Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - Dangerous without a rear brake?

This is my first post on these forums, so I'm sorry if there's already a thread about this, but I've searched most the threads already and haven't found an explicit answer, so here it is:

I'm a college student who rides for fun. Biking is my main form of transportation (I go to school in Boston and don't like the T) but mostly I just ride for fitness and because I enjoy it. I've been riding road bikes for years - never as a serious racer or anything - but I'm very at ease on two wheels. Recently, some friends who ride fixed gear convinced me (by letting me try their bikes!) to convert my road bike to fixed because of the interesting feel, better traction, lots of fun to ride, etc. etc. (you know all the reasons already, I'm sure :) )

I've picked up all the components that should be necessary for the conversion, and I'm ready to start building in a week or two. I'm really excited to get out there on the conversion and start learning, but as lame as this may sound, my parents are uncomfortable with the idea (particularly because of the brake situation) and I want to put them at ease if I can.

For me, a big part of the appeal of a fixed gear is the minimalism of it - I love the uncluttered look of the bikes, and love the idea of it being light to carry up stairs, etc... Everything I've read would suggest to me that a rear brake is superfluous on a fixed gear, so I'm ready to toss it (I know what you're thinking, but don't worry - I always wear a helmet, and I plan on running a front brake) but my dad, who was way into road bicycling back in his day, can't be convinced that this is safe.

Am I misguided in thinking that a rear brake is unnecessary? If it truly would be an asset to me (I'm a conservative rider to begin with - no traffic dodging here) I'm prepared to suck it up on the aesthetics and keep it as a safety measure, but I'd really prefer to go with the minimalist look of a front brake if it's safe. What's your take on the rear brake? Can it be safely scrapped, given that I'm a conservative rider in a relatively flat city? If yes, does anybody know of any evidence to help put my parents at ease? Sheldon Brown actually has a whole page written on his take on the rear brake on a fixed gear (as unnecessary) so maybe that's all the proof I need, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks for the help!

My old conversion had a rear brake. It was nice as an alternate way to slow down when my legs got tired on long descents or in place of skipping during the few times I used the rack to carry stuff. Otherwise I didn't use it much.

you don't need a rear brake, your legs do all the braking you need (and 90% of your stopping power comes from the front anyway)

it feels really weird once you get used to your legs constantly moving to use a rear brake, especially for a sudden stop. you can slow down all you need to with the front.

if it were a question of aesthetics, wouldn't you put a rear brake on for symmetry?

anyway, i think you'll probably find that you don't need a rear brake, but if you ride and find that you need a rear brake, then put one on.

i don't think it is a bad idea to leave it on till your legs develop the power to stop the rear wheel on their own (or forever really).

but as a conservative rider i think you really won't need it, even while getting used to using the legs for braking. a front brake stops you pretty damn good!

In fact if you apply the front brake for a hard stop you will find it is too easy to skid the rear wheel with legs alone, but with legs alone you can better prevent a rear skid vs. rear hand brakes.
My last 'roadie' ride I did fixed with front brake, there were a few times (a few more than usual) we were riding tight at 28mph and light turned red and I stopped faster that most others several of who skidded into the intersection.

Al

if it were a question of aesthetics, wouldn't you put a rear brake on for symmetry?It's really the look of the cable running down the frame that I don't like.

Thanks for the advice, everyone (and so quickly!)

If you are unsure then leave it on while you are learning. I will bet that you won't use it and will find out for your self that it is not needed, but find out for yourself.

If it were a question of aesthetics I'd just put a bmx lever up by the stem.

you don't need the rear brake. the only way it would be aesthetically be pleasing in my opinion is if you ran road levers on drops (balanced look).. but i've been fine with just a front brake for everything. its nice to have if you're going to run an ss freewheel though. also, where do you go to school? i'm at NEU.

I go to BU - always nice to meet other Bostonians!

I only run a front brake. I don't skid or skip either. You can slow down quite a bit by simply resisting the motion of the pedals, then come to a complete stop with the break.

The front brake provides the vast majority of the braking force anyway

Most of the time on my road bike I only use the front.

A rear brake would just be redundant and put more clutter on the bike.

I bomb down 6 mile descents in the mountains where I live with just a front brake. If it was an SS I'd definitely want a brake.

if you are going to put a flip flop hub to have a single speed option, then you might want a rear break. if not no need. even on my non fixed bikes i usually just use the front break. but part of that has been having breaks that hardly worked in the first place, so rear was practically useless.

edit: also once you get used to stoping with your legs, you probably wont use the front break either.

