Dr. Banzai

Ok next time there is some brakeless thread and you guys start *****ing "get a brake" I'll dig this tripe up.

I really can't believe that any cyclist would advocate people riding in the rain and snow on a crap bike and with no clue how to ride it.

yummygooey

1) Doesn't this support the "get a brake" message? Brakeless is fun and fine if you know what you're doing, but either way, riding with a brake is safer.

2) Calling a bike "crap" is subjective. I wouldn't call her bike crap, but it's certainly not as nice as your new bike.

3) She clearly knows how to ride a bike.

Scrodzilla

I never said anything about riding on a "crap bike" and having "no clue how to ride it". I merely stated that I'd personally opt for two brakes on a SS.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to the driveway to remove the rear brakes from my car. I mean...I'm a good driver, even in the rain and snow! Who needs 'em?

Dr. Banzai

1) We could all have 7 brakes on our bike. 2 is good. The front does most of the work .This debate is totally subjective.

2) Crap bike. Funny how my new bike comes into this. You misunderstand what constitutes a crap bike. A year old carbon Pinarello with cords showing, dead pads, frayed cables, slow leaks etc is a crap bike. If someone is riding in the rain with frayed cables, sandy old pads, low front tire etc then yes, they are on a crap bike.

3) Staying upright is not the best gauge of riding skills. Does she know about the traction circle? Do you?

yummygooey

2) Her bike is 1 month old from BD. It's not the nicest, but I'd ride it. Also, I was trying to compliment you on your bike.

3) No. But I can do epic skidzz.

on the path

2 brakes is a good idea. I use my rear if I have to brake in a turn on a questionable surface. I don't like to fall down.

Contact patch on a skinny little 700mm tire is pretty small. With 2 brakes you double your braking contact surface (I understand the weight shift upon braking). It's not the same as the fat ole 32psi automobile tires. And I still like having back brakes on my car.

PedallingATX

Use 2 brakes on a SS

Sixty Fiver

A public service message from your Uncle Sixty...

Dr. Bannzai does not know what he is talking about... his shoe in the back wheel serves as a rear brake and not everyone is comfortable doing a ted shred and some folks run fenders in the rain.

His comments that if you don't have the ability to control your bike in the rain with a front brake you should stay home are dum and folks are being far too polite here.

Having a rear brake greatly increases the rider's ability to maintain control in adverse conditions while the front brake will deliver sufficient braking under normal conditions.

One can ride an SS with a front brake but without the ability to modulate the speed of the rear wheel as one can with a fg, it creates far more risk that applying the front brake will result in a skid and if you lose your front wheel the odds of recovery are very slim.

/ dumb thread

Dr. Banzai

We agree to disagree.

PedallingATX

That's sort of like maintaining a stance of disagreement on a multiple choice test.

Dr. Banzai

I have one opinion and there is a differing opinion. Nothing new.

Last time I checked this forum wasn't about everyone agreeing. I can bet half of you googled traction circle though.

cab chaser

A rear brake on a single speed is good, not riding one on a fixed gear is pretty goddamned stupid if you ask me:

- better braking power in the rain: since you are distributing the resistance over two tires you can stop more quickly without losing traction.

- if you are braking hard with the front brake and ever lose traction (skid) with the front wheel, you can release the front and tighten the rear to straighten the bike out and keep you from falling on your ass. This scenario can play out very easily on bumpy ill-maintained urban roads if you are not moving slowly (you are braking hard, bump causes front wheel to leave ground, it locks up and you start skidding with the front wheel). I probably do this once a week since I have some very bumpy roads in my commute. I'd have to slow way the hell down on those roads or eat it very frequently if I did not have a rear brake.

- unlikely but: if your front brake fails and you do not have a rear brake, you are up **** creek if you need to stop suddenly ... very unlikely that you're gonna have the time to reach around and foot-stop the rear wheel when you're careening towards a stopped car/pedestrian that has suddenly appeared in your path.

Personally, I think riding SS without a rear brake is intensely stupid ... It makes sense on a fixed gear because you can backpedal, but not on a SS. I see people coasting without a rear brake occasionally, I usually assume that they are pretending to ride fixed ... which is pretty lame if you ask me.

ianjk

Ok. Now for the real answer.

1.) Bring your sis's bike to the top of the biggest hill around, make sure it has lots of traffic and it is snowing or raining, hard.

2.) Disconnect her front brake while she isn't looking.

3.) Have her hop on the bike and give her a good push down the hill.

4.) If she stops in a reasonable fashion, under control, then she doesn't need a rear brake.

5.) If she careens down the hill in a panic and crashes, she needs a rear brake.


END OF THREAD.

DiabloScott

I have two brakes on my fixed gear - standard road bars and standard brake levers; I like riding on the hoods and it would look dumb to have the lever not connected to anything.

Dr. Banzai

I have a feeling some of you do not know what redundant means. In the wet or any dry day, 2 cable operated brakes is better than 1. With a fixed gear bike you have a potential 4 brakes. Front, rear, chain and foot in tire. Almost every bike I know has a foot and a tire with at least one more brake. Anyone running a suicide setup is excluded.

Now if you want to run only one cable brake in the rain then make sure it's in good working order. If not, reconsider going in the rain. What part of this is hard for you guys to get past?

Scrodzilla

My bike doesn't have feet.

jtgotsjets

I really can't believe that any cyclist would say advocate people riding a freewheeling bike with one brake. You're trolling, plain and simple, and disguising it as cool, collected logic.

Saying a foot on your tire is a brake is like saying falling off your bike is a brake. Yes, it'll stop you. No, it is not safe in any sense of the word.
"I don't have brakes in my SUV, because I figure I can just run it into a brick wall if I really need to stop."

To the OP, ignore Dr. Banzai and buy your sister a brake if you like her enough to keep her breathing.

The LT

I'll just carry a stick around and throw it in my spokes when I need to stop

joker8baller

According to the State of Washington ( I believe), a stick is a suitable brake.

jtgotsjets

Just leave the front QR undone and then do a bunny hop whenever you want to stop. We've come up with like nine new braking systems in the course of a day! Our bikes are gonna be so damn safe. I'll start filing the patents.

Hartigan

On single speed you really need a rear brake to skid!!

vw02

so i guess all the brakeless bmxers are idiots?

riding style is to consider. if you cruise around at <15mph one brake is fine. if you haul ass through stop signs, hills, traffic, etc maybe two would be better. SS that is. i ride a 5 speed w/ one brake, i like it, but i just cruise around.

Squirrelli

With that note, this thread has pretty much ran its course.

Scrodzilla