Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - You'd better put on rear brake...

I was out casually riding the neighborhood, killing time before going to Saturday Ultimate pick-up and warming up my muscles. Some guy comes by at around my pretty slow pace and tells me, "You know you'd better put on a rear brake or you're going to die." This guy was in his 30s, wore a cycling cap, and jersey. I cannot recall if he had on cycling shorts, but his bike seemed pretty nice - not just a casual cyclist. (Just to give you an idea of his possible background). He said his comment with obvious distain and criticism.

I thanked him and let him get ahead of me, musing over the incident. I realize that I noticed the cycling cap because he was not wearing a helmet. Now, I wear a helmet by my choice and I won't ride without one. However, I try respect the choices of others to not wear helmets, and do not attempt to convert experienced cyclists who make this choice. Interesting that he would criticize me for not sporting a rear brake. He approached my bike slowly from the rear, so he would have noticed my single gear. I wonder if he knows what a fixed gear bicycle is...



I found this encounter interesting, thought I'd share.

What is the term for having a witty retort, but only after it is too late to deliver it? I know there is such a word/phrase in both French and German, but English lacks such a idiom.

Surprised he made such a comment with a bare cranium. Either way, his dick is loose. Just have to brush that one off, man.

What is the term for having a witty retort, but only after it is too late to deliver it? I know there is such a word/phrase in both French and German, but English lacks such a idiom.

l'esprit d'escalier -- or staircase wit.

Not being a fixie rider, I wouldn't know. But say I'm doing about 25 mph and all of a sudden I notice the car in front of me jams on its brakes and I brake hard as I swerve and notice that there's a line of pedestrians at the crosswalk and I'm in that gap with cars to the left and right of me. If I grab my front and rear brake hard and slide my ass back, would I stop faster if I have brakes or no brakes?

You'd probably "stop" faster. But the fixie rider would have already sensed the braking car in front of him ahead of time and would've switched to another lane and already be blowing through a gap in the pedestrians in the crosswalk and across the intersection by the time you stopped.;)

You'd probably "stop" faster. But the fixie rider would have already sensed the braking car in front of him ahead of time and would've switched to another lane and already be blowing through a gap in the pedestrians in the crosswalk and across the intersection by the time you stopped.;)

Oh that's right, the 6th sense. Hehehe I completely forgot, I should've known. :p

...or you don't get yourself in such a situation. don't ride that close behind a car if you're going 25mph, and watch for peds. there was something i learned in drivers' ed. about knowing your stopping distance and looking ahead something like 10 seconds. following distance is about 1 second per MPH.

of course, sometimes, situations like that are unavoidable. but if there are peds in the crosswalk, you should've seen them already and been slowing down, or aiming for a gap.

...or you don't get yourself in such a situation. don't ride that close behind a car if you're going 25mph, and watch for peds. there was something i learned in drivers' ed. about knowing your stopping distance and looking ahead something like 10 seconds. following distance is about 1 second per MPH.

of course, sometimes, situations like that are unavoidable. but if there are peds in the crosswalk, you should've seen them already and been slowing down, or aiming for a gap.

I was hoping to be humored in that 0.1% of the time when your powers of perception only go so far as to not being able to see through a parked car blocking the view of the sidewalk. :)

I agree that two brakes will probably stop me faster than one. I try to take this into account with my riding - just as you might alter your riding style in rainy conditions. With only a front brake and on a fixed gear I can still stop very quickly, though. I did not mean that this man was wrong, merely that it was an interesting situation. Personally, I think riding fixed with only a front brake and a helmet is safer than riding geared with two brakes and no helmet. I made (and reaffirm) my riding choices based on this opinion. This man seems to think otherwise. I suppose I am wandering into the helmet safety debate somewhat, and I would like to avoid this thread re hashing this overdiscussed topic.

l'esprit d'escalier -- or staircase wit.

I knew it had to do with steps, I kept googling for French idioms with steps and the like (obviously not stairs...)

Thanks.

l'esprit d'escalier -- or staircase wit.

I was looking for something like this, thanks. Now comes the hard part. How to pronounce this french stuff?

Not being a fixie rider, I wouldn't know. But say I'm doing about 25 mph and all of a sudden I notice the car in front of me jams on its brakes and I brake hard as I swerve and notice that there's a line of pedestrians at the crosswalk and I'm in that gap with cars to the left and right of me. If I grab my front and rear brake hard and slide my ass back, would I stop faster if I have brakes or no brakes?

heh, my wrestling coach would always show us these moves to use on people, and it always seemed that I was the demonstrator, becuase I was the only guy that was about my coaches height and weight. He would have me in all twisted up like a pretzel, and when he was done, I'd ask, "ok...how do I get out?" and he would say, "dont get in it...". reminds me of the replies here...

I was looking for something like this, thanks. Now comes the hard part. How to pronounce this french stuff?

lespree deskalyay

(emphasis on the kal -- although I'm an anglo pig, so I may have screwed that up somewhat).