Your dad is right.

In the hands (and feet) of the average rider, fixed-gear bikes are not as safe as freewheeled bikes.

[Ducks]
[While waiting for them to reload]

Not as safe for the following reasons:

1) when you are locked in to constant pedaling you are not able to set your pedals when cornering or when jammed up on a curb by a passing car.

2) It takes more physical skill and dexterity than required for a typical bicycle.

3) It's hard as hel* to bunny hop over obsticles in emergency situations. Bunnyhopping is the holy grail of fixie skills to me.

4) A fixie rider has "read the road" a LOT further ahead than a typical cyclist.

5) If you ride brakeless, for one reason or another, one day, you WILL be headed down a hill that you may not be able to handle.

6) Fixies can destroy your knees over time.

So, yes, with that in mind, in the hands of the average cyclist, fixies are not as safe as a "regular" bike. If you are conviced that you can learn to handle the above situations (and convince your dad of such) then you are cool. If not, hey this IS as SingleSpeed forum, too ;-)

1) when you are locked in to constant pedaling you are not able to set your pedals when cornering or when jammed up on a curb by a passing car.

shorter cranks.


2) It takes more physical skill and dexterity than required for a typical bicycle.
sure. but you'll get stronger over time. start with a lower ratio and work up.



4) A fixie rider has "read the road" a LOT further ahead than a typical cyclist. wouldn't this be a safer way of doing things, not an added danger?




6) Fixies can destroy your knees over time.


CAN. yes, "can". they don't have to, though, and you don't have to let them.

Oh please. Fixies are no more dangerous than freewheels. Your post sounds like you're assuming the dudes going to go brakeless from the get go. It is no more dangerous then operating a machine for which you have little experience in.

You seem to be putting fixie riders on some sort of holier, more elite than thou pedestal which is pretty wrong. Just as there are bad freewheel riders, there are also bad fixie riders. No one group is intrinsically better than the other because of the type of bicycle they are riding.

Your dad is right.

In the hands (and feet) of the average rider, fixed-gear bikes are not as safe as freewheeled bikes.

[Ducks]
[While waiting for them to reload]

Not as safe for the following reasons:

1) when you are locked in to constant pedaling you are not able to set your pedals when cornering or when jammed up on a curb by a passing car.

2) It takes more physical skill and dexterity than required for a typical bicycle.

3) It's hard as hel* to bunny hop over obsticles in emergency situations. Bunnyhopping is the holy grail of fixie skills to me.

4) A fixie rider has "read the road" a LOT further ahead than a typical cyclist.

5) If you ride brakeless, for one reason or another, one day, you WILL be headed down a hill that you may not be able to handle.

6) Fixies can destroy your knees over time.

So, yes, with that in mind, in the hands of the average cyclist, fixies are not as safe as a "regular" bike. If you are conviced that you can learn to handle the above situations (and convince your dad of such) then you are cool. If not, hey this IS as SingleSpeed forum, too ;-)

1) is dealt with by 4. you ride smarter, you don't get smushed into a curb. If you're getting close enough to a curb to deal with pedal strike, you're probably going down anyway. And if you get pedal strike on cornering you're taking some pretty hard corners. Shorter Cranks help, yes. Ill get taken down by toe overlap way before I will with pedal strike.

2) which you learn really fast.

3) uhm... you just sort of hop. It's no leg over the handlebar skid... If you're positioning in the pedals isnt right, do a quick skip before you need tot jump.

4) which is good. if the stupid moutnain biker who ran into my leg this morning in my commute had been paying attention, i wouldn't have had to cuss him out.

5) which is why you learn how to stop by jamming your foot into your tire. or how to skid with your feet not in your pedals. I've slipped out in some monster hills, and I'm not dead yet. If he has a front brake I don't think its an issue.

6) so get a bike that fits you.

Thanks for the input, everyone! More or less, from everything people have said here, I've come to the conclusion that given my riding style (like I said, I ride pretty conservatively) and the fact that Boston is pretty flat, I should be fine with just a front brake.

And Carleton, thanks for the input - I appreciate that you seem to be concerned for my well-being, but I'm not going to be going crazy or racing any time soon, so I think that I'm up for the challenge :) Like everyone's said here, I'll just have to work my way up. Thanks again!

if it were a question of aesthetics, wouldn't you put a rear brake on for symmetry?

