Ken Cox

Well, several people, myself included, have tried to explain the "advantages" of riding without a brake, and, for the most part, as soon as we start trending towards anything that critics of brakeless riding can ridicule as "zen," it quickly becomes pointless to go any further.

That said, I can handle ridicule.

First of all, not everyone rides with the same style, and not everyone who rides brakeless rides with the same style.

For myself, I ride with expensive tires, I don't believe a skidding bike stops as quickly as a bike with brakes, and so I tend to see skidding as expensive and ineffective, compared to brakes.

For the first three years I rode fixed, I rode, in the beginning, with a dual-pivot front brake, and then, as I developed more skill, I switched to a single-pivot front brake.

Continuuing, I initially geared up to 82 gear inches, for the sheer speed, and then, as I learned more, I started gearing down, eventually riding at a VERY low gearing (relative to most riders on this forum) of 61 gear inches.

I went even lower than 61 gear inches, but decided that didn't work for me, and now I consider 61 to 63 gear inches probably the most versatile gear range for most purposes; and not just for myself, but, in my humble opinion, for most people.

When I geared down, I realized I had much more control over my speed, and especially my acceleration/deceleration, than before; and, I started seeing the high speeds of high-geared bikes as "ballistic" compared to a low-geared "controlled" fixed gear bike.

I saw that, at 61 - 63 gear inches, I had much more control over my "line" in turns and in maneuvering; but, in order to take full advantage of the increased maneuvering agility of fixed gear riding, I needed to adjust my mindset to that of a person riding a two-wheeled unicycle.

I know the phrase "two-wheeled unicyle" sounds like an oxymoron or a contradiction, but, as a visualization, it completely changed the way I rode and greatly increased the precision and control I had at the lower speeds I typically ride (15 - 19 mph).

Just to give some insight into what I mean, if the rider back-pedals, or back-pressures during a turn, it tightens the turn without any other steering or balancing input; and, if one adds pedal pressure during a turn, it widens the turn without any other steering or balancing input.

This corresponds to "throttle-steer" in the typical front wheel drive automobile, in which adding power causes understeering, or widens the line of the turn; and, reducing power causes oversteering, or a tightening of the line of the turn.

An attentive and interested driver of a front wheel drive car can greatly improve the handling of his car by combining steering input from the steering wheel with steering input from the throttle.

Of course, the effect of "pedal steer" on a fixed gear bike makes itself much more apparent in a bike with typical track geometry, meaning, a short wheel-based bike with a steep head tube and an appropriately short rake which (head tube angle and rake combined) create a very neutral trail of 60mm and minimal "flop," and, in conjunction with the short wheel-base, very agile and predictable handling below 20mph.

So, in my third year of riding fixed, I found myself riding much less "ballistically" and much more "mindfully;" and having fun with learning the subtler points of bike handling.

And, I also found myself rarely using my brake.

Oh, I thought, if I rarely use my brake, what will happen if I attempt to never use my brake?

How will that affect my riding?

Well, making a conscious attempt to ride without a brake greatly improved the quality and the safety of my riding.

I saw that when I used my brake, I used my brake because I had allowed myself to become "ballistic," with the subconscious attitude that I could "bail" myself out of any situation I had created by using my brake.

Towards the end of my third year, I realized I had stopped using my brake entirely, and, I went into my fourth year with no real memory of the last time I had used my brake.

However, I noted that in those situations where I had to make a maximum effort to stop (even inadvertently skidding) that I had painted myself into a situation that required unusual effort or skill because I had subconsciously relied on my brake (even though I didn't actually use my brake) as a backdoor escape from the consequences of going ballistic.

Therefore, in my fourth year, I considered riding no-brake as a learning constraint.

Now here we get into some esoteric stuff that some might ridicule as "zen," and some might ridicule as "the emperor's new clothes," because most people don't think in terms of "learning constraint."

I can live with it.

