Originally Posted by
cervelo48
Is this topic prone to flaming?
It seems to be a minimalistic fixed gear bicycle with no brakes doesn't serve as anything but something you can ride around in the parking lot. Does advantage of saving a bit of weight and a bit of aerodynamic and a bit of bike real estate justify the disadvantage of not having brakes? I think, most would agree, that having brakes provides added security in any riding situation. Also, a fixed gear bike isn't too good on fast, long, hilly bike rides. Most fixed gear riders I've seen around (the Toronto area) do not at all look like fast or safe or responsible bike riders.
It seems to be a disadvantage in almost every situation compared to a SS with brakes or a fixed with brakes. So, is a minimalistic fixed gear bicycle more trendy than anything?
You are sort of kicking a hornets nest over here.
There is no *single* reason why people ride fixed gear bikes. Fixed gear just describes how the bike works. There are still different uses for the bike.
Think of a manual transmission used in a car. These are generally considered fuel efficient. Some use them for high school cars, A-B basic transport cars, sports cars, car show cars, race cars, etc... So, saying "Isn't an economical manual transmission in a V8 sort of an oxymoron?" is you missing the point.
Also, people don't *exclusively* use tennis shoes for tennis, blue jeans for prospecting for gold, SUV for sports or utility...