If you are riding a fixie in the hills put on a front brake! End of story. No matter what gear your riding there is no way to effectively slow down going down a fairly steep hill. Remember your weight transfers forward off your rear wheel. I suppose you could creep down at 5 or 6 miles an hour but with a brake you can effectively control your speed in tandem with backpressure on the pedals to stay in control.

I have ridden 72 gear inches to 82 gear inches and a few gear inches in between.

I have found I get around town as fast with 72 gear inches as with 82 gear inches, but I feel sooo much safer at 72 gear inches because of the control I have going downhill.

I generally go downhill slower than I go uphill.

I have a Cane Creek single pivot front brake (more dollars than grams) and I use it, NEED it, about once every four rides.
When I need it, I need it.

My spin has improved enormously over the past two years.
I can go as fast now at 72 gear inches as I could when I started riding 82 gear inches.
I think someone with more skill than I have can go even faster with lower gear inches.
Maybe in another two years I'll go as fast with 68 gear inches as I do now with 72 gear inches, but with a lot more control.
Control, control, control.
I'll still ride with a front brake, though (I think).

I've been riding a fixed gear for a little over a month now and am on my 2nd gearing choice, 44X16 which works out to 74.3". On yesterdays ride I saw 36mph at full spin. Most of the hills around here can be done in this gear and it works well when in a paceline of freewheelers.BTW I run with BOTH a front and rear brake cuz it don't weigh that much and safety beat out "style" any day. Gerry

:rolleyes:

Gerald's statement implies that "style" drives the rationale for not having a rear brake.

I choose to ride without a rear brake because at lower gear inches I can brake as effectively with my legs as with a rear brake, and, without a rear brake I have more incentive to develop the skills required to brake with my legs.
I find riding without a rear brake makes the whole experience much more interesting, and richer.

As one develops the complex and subtle skills associated with leg braking, the level of control and balance escalates dramatically.

Get rid of the rear brake, make a conscious effort to not use the front brake, and watch the control improve.

I would someday like to ride without a front brake.

I think I would need to ride for a year without touching my front brake before considering removing my front brake.

I suspect I would need to gear down to about 68 gear inches before this would happen, which means I would need to improve my spin to where I can get around town as quickly at 68 inches as I do now at 72 inches and formerly did at 82 inches.

Ken,
I've never used a rear brake, but think the one case it may be good to have is if one does like push ones spin to limits downhill, that getting the bike back into control with a rear brake at high speed/spin is safer.
I am also intrigued by your going faster at 72 vs. 82. I used to use only 75 and now 85 and find I can ride faster and faster longer with the extra 10.
Al

Its all about developing your spin. As your legs get used to going faster, your muscles become more efficient up to a point. With a higher gear ratio, sometimes you will find that you won't have the strength over a long period of time to get into your most efficient cadence. So while you might be able to spin for miles at 120rpm with a low gear, you might find yourself getting pooped trying to spin at 80 rpm with a higher gear. Then again everybody's muscles are different, so what work for some, won't work for everybody.

To the OP, i've found that the important part of riding hills is making sure you don't ride beyond your control. Once your pedals start spinning faster than your legs can keep up, its impossible to backpedal, skip or skid without a brake. Ride with a brake until you learn where that point is.

That may be it. I find I can ride (with others) comfortably for many miles at 110-120, but can only sustain 130+ for a couple miles at best. Solo I never have the incentive to keep over 110 sustained and usually settle into a comfortable 100, independent of the gearing I am using. That is I'd rather ride 100 at higher gearing than 110 at 10 lower.
al

Well, I didn't mean to imply faster.

I time myself going around town, not to set records but to have an idea how much time to plan for getting to appointments and work on schedule.

I have ridden in this town with 72", 77" and 82", on a daily basis.
I have noted that my gear inches don't change my times around town.

Even though I can momentarily hit higher speeds with 82" than I can with 72", apparently I average the same speed and time per trip, whether using 72" or 82".

The big difference?

Control going downhill.

I literally cannot ride practically and safely at 82" without a GOOD front brake.

However, at 72", I can easily ride to and from work without using my front brake even once.

My commute involves a lot of hills, and at this time of year I don't like to use my front brake because of the possibility of slipping on black ice or frost.

Who knows, though: in a couple of years my skill might have increased to where I can brake going downhill with 82"; or, maybe I will have developed my spin to where I can get around town just as fast at 68".

I like experimenting with these things.

Right now, control matters more than anything.
I like the downhill control I have with 72", and, like I said, I go downhill slower than I go uphill, at least on some hills.

Our differences in local terrain and street layout make a big difference. My commute is flat, controlled intersections 1/3-1mi apart. That means the acceleration time for me is less important, but holding higher cruising speeds can get me places faster (assuming I better the light cycle vs. the reds I hit at the slower pace which is not alway the case).
Al

While I am by no means an expert on track cycling, the one time I tried it at Hellyer (San Jose, CA) the coach there advised us newbie not to slow down by resisting the pedals with our legs. He cautioned that this action was bad for our knees and our leg muscles. He told us to instead just ride up the banking.
My position on brakes is that a rider on the street ought to have both a front amd rear brake for emergencies. Especially if you ride in the city or on hills. Just because you have a brake doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to practice controlling your speed just with your cadence having a brake does not preclude that possibily.
However, if you need to stop right away and suddenly then the brakes will come into play. I feel for the safety of all, if you share the road with others then please mount brakes on your ride. Thank you

That is great and all, but for those who only has on mount for brakes can shift their weight behind the saddle and use the front brake for when you are on the road.(Is the downhill mtb'er in me showing?)

I just moved from about 75" to about 72" and my average cruising speed went from between 17-18mph to 19-20mph. I guess the lower ratio makes it easier for me to get on top of the gear and I end up riding faster. My top speed is probably less than it used to be, but its rare that I hit my top speed.

Armchair kinesiology go!
I think this is only really important with the big gears (85" plus) that track riders are pushing. At 67-80 gear inches, and particularly down at the bottom of that range, it's no big deal to slow down with your legs.

Yep! That is where I learned that skill as well. Funnily enough on a Kona mtn bike.

Front brake = lifesaver when your chain busts on a steep descent.

Also, if you strip a hub, or blow a cog/lockring.