So, for the esoteric part: Judo, or Ju Do, differs from Ju Jitsu in that the "Do" in Ju Do refers to a "way," whereas the "Jitsu" in Ju Jitsu refers to a skill set.

In that vein, the Jitsu part of fixed gear riding might correspond to either skidding or using a brake.

In contrast, the Do part of fixed gear riding might correspond to riding in a manner that does not require a brake, nor skidding.

Just to mix it all up a little more, if one studies Ju Do long enough, he or she might discover that the same principles that apply standing up also apply on the ground, so that one might either use standing up (gravity) as a constraint to better understand the ground, or, one might use the ground (again gravity, but from a different direction) as a constraint to better understand standing up.

Using constraints allows one to discover principles; understanding principles at the non-verbal level greatly improves outwardly-observable skills, including the spontaneous manifestation or invention of untaught skills; and, the realization of principles greatly advances learning in a relatively short period of time ( a short period of time from the moment one starts "seeing" the principles).

That said, riding brakeless corresponds to a constraint, and thus, riding brakeless provides an advantageous constraint; or, an avenue to a deeper understanding of the principles of riding a bicycle on the street with mixed vehicles.

And this brings us dangerously close to describing brakeless fixed gear riding in terms of the zen thing.

Unhappily for this conversation, almost all of the critics of the zen thing have a zero to negative comprehension of how the word zen ever got associated with brakeless fixed gear riding; and, they have even less of an understanding of the signifance of zen outside the context of fixed gear riding.

But, oh, how much fun to poke fun at things we don't understand.

Bottom line: for some riders who ride in certain styles, riding brakeless provides an advantageous constraint, in that riding brakeless removes all protections from the consequences of riding "ballistically," or riding "non-mindfully."

For myself, I ride the same speed downhill as I do uphill; I cannot hit the high speeds some higher-geared riders with brakes can hit (which suits me just fine); and, I don't consciously take chances.

If "advantage" means to you that you can ride faster, get deeper into trouble, and bring more energy to the accident, then riding brakeless does not correspond to an advantage, and never will.

If "advantage" means to you that you can learn faster, avoid trouble, and bring less energy to the accident, then gear down, evolve from a dual-pivot to a single-pivot front brake as you learn, and continue to ride with a brake for as many years as it takes to "see" the safety of riding brakeless.

Really, for the first two and a half years of riding fixed, I did not see brakeless as either desireable nor as doable.

And I don't think everyone should ride brakeless, nor that, really, anyone should ride brakeless.

It remains that I don't take chances (other than getting out of bed every morning).

psirue

are you always so verbose?

let me introduce you to my friend hemingway.

pancake4life

Stopping is overrated

Tomo_Ishi

You guys really should keep a copy of Ken's posts. I am grateful that he spends his time posting this stuff. Real high-density learning material for me, even though I am not likely to go brakeless any time soon. But Ken isn't endorsing brakeless anyway.

psirue

high-density learning material? I agree. I learned the value and beauty of the succinct written word and I realized that bikeforums-omphaloskepsis was indeed possible.

Ken Cox

How interesting.

No comment on the content but only a criticism of the writer's style.

I love it.

Actually, I consider the subject post a condensation of a book-length topic.

I feel very pleased with the amount of information I got into such a short post.

hairnet

Brakes are a fail-safe mechanism. You can have your reasons for not using brakes but if your chain derailles or breakes then you're f-ed.

ottoMesh

wow. Kens post was definitely thought through and reasonable. But, I still have one little issue, which admittedly is beginning to close up, with what he says is an "advantage"
First 2 definitions from Dictionary.com:
1. any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end: the advantage of a good education. 2. benefit; gain; profit: It will be to his advantage to learn Chinese before going to China. an advantage is something that gets you further, and extra benefit, gain or profit. In other words:
(statement): "if you have a brake...
(advantage): ... you can stop right away."

now turn that around:
(statement): "If you dont have a brake...
(advantage): ...???")

