Poll: Would you commute on a...

[Sittingduck]

As long as there is a front brake, I don't see an issue... Matthew are you certain they didn't have any brakes and not just the lack of a rear? Wouldn't fancy riding around anywhere on a track style bike, except maybe on a track of course.

 

[sabian92]

As long as there is a front brake, I don't see an issue... Matthew are you certain they didn't have any brakes and not just the lack of a rear? Wouldn't fancy riding around anywhere on a track style bike, except maybe on a track of course.

Surely the issue is you have half the braking power of somebody with a front and rear brake?

If you lock the front wheel - game over. You're on the floor which is why having 2 brakes is better. Not to mention legal.

I don't understand why single speed and fixie riders thing it's "cool" to only have a front (or no) brake. You won't look cool when you couldn't stop yourself when a bus pulls across you because he didn't see you and you end up on a slab in a mortuary.

 

[Sittingduck]

Surely the issue is you have half the braking power of somebody with a front and rear brake?

If you lock the front wheel - game over. You're on the floor which is why having 2 brakes is better. Not to mention legal.

I don't understand why single speed and fixie riders thing it's "cool" to only have a front (or no) brake. You won't look cool when you couldn't stop yourself when a bus pulls across you because he didn't see you and you end up on a slab in a mortuary.

It's pretty well accepted that 80 - 90% of your braking power comes from the front brake. Rear is helpful in certain situations or for regulating speed but the absence of a rear brake certainly doesn't cut your overall braking power by 50%.

 

[Rob3rt]

None of the options represent my opinion!

As a fixed gear rider that barely touches my brakes, I believe that I could navigate london or any cycle friendly city with little concern for my own or anyone else's safety, at least, no more concern than riding any other bike. HOWEVER, I do run a font brake to comply with the law and for those just in case moments where a hard braking manouvre without locking a wheel is required or where the flywheel effect of the rear wheel may be difficult to resist, such as going down a steep hill.

Surely the issue is you have half the braking power of somebody with a front and rear brake?

If you lock the front wheel - game over. You're on the floor which is why having 2 brakes is better. Not to mention legal.

I don't understand why single speed and fixie riders thing it's "cool" to only have a front (or no) brake. You won't look cool when you couldn't stop yourself when a bus pulls across you because he didn't see you and you end up on a slab in a mortuary.

You don't have half the braking power of someone with a front and rear brake, you can effectively brake using your legs. Also, you are encouraged to be more aware of what is coming up and controlling your speed on a more continual basis rather than being tempted to rush ahead then brake late, accelerate hard, brake late etc.

Same on any bike! A fixed rider still has a rear brake, it is just in a different form. Rather than assuming only 1 brake is present, it would be better to acknowledge that 2 brakes are present (as the law does) but debating the efficiency of one form vs the other.

Also for your consideration, track bikes traditionally are not drilled for brakes! So there is no mount for a rear brake. For a front brake you would need to switch out the forks for road forks.

I acknowledge in some circumstances, there may be an increased level of risk, riding a fixed gear bike with only a front brake but the degree that the level of risk is increased, IMO is blown way out of proportion.

 

[Dan_h]

I ride fixed pretty much all the time now and I have to say I don't see the problem with only having a front brake. Your legs work as an effective rear brake after a bit of practise and this has the added advantage of leaving your hands free when approaching hazards, making staying in control while signalling a lot easier. The main time I use my back brake is on long descents where I can control my speed with the brakes without taking too much out of my legs (as I will probably want the strength for climbing the next hill!).

Riding without a front brake seems a little risky to me however, what do you do if your chain snaps????

 

[Hip Priest]

Surely the most important thing to worry about whilst riding fixed is that you are correctly attired.

 

[Hip Priest]

Riding without a front brake seems a little risky to me however, what do you do if your chain snaps????

Arrive promptly at the scene of the accident.

 

[Matthew_T]

The reason I chose London was that it is my default city. Plus it would be interesting with all the red lights you have to stop at.

The fixies that I saw did have both brakes (the last one which passed me had a very expensive 3 spoke racing wheel which just looked out of place). I meant that it got me thinking about the situation where you had to commute through a city like London without any brakes on a fixie.

