I pretty much live in the "mountains" and would find no use for a rear brake. The key is not spinning out of control, and that requires the right gearing. I take my fixed on routes that I can easily hit 60 - 70 kph coasting on my geared bike-- and it is not a problem to bomb them on the fixed, scrubbing off a bit of speed with a front brake when needed. Options are a lighter gear where the legs can do more work slowing things down as I spin out vs. a tall gear where I can comfortably fly down at a slower cadence.
So why is a second brake warranted?
Originally Posted by
dobber
I think he's talking about more than just a little hill here. Regardless of whether he running fixed or free, a second brake is warrented, I don't think the "my legs are my brake" rational works well here.