Man, that guy would have hated to see my bike without even the front brake...

What I think is similairly funny, though is seeing people riding at night with no lights, but wearing a refelctive vest. They obviously want to be more visible and safe, but they don't have lights? I don't get it, and ride by wearing all black on a mostly black bike, but with my lights blinking.

I agree that two brakes will probably stop me faster than one. I try to take this into account with my riding - just as you might alter your riding style in rainy conditions. With only a front brake and on a fixed gear I can still stop very quickly, though. I did not mean that this man was wrong, merely that it was an interesting situation. Personally, I think riding fixed with only a front brake and a helmet is safer than riding geared with two brakes and no helmet. I made (and reaffirm) my riding choices based on this opinion. This man seems to think otherwise. I suppose I am wandering into the helmet safety debate somewhat, and I would like to avoid this thread re hashing this overdiscussed topic.

Unless you have poor brakes, the front brake is all you need for the shortest stopping distance. As you apply the front brake, your weight distribution moves forward. With enough front brake applied, the rear wheel will start to lift off the ground. The rear brake does not contribute to braking at that point.

On a freewheel bike, the rear brake is neccessary mainly as a backup to the front brake since a front brake failure would leave you with no brakes at all.

You'd probably "stop" faster. But the fixie rider would have already sensed the braking car in front of him ahead of time and would've switched to another lane and already be blowing through a gap in the pedestrians in the crosswalk and across the intersection by the time you stopped.;)


Oh that's right, the 6th sense. Hehehe I completely forgot, I should've known.

Correction. SPIDEY SENSE.

DUNA NA NAAAAA NA! SPIDA MAN!!!

German
I believe, for me, the German reply would have been "Arschloch."
coasters...bah

Unless you have poor brakes, the front brake is all you need for the shortest stopping distance. As you apply the front brake, your weight distribution moves forward. With enough front brake applied, the rear wheel will start to lift off the ground. The rear brake does not contribute to braking at that point.

On a freewheel bike, the rear brake is neccessary mainly as a backup to the front brake since a front brake failure would leave you with no brakes at all.


Ah, yes. I must be riding my tandem too much.

You'd probably "stop" faster. But the fixie rider would have already sensed the braking car in front of him ahead of time and would've switched to another lane and already be blowing through a gap in the pedestrians in the crosswalk and across the intersection by the time you stopped.;)



HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! YESSSSSSSSSSSSS.............. ;)

The original guy was a bike rider... not a cyclist.

Front brake = three times braking force than on the rear. But you fixie riders have your legs that are just as effective.

I wouldn't pay him much mind, just another mindless face on the trail attempting to mandar a todo el mundo. He probably is completely whipped by his wife at home and doesn't get to choose so much as the color of the panties he wears, f'em.

Phil

Unsolicited advice is worth less than you pay for it. I've had a bunch on run-ins with people offering advice that I don't need (usually about sailboats, not bicycles) and it is almost always crap. I try to smile, wave, say "thanks", take a moment to consider their advice, and almost always (very much like you did) disregard it as crap.

As others have said, the front brake is the one that provides the bulk of your braking power, and the rear is mostly useful as a backup for front brake/wheel failure or for very slippery or bumpy terrain.

"following distance is about 1 second per MPH."

better have a talk with your drivers ed teacher; following DISTANCE increases with speed, trailing TIME does not (speed is a function of distance and time).

There is a general ignorance amoung cyclists as to the sheer variety of rear brakes, largely because of the predominace of a couple of kinds of brakes. Certainly a fixie is a very effective, if primitive, brake, and works well. The most effective rear brake, by far, I've ever had was a hub (drum) brake on the rear of an old beater/commuter. It would stop you fast, no matter what the conditions. Truly a phenomenal thing, and I would recommend it strongly to any newbie in traffic. Some cyclists would not recognize it as a brake, however, so accustomed are they to caliper and disc brakes.

I doubt the passing rider understood the mechanics of the fixed gear. Too used to a freewheel.

There is a general ignorance amoung cyclists as to the sheer variety of rear brakes, largely because of the predominace of a couple of kinds of brakes. Certainly a fixie is a very effective, if primitive, brake, and works well. The most effective rear brake, by far, I've ever had was a hub (drum) brake on the rear of an old beater/commuter. It would stop you fast, no matter what the conditions. Truly a phenomenal thing, and I would recommend it strongly to any newbie in traffic. Some cyclists would not recognize it as a brake, however, so accustomed are they to caliper and disc brakes.

I doubt the passing rider understood the mechanics of the fixed gear. Too used to a freewheel.

But would having a front brake still slow you down faster than the drum brake in the rear?

"But would having a front brake still slow you down faster than the drum brake in the rear?"