I will buy:
(statement): "If you dont have a brake...
(advantage): ...you can do barspins.")
because that is indeed a fact. no matter what you feel about barspins, you cant do them with a brake, so that is indeed an advantage.
although I do understand the zen of it, and the purposely intended constraints, I still dont believe that is an advantage. One could argue that you could constrain yourself from using the brake, but not have to actually remove it, right? you could have a brake on your bike for years and never, ever touch it because of all the very good reasons you gave. Just like your seatbelts. you can have a car for years without ever "using" the seatbelts right? in fact that is the intention. You wear your seatbelt hoping to god you NEVER need them, but you dont remove them from the car. and physically taking them out of the car, would never make you a better more carefull driver would it?

either way, its a very interesting discussion. as long as somebody doesnt ram into me because they didnt have brakes, its none of my business what they do. I respect everyone for their choices. theres more than one truth to all issues

psirue

C'mon. Your standard essay-length posting brings no new content to the table save verbosity. We've had this thread at least 900 times and apparently all that's left to contribute is navel-gazing.

I am more fascinated by your writing style. An image is conjured of a grown man wearing an ascot or a custom-made champion-striped dashiki and fingering a snifter while contemplating the samatha nature of riding a bicycle sans brake calipers and posting these musings for teenagers to read; Enya playing on the Bose stereo does nothing to block out the sound of a wife nagging the man to get off the computer already and do the dishes.

I love it. Keep writing.

ottoMesh

hahahah. now that **** is funny!
navel-gazing with a snifter. beautiful.

Ken Cox

Nailed that.

My style sounds/reads weird because I write in an artificial language created by Semanticists and called E-Prime.

It looks and sounds like regular English, except WEIRD, like an accent.

I can write in it, but I can't speak in it with any fluency.

I know of only one man, named Kellogg, who speaks in E-Prime.

In any event, I have a consuming interest in violence and non-violence, and especially violence in written and spoken language.

I gravitate towards discussion subjects that bring out violence in language, and then I address these subjects in E-Prime, which serves to hold me accountable for my own violence...like a CONSTRAINT.

Similarly, I ride a bicycle on the street, 24/365, not only for health and environmental reasons, but also to immerse myself in the violence of traffic...and my own violence.

I many times get angry while riding, and, happily, I do not have the ability to vaporize vehicles and people with a glance.

However, I did flip somebody off, yesterday, after his side rearview mirror whooshed by my elbow.

By "whooshed" I mean I felt it through the hairs on my arm, and I believe he did it on purpose, for his own amusement.

Or maybe not.

Anyway, if you come to Bend, give me a call and I'll take you to lunch and talk you to death.

ottoMesh

i CAN vaporize vehicles and people with a glance.
thank heavens I never get angry.

Tomo_Ishi

Geez, Ken's writing isn't verbose (it means wordy). I think our postings are fairly poor in contents and laconic.

T

P.S. Oh ... please note I like your contents, too.

Roy G. Biv

Not to add fuel to the brakeless fire but this statement makes no sense.

There is nothing that can perform anything close to the same function as a seatbelt in car. On a fixed gear bike however your legs can perform the same function as a brake. (maybe not as precisely, but it's still the same thing).


I would say riding without a helmet is roughly the same as not wearing seatbelts, but not riding brakeless.

jim-bob

This explains so much. I've always been a bit put off by your writing style, and now I know why.

Is this also why you refer to people by name instead of by second-person pronoun? (ie: "I would like to know what Jim-Bob finds offputting about my writing style.")

This is fascinating to me, and definitely more interesting than another brake debate.

edit: I'm not saying that I hate the way you write or anything, but it always feels vaguely robotic to me.

DARTHVADER

good god.
who actually read this post???

Tomo_Ishi

I do. 5 minutes read. You should read Ken's other post which is also 5 minutes read. I read over twice and copied both to a text file for my posterity. Not that I want to go brakeless, but this type of post make me a better rider.

Oh crap. We are supposed to stop this thread right? I'm sorry.

