I do. WAY to many HUGE hills and bad drivers where I live. Don't really wanna die, just wanna ride.

I don't. Unless I need to stop - then I use them.

There was a thread last week...

I definitely lol'd.

*looks down at lap*

...........:twitchy:

*goes and changes into basketball shorts*

you surely cannot ride as fast, for a given level of safety, without a brake. this dude could ride faster and maintain the same level of safety with a brake. he could maintain the same level of risk and speed up, but he chooses not to. the idea that a guy with a brake cant approach an intersection faster, knowing he can stop faster, is ludicrous.

you are simply denying physics. do you know anything about car racing? guys with better brakes win, they can change speed faster, approach curves faster. there is no debate.

same rider with brakes is faster. end of story.

Cast iron brake calipers are crazy stylish.

The real point of my post related to the ignorant post that I quoted. Suggesting that without brakes you have to ride around slow as hell is not only completely incorrect, it also shows that the poster has no experience at all with that which he is trying to talk about.
Typical for this forum.


But I totally agree with you. Shino would be even faster with brakes i'm sure but without he is still apparently ungodly fast. I wasnt suggesting at all that his amazing talent is because of a lack of brakes.

you said:

"Riding brakeless and riding slow have nothing to do with each other"

which is not true. in a race, the guy with the brake will take the lead the very first time a deceleration is needed, because he will wait until later to brake and spend a longer time at a higher speed. he will gain ground on every deceleration. so these things are correlated, a brake and speed, directly. brakes make you faster. you will arrive at your destination more quickly with brakes.

that some dude is fast without brakes is not relevant. that guy might be able carry a cinder block in his bag and win races.

Well, he may be riding fast but doing so unsafely. You can pedal just as fast on a brakeless bike, you just can't stop as fast, which works out ok so long as you don't need to stop.

That says all that needs to be said.

You can def sprint as hard as anyone without brakes.
The rest is trickier. (less safe and effcient) :)

on one bike i have a front brake on my other i dont. i end up riding more on the bike with no brake though.

my fork isn't drilled for it, so.. no.

How many times will this same discussion turn up here? Regardless, I'm glad I stopped in ...

Also, remove the handlebars to shave off an additional 10-15 lbs. Before you know it, things head into negative territory and you can suddenly fit into skinny jeans for full effect.

Really? Freewhweels were in common use by the turn of the century.

i have (and probably will always have) a front brake even though i rarely use it.
it's definitely not worth the risk when those oh shi t situations happen.

Yeah I'm guessing wartime England and the associated economy was reason behind him never having a different bike - or that he just didn't care *shrug*. I remember it being in his shed, but I've not been back over there in a couple of years to see.

Nevertheless, the fixed drivetrain predates the freewheel. I don't know where the historical info is mentioned in the link you provided, but the freewheel came onto the scene several years after the chain-driven "safety bicycle" became popular. Bicycle: The History by Herlihy provides a good account.

About 13 years between the first safety bicycle and the first widespread commercialization of the freewheel (the first freewheel patent actually predates the safety bicycle).

Not a whole lot of time compared to the 123 year history of the safety bicycle.

But anyway, back to arguing about brakes....

brakeless, 48/18

next time at the LBS im going to pick up a 19 cog

Summer = brakeless
Winter = brake

what is the other forum?!?!?

I'm not hip, someone PM it to me. I'm sick of this forum's horrible threads.

PM sent

nope