Not in this case, no. The drum brakes are incredible, esp. in the wet, and when I really, really needed to stop, I used it. I've actually ridden on two different drum brakes: a Sachs and a Shimano nexus. The Shimano was better-- you had more fine control on the brake-- but both were excellent stoppers. Either one stopped quicker than the brakes on the front, no matter the conditions. Note that Shimano also makes a front drum brake hub, and I think Sachs does (did?) as well. I have not ridden with a front drum brake, but have seen European commuters set up with drum brakes front and rear.

In general, I agree with your assesment of the superiority of the front brake over the back for braking.

I'm not convinced that any drum/disc/rim rear brake would result in a shorter stopping distance. As you apply any brake (front or back) I think the deceleration will cause your rear wheel to unweight, reducing the downward force holding the rear tire to the road. It makes sense to me that, in order to get optimium stopping distance, you'd want to have maximum deceleration, therefore minimum downward force on the rear tire, which would make any rear brake nearly useless as you are decelerating.

The one obvious exception to me is if a particular drum or disc rear brake allowed you better control so you could get closer to maximum deceleration without skidding the tire. It would still seem you'd be better off with the best brake on the front wheel anyway.

Does anyone actually have any facts about this? Experiments?

Oh that's right, the 6th sense. Hehehe I completely forgot, I should've known. :p
I call it the 'fixth sense'

not really...

He most likely thought you were riding a singlespeed coaster. In which case, not having a rear brake is a bad idea.

Also, he seems smart, aware of the fact that a safe bike is more important than a shiny helmet.

nothing but a fully enclosed spider hut can save us now

I don't have any examples but if you do some searching on automobiles & racing I think you'll find that almost ALL of braking is done in front. I believe I've read somewhere up to 90%. Its a very high number. This could be due to a higher amount of weigh transfer from suspension affects though. Different dynamics might apply to a solid framed bike.

That said, I'd wager that to get any where near the same stopping power with a rear brake of any sort on a bike you'd have to drop your bum behind the seat post to keep the weight applied to the rear axel. Any other position you risk skidding/locking that rear wheel sooner than if using front braking. Meaning you could never approach the same results, despite how good of a setup you have.

But, this is just 2 cents from a newbie...

I don't have any examples but if you do some searching on automobiles & racing I think you'll find that almost ALL of braking is done in front. I believe I've read somewhere up to 90%. Its a very high number. This could be due to a higher amount of weigh transfer from suspension affects though. Different dynamics might apply to a solid framed bike.

Yes, its approximately 90% on the majority of cars, due to having suspension in the front and rear and because the engine is in the front. Cars with better weight distribution (this is often given in a front/rear percentage ratio, like 62/38, a nice sporty car will have 50/50) stay a little flatter, and mid and rear engine cars are even better, but even then, only by not much more than a few percentage points. On a bike it is not as extreme but certainly noticable. For a while on my old Fuji road bike, I would use the rear brake almost exclusively, causing me to skid at nearly every stop (once again, due to weight transfer). All I can say is that rear tires weren't lasting me long. I'm thinking that the height of the center of gravity affects this as well, as the tendency for the object coming to a stop (in this case being the rider and the bike) to rotate forward (and over) would be reduced - so on a recumbent, say, you might be just fine with a rear brake only. That could be an interesting experiment, though.

That was a bit of a ramble, I'm sure there was some real information in there somewhere though.

"following distance is about 1 second per MPH."

better have a talk with your drivers ed teacher; following DISTANCE increases with speed, trailing TIME does not (speed is a function of distance and time).

Uh...1 second per 10MPH...so, if you are traveling at 20MPH, in general, in a motor vehicle, a safe trailing time would be 2 seconds.

Poking around I was able to find this link comparing a coaster vs rim brakes. My favorite line towards the bottom: "Smoke was suspected".

It only circumstantially mentions the front vs rear dilemma, it too is towards the bottom.

Comparison (http://www.bicyclesource.com/bike/choosing/brakes-paper.shtml)

It's all about the front brake. The ultimate shortest stopping distance is with your butt hung out back as far as it can get and your front tire at the limit of static friction with the road, and when you come to a full stop you're balanced on the front wheel a fraction from an endo.

The way friction works is that it increases linearly with forward force and with object weight to the limit of static friction, and then drops slightly for dynamic friction. This means that a skidding tire can not slow you down as fast as a rolling tire, and that putting as much weight on the front by allowing the stop to accelerate your body weight upwards throughout the stop (and hence increasing the downwards force on the ground) can decrease your stopping distance. Just don't go over the bars.

:)

I suppose if I were him, I would use two brakes too. He seems to need both of them. Some folks tell me my one front brake is redundant. They prefer no brakes at all.

A long time ago, I gave up trying to rid the world of every bit of ignorance I encounter. This guy was pretty obviously not familiar with track bikes or fixed gear street machines.

I doubt I would have explained to him exactly why one brake is safe, even if time permitted. If he would have simply asked why I had only one brake, I would have gone through the whole scenario with examples and a detailed description of how a fixed gear bike works and why I ride one.

Snide comments don't rate the same courtesy as honest questions. I would have just ignored him and let him remain foolish.

Dan