If you followed a traditional Beaux Arts schooling you would.
If you have more of a modernist approach you'd wouldn't.

"Form follows function." -Louis Henri Sullivan

Side note: another bostonian here, I work in the architecture program at Wentworth.

Thanks for the input, everyone! More or less, from everything people have said here, I've come to the conclusion that given my riding style (like I said, I ride pretty conservatively) and the fact that Boston is pretty flat, I should be fine with just a front brake.

There is one other issue that noone seems to have brought up. If you ride in crappy weather on crappy surfaces a rear brake will greatly improve saftey. There are situations where you not be able to stop as fast as possible with your front wheel as doing so would cause your it to slide and you to go down. In such circumstances back pressure on the pedals is a really crappy way to stop since it can not be applied evenly and will cause the wheel to slide and make you more likely to go down.

if you ride on surfaces like these regularly you might want to consider dual brakes even on a fixie
-wet brick
-ice
-wet leave covered crap
-sandy roads

you don't need a rear brake, your legs do all the braking you need (and 90% of your stopping power comes from the front anyway)


always hear people say this (or 87% or 93%).

makes me wonder how us brakeless types manage to stop at all really

In conditions like that having your front slip out will cause you to go down more likely than your rear. Rear's a bit easier to recover from, and having the wheel stop suddenly on those surfaces sounds a bit worse than a nice controlled skid to me. Also, tires would make more difference for traction anyway.

I fractured my leg cornering fast on wet leaves, but it was my front that slipped, not my rear. and brakes wouldn't have saved me anyway.

eddie. Im guessing thats 90% as compared to braking normally... the pads have to slow down the wheel, and don't usually stop the wheel outright and force a skid. where as we just stop the wheel dead in the tracks and let the friction of the rubber to the pavement do the rest. But what do I know, I haven't used brakes in a while :D

In conditions like that having your front slip out will cause you to go down more likely than your rear. Rear's a bit easier to recover from, and having the wheel stop suddenly on those surfaces sounds a bit worse than a nice controlled skid to me. Also, tires would make more difference for traction anyway.

I fractured my leg cornering fast on wet leaves, but it was my front that slipped, not my rear. and brakes wouldn't have saved me anyway.

eddie. Im guessing thats 90% as compared to braking normally... the pads have to slow down the wheel, and don't usually stop the wheel outright and force a skid. where as we just stop the wheel dead in the tracks and let the friction of the rubber to the pavement do the rest. But what do I know, I haven't used brakes in a while :D

No road tire is going to give you good traction on wet brick or ice. The idea is that you will be able to slow down or stop much faster by carefully modulating the braking force to each wheel then you would with any skidding.

I am not sure how accurate 90% is but the faster you stop the more your com shifts forward and the more your front wheel is responsible for stopping you. Therefore since skiddinga rear wheel stops you much slower your weight is further over the rear wheel then it would be if you where stopping faster. The difference between whether the friction is between the tire/ground brakepad/rim is only important because the brakepad/rim combo is able to supply alot more friction force then the tire/ground combo.

Ssome tires are better in adverse weather than others. I've been riding all winter through a **** ton of rain on gatorskins with no problems. But on the ultra2000's I was sliding around LOT more. Then theres those green vittorias... Admitedly, theres pretty much no brick roads out here, and no ice, so... My worst crash was on a bike w/ brakes and I'm pretty convinced that every situation I've gone down in would not have been prevented by me having brakes. It doesn't matter how you're stopping if you only have 1/4th of a second to slow from 20 to zero, or when a car comes barelling around a blind corner. Sometimes stopping a la a deer in headlights is worse. I'm glad I can at least hocky stop with a fixed gear to get out of a few sticky situations... Just ride smart.

humancongereel and onetwentyeight please re-read my post...thoroughly.

I never said that fixies are "dangerous". I said that "In the hands (and feet) of the average rider, fixed-gear bikes are not as safe as freewheeled bikes."

It was a simple comparison. Don't infer, extrapolate, assume, converse, convert, or postulate anything else from that. If you misunderstood what you read...read it again, rinse, and repeat.

Volvos are safer than Hundais. That doesn't mean that Hundais are dangerous. It means that....Volvos are safer than Hundais.

