment is necessary for effective skating. It is not.

>>I claim the skill to do the turn then decelerate while going backwards on
>>quads is much higher.
>
>Yes. Hence:
>
>>It really is non-economical-of-movement way to stop.

Drop the abstract, Albert. We're looking to find things that work here.

>Albert Boulanger

--phil