A spinoff thought

[fredintoon]

Jeremy posts:-
"I haven't used the back brake on either bike in a long time, I should just take it off to eliminate some more weight to make my bike will be even faster!"
And I do hope he is joking but it does raise an interesting point.
Most jurisdictions insist on vehicles having two separate braking systems so just taking off an XS11's rear brake would make it illegal.
But the XJ11 has a split front brake, one disk by hand and the other by foot, so removing an XJ's rear brake would be within the law.
As to removing the front brakes; add a second caliper, even a mechanical one, to the rear disk and that'd be legal too so long as the second caliper had it's own operating system.
I guess Charles Dickens says it best:-
"If the Law thinks that, Sir; the Law is an ass!"

[Montreux_Blue]

I was joking, I'll leave it there for the times that I really have to brake, like when a car pulls out in front of me. The XS11 front brake actually works pretty good but never really realized how good until I rebuilt the whole front braking system. Now my TLR with the dual six piston calipers if far better, actually way more than you need, but more is better than not enough.

FYI - I joke about 90% of the time, it makes life a little easier if you can laugh and reduce some stress.

[xs11lover]

Two brake system......front brake and the drive shaft....LOL

[Montreux_Blue]

You could install exhaust brakes!

[cywelchjr]

Most states that I have actually looked up state their requirement as "must have brakes on all wheels" or something similar, meaning that a bike must have brakes on both the front and rear, and I'm pretty sure none of them require them to operate independently since some bikes don't have that option, the brakes are linked full time. I know in CA cars are required to have brakes that minimize the chance of brake failure on both axles at the same time, but I didn't see anything like that for bikes, just that both wheels must have brakes on them.

[fredintoon]

Most states that I have actually looked up state their requirement as "must have brakes on all wheels" or something similar, - - - -

Hi Cy,
your "something similar" could well include the words "separate" and "independent"?
This is served by one only of an XJ's front disks worked by the handlebar lever and the rest by the footbrake.
A car has 4-wheel hydraulic brakes plus a mechanical e-brake to keep the same separation.
I once helped restore a 1928 Wolseley that only had rear brakes. 4 shoes in each drum, two applied by the footbrake pedal and the other two by the handbrake lever. Separate and independent even back then.

[cywelchjr]

Hi Cy,
your "something similar" could well include the words "separate" and "independent"?
This is served by one only of an XJ's front disks worked by the handlebar lever and the rest by the footbrake.
A car has 4-wheel hydraulic brakes plus a mechanical e-brake to keep the same separation.
I once helped restore a 1928 Wolseley that only had rear brakes. 4 shoes in each drum, two applied by the footbrake pedal and the other two by the handbrake lever. Separate and independent even back then.

Once again, at least in the US it varies a bit, but in CA it states that the primary braking system must operate on ALL wheels, with exceptions for some big rigs on needing them on the front axle and that auto brakes must allow for one axle failing without the other failing and I'm pretty sure the e-brake don't count. For MC's it specifically says brakes on both front and back, and nothing about separate operation. This of course all is predicated on the vehicle in question being after a certain year, before that the rules are/were different.