There is no f'ing way you or anybody else is gonna convice me that a fixie is just a as safe as any freewheel in the hands of the average rider.

You're asking a bunch of fixed gear converts what they think. Of course they'll say you don't need it. That's the thing about the Internet, go to a certain board and it's an echo chamber towards a certain philosophy. Go ask the mtbr.com 29-incher forum about getting a 29-inch bike, they'll tell you it's the best ever. Ask about frame materials, and the retro SS/FG forum will say 'steel is real', and the roadie forum will say 'carbon is it'. Be conscious of that bias.

Personally, being a bit older, and cured of my youthful perception of immortality, I don't buy into the hype. Yes, fixed gears are harder, require far more dexterity and skill to pull off many urban evasion maneuvers, and requires retraining of your instincts. Yes, you need to pay more attention, and that means you have less available for other things, which means you're more likely to make mistakes. (It's called 'cognitive load', feel free to look it up.)

I'd say to ride with both brakes for several months until you've learned exactly what a fixed demands. That's what I'm doing, and based upon some of the panic stops I've had to make, I'm glad I did, and won't be removing my rear brake for now, if ever. Will you absolutely need the rear brake? Maybe, maybe not, but you won't know until later.

Just admit to yourself you want to get rid of it for one reason - style - and go from there.

PS - I don't expect you to listen. Everyone I ride with is 30 or older, and they all laugh at the idea of taking off any brake on an urban bike, fixed or not. The only person I know that goes without a rear brake on a city bike is one of the most talented and experienced riders I know, and even he won't take that bike out for more than a ten mile ride.

Ssome tires are better in adverse weather than others. I've been riding all winter through a **** ton of rain on gatorskins with no problems. But on the ultra2000's I was sliding around LOT more. Then theres those green vittorias... Admitedly, theres pretty much no brick roads out here, and no ice, so... My worst crash was on a bike w/ brakes and I'm pretty convinced that every situation I've gone down in would not have been prevented by me having brakes. It doesn't matter how you're stopping if you only have 1/4th of a second to slow from 20 to zero, or when a car comes barelling around a blind corner. Sometimes stopping a la a deer in headlights is worse. I'm glad I can at least hocky stop with a fixed gear to get out of a few sticky situations... Just ride smart.

there have probably been two crashes I might have avoided with a rear brake and my rain gear would be completely duct tape free too. Both however were really low speed incidents and there is nothing that is going to save you if you are riding way to fast in crappy conditions.

there is little question that lacking a rear brake is nowhere near as big a safety issue as lacking a front one. Still in the right conditions it can make quite a difference.

...and the fact that Boston is pretty flat, I should be fine with just a front brake.

No rides down summit ave for a while... though those are fun. Oh, how I miss Allston.

No rides down summit ave for a while... though those are fun. Oh, how I miss Allston.

man i just got back from there... except i rode up summit hill... like four times on my road bike. it hurt. good training though, hah... i am glad i had a triple though. real ****ing glad, hah.

There is one other issue that noone seems to have brought up. If you ride in crappy weather on crappy surfaces a rear brake will greatly improve saftey. There are situations where you not be able to stop as fast as possible with your front wheel as doing so would cause your it to slide and you to go down. In such circumstances back pressure on the pedals is a really crappy way to stop since it can not be applied evenly and will cause the wheel to slide and make you more likely to go down.

if you ride on surfaces like these regularly you might want to consider dual brakes even on a fixie
-wet brick
-ice
-wet leave covered crap
-sandy roadsYes, I have come across some info about that - thanks for mentioning it! I actually don't generally ride if it's really crummy outside, which is why I sort of ignored that issue myself. Like I said, I mostly ride for enjoyment, since I'm a student and there's nowhere I absolutely need a bike to get to, so if it's really crummy I generally just walk.

I go to BU - always nice to meet other Bostonians!

i'm an alumnus.

it's my opinon that a rear brake is completely unnecessary, and that a front brake is useful in certain situations. as you get used to riding fixed, you'll probably find that appropriately controlling your speed using only your legs becomes second nature.