Scrodzilla

Sarcasm, Roy. Tongue-in-cheek.

Ken Cox

The language in which I write, E-Prime, corresponds in many ways to riding a fixed gear bike without a brake, in that both represent CONSTRAINTS.

In writing in E-Prime, one writes in normal English, but without the verb TO BE (is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been).

(Writing BE-less and Riding BRAKE-less)

In E-Prime, one cannot say "the dog IS red," but, rather, one would say "the dog has red hair."

Or, in E-Prime, one can describe what someone else said or did, but one cannot easily characterize what someone else said or did, except to describe how one feels or what one thinks about what someone else said or did.

Thus, one can say that jim-bob said or did this or that, and one can say he agrees or disagrees with jim-bob (and for what reasons), but, one cannot say "jim-bob IS wrong,;" and nor can one say "jim-bob IS right."

To say that something "IS" this or that represents a passive characterization and a subjective judgment.

"The bike IS heavy," does not say exactly the same thing as "the bike weighs 19 pounds."

One rider might consider a 19 pound bike light, whereas another rider might consider a 19 pound bike heavy.

Anyway, writing in E-Prime, without the verb "TO BE," corresponds to riding a fixed gear bike without a brake.

Some people MIGHT write in E-Prime in order to reveal their logic to themselves, and some people MIGHT ride a fixed gear bike without a brake in order to reveal the reality of their riding to themselves.

And, yes, logic and reality exist whether or not one writes in E-Prime, and whether or not one rides without a brake.

Writing in E-Prime doesn't create logic; and neither does riding without a brake create reality.

And, one can defeat the truth-revealing nature of E-Prime easily, if one has an interest to do so, just as one can make riding a fixed gear bike without a brake as dangerous or safe as one has an interest to do so.

As an aside, I have written numerous magazine articles for national and international magazines, all in E-Prime, and my editors, once they get accustomed to it, like it.

I write fairly quickly, here, without much editing, and so my writing has the mechanical and ultra-formal nature that jim-bob noted, and which actually offends some people, although I don't mean it to offend anyone.

Many years ago I wrote an article about bullying, or Relational Aggression, all in E-Prime, and I get letters from people about it still today.

https://www.hevanet.com/kort/AGRESS1.HTM

If you read it, tell me what you think about it.

LoRoK

Holy **** Ken. Do you use a Dvorak keyboard too? Dork.


I'm just kidding. Truth be told that is the most interesting thing I've read on this board in a year, easy. I can actually forsee myself getting into that. There is a weird quality to E-Prime that I relate to. It's like the kind of language I revert to when I'm having an argument with my girlfriend. She'll get all super sensitive and I have to think very carefully about what I'm saying to insure that she doesn't take something that has absolutely nothing to do with her and internalize it and get all hurt. Sounds like a language written by anal-retentive men who deal with over-sensitive irrational women.

bones_mcbones

**** son, I'm one of those ballistic riders. Brakes and huge gear ratios are my friends.

beeftech

"I saw that when I used my brake, I used my brake because I had allowed myself to become 'ballistic,' with the subconscious attitude that I could "bail" myself out of any situation I had created by using my brake."
This just about sums up my thoughts on the subject.

erichsia

I found myself actually becoming a very careful and attentive rider the period of time I rode brakeless. Never got into any accidents either. I'm definitely a bit more "ballistic" with a brake for the exact reasons stated above.

But I have lot more fun riding now that I don't HAVE to think about every little thing when I'm on my bike. Guess I'd rather have the liberty to be a little ballistic without worrying about killing myself doing it.

jakerock

Most interesting post about brakeless riding ever. Thank you.

throwintail

I am on the side of a (slightly) larger gear and a front brake. With both hoods. 74.2 GI of roadie chasing fun. It is fairly hard work but without a brake I don't think I could even attempt this type of riding. To each their own, I know several fast brakeless people I think it's all what your willing to risk and what type of riding you want.