I never knew you legally had to have two working brake systems though.

 

[Rob3rt]

The reason I chose London was that it is my default city. Plus it would be interesting with all the red lights you have to stop at.

The fixies that I saw did have both brakes (the last one which passed me had a very expensive 3 spoke racing wheel which just looked out of place). I meant that it got me thinking about the situation where you had to commute through a city like London without any brakes on a fixie.

I never knew you legally had to have two working brake systems though.

Probably a HED-3, these are popular with fixed riders. Probably a replacement for the good old Aerospoke that was at one time hip! Now it's hip to hate on aerospokes because they are ironically too hip, and we all know how much hipsters love irony.

 

[sabian92]

It's pretty well accepted that 80 - 90% of your braking power comes from the front brake. Rear is helpful in certain situations or for regulating speed but the absence of a rear brake certainly doesn't cut your overall braking power by 50%.

Maybe not 50% but still more than nothing. Having one less brake that is legally required is careless (ignoring the legality of it).

Also for your consideration, track bikes traditionally are not drilled for brakes! So there is no mount for a rear brake. For a front brake you would need to switch out the forks for road forks.

I don't know if a fixie meets the legal requirements or not (I don't ride one so I don't care, to be honest) by running only a front brake but I'd still rather have 2 brakes, pads or discs. Call it peace of mind.

If you ride a track bike then maybe riding it on a *wait for it* TRACK might be a good idea. Riding a bike with no brakes on the street is just stupidity of the highest level. If you have standard forks with no brake mounts and you ride it as it is on the street I have no sympathy for anybody who ends up hurt. Bikes with brakes exist so it's their own fault.

I never knew you legally had to have two working brake systems though.

Indeedy - in the highway code as a MUST rather a recommendation.

 

[fossyant]

Brakeless on fixed = not riding fast enough.

Wouldn't suit me, I go way to fast to even think of not running two brakes plus legs. Need my brakes too often.

 

[Rob3rt]

Maybe not 50% but still more than nothing. Having one less brake that is legally required is careless (ignoring the legality of it).

A fixed gear bike with a front brake meets the legal requirements of two independent breaking systems.

I don't know if a fixie meets the legal requirements or not (I don't ride one so I don't care, to be honest) by running only a front brake but I'd still rather have 2 brakes, pads or discs. Call it peace of mind.

Again, They have two brakes. They have a front brake in the form of a caliper and a rear brake in the form of a lock ring which enables you to resist the motion of the wheel with your legs. It is not hard to even completely lock the rear wheel with your leg unless you are either A) A pussy or B) You are running some mammoth 90+" gear ratio or C) Your knee's are a not up for the task and in which case you need to fit an additional brake to make up it.

If you ride a track bike then maybe riding it on a *wait for it* TRACK might be a good idea. Riding a bike with no brakes on the street is just stupidity of the highest level. If you have standard forks with no brake mounts and you ride it as it is on the street I have no sympathy for anybody who ends up hurt. Bikes with brakes exist so it's their own fault.

As for sticking to the track, should everyone that rides a mountain bike ought to ride it only on mountains? A MTB rider sticking road slicks on their off roader is still just converting a bike built for one purpose to meet another, just like swapping the forks and putting a brake on a track bike makes it fit for the road.

Now whether you would be comfortable riding it in any form, 2 brakes, 3 brakes, 10 brakes, well thats a totally different matter, but one persons comfort with something doesn't necessarily mean that it is unsafe or careless or whatever you wish to call it when it is under someone else who is comfortable with it.

 

[Drago]

I train this subject for a living and ill admit to not knowing. In my defence ive yet to have a bobby turn up for one of my courses on a fixie. I'll check the PNLD when I'm next in the office.

The CTC claim it to be unlawful, but I'll check the Oracle on Friday when I'm in an actual office for a day.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I commute Coventry to Nuneaton and back on a fixed, I have a front and back brake on it, the back brake is there for when its slippery, snow, ice etc, I don't want to have to rely on front brake and legs in slippery conditions, I'm lousy at leg braking.

 

[slowmotion]

... but nowhere near as abominable as using a single pannier!

Please! This is a family forum.