. as you get used to riding fixed, you'll probably find that appropriately controlling your speed using only your legs becomes second nature.
+1
After a few rides, controlling speed with your legs will become completely instinctual. I keep a front brake on for emergencies, but haven't had to use it thus far. Have fun, & enjoy!
(But watch out for those Boston drivers! The only time I've been hit was in Cambridge a few years ago; completely totalled my beautiful old Lotus :( )

3) It's hard as hel* to bunny hop over obsticles in emergency situations. Bunnyhopping is the holy grail of fixie skills to me.

you're telling me. i just can't get it down. i ride up to a curb, pop my front wheel up the curb and then hop up the curb with my back wheel. it seems like if i can do that i should be able to do it in one fluid movement...

In fact if you apply the front brake for a hard stop you will find it is too easy to skid the rear wheel with legs alone, but with legs alone you can better prevent a rear skid vs. rear hand brakes.
My last 'roadie' ride I did fixed with front brake, there were a few times (a few more than usual) we were riding tight at 28mph and light turned red and I stopped faster that most others several of who skidded into the intersection.

Al


Who were these guys that actually skid to stop fast? You out doing a road ride with the short bus for a sag wagon?

You're asking a bunch of fixed gear converts what they think. Of course they'll say you don't need it. That's the thing about the Internet, go to a certain board and it's an echo chamber towards a certain philosophy. Go ask the mtbr.com 29-incher forum about getting a 29-inch bike, they'll tell you it's the best ever. Ask about frame materials, and the retro SS/FG forum will say 'steel is real', and the roadie forum will say 'carbon is it'. Be conscious of that bias.

Personally, being a bit older, and cured of my youthful perception of immortality, I don't buy into the hype. Yes, fixed gears are harder, require far more dexterity and skill to pull off many urban evasion maneuvers, and requires retraining of your instincts. Yes, you need to pay more attention, and that means you have less available for other things, which means you're more likely to make mistakes. (It's called 'cognitive load', feel free to look it up.)

I'd say to ride with both brakes for several months until you've learned exactly what a fixed demands. That's what I'm doing, and based upon some of the panic stops I've had to make, I'm glad I did, and won't be removing my rear brake for now, if ever. Will you absolutely need the rear brake? Maybe, maybe not, but you won't know until later.

Just admit to yourself you want to get rid of it for one reason - style - and go from there.

PS - I don't expect you to listen. Everyone I ride with is 30 or older, and they all laugh at the idea of taking off any brake on an urban bike, fixed or not. The only person I know that goes without a rear brake on a city bike is one of the most talented and experienced riders I know, and even he won't take that bike out for more than a ten mile ride.



as my my rear break goes on...


too many dirt trails, cars and HILLS around here for this non hipster 46 year old to munch it on..

Holy zombie thread Batman!

Is that a fashion foe paw around here's?

Kinda...

Vegun, I like the cut of your jib.

Kinda?


I own a forum myself.

Kinda popular too, if you clean carpet for a living.



I love it when members did up old stuff.

http://acreativeuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/the-walkin-dead.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hya6lddsI&feature=player_embedded)

Thing about zombie stuff is that folks that posted back then aren't around no more...

So its no longer a valid topic?

So its no longer a valid topic?

Not really. It sounds to me like your opinion isn't open to be changed and the OP has probably moved out of his parent's house by now so he can do whatever he wants.

my fixed has a front brake only. it stops as fast as my geared road bike that has front and rear brakes. most stopping force is on the front wheel because of the weight being thrown forward as you slow down. i recommend having a brake, if you break your chain its the only way you can stop. i've broken a chain before. not to mention if you are hit by a car and don't have a brake you're likely to lose any lawsuit that comes from that collision because it is illegal to ride without a brake, even on a fixed gear. you can still skid around all you want and not use the brake except for emergencies if that's what you want to do.

there have probably been two crashes I might have avoided with a rear brake and my rain gear would be completely duct tape free too. Both however were really low speed incidents and there is nothing that is going to save you if you are riding way to fast in crappy conditions.

there is little question that lacking a rear brake is nowhere near as big a safety issue as lacking a front one. Still in the right conditions it can make quite a difference.

A rear brake is useful for scrubbing speed. I often alternate tapping the front and rear brakes on descents.

In wet conditions, the rear brake helps maintain control of the bike.

A rear brake is far more useful on a geared bike or singlespeed than a fixie. I would keep the rear brake on your fixie for a while as you learn to skid as it will help you do that.

Definitely keep the front brake.

Love the Zombie threads better than the reincarnated ones.

as my my rear break goes on...


Is that a fashion foe paw around here's?
I am confused; is this a troll account?



:innocent: