Are brakeless fixies stupid?

Lumen

Saw a dude on a brakeless fixie this morning skid-stopping his way alongside traffic down the Stepaside-Dundrum road.

I had assumed that all those people were dead or retired from such activities.

Now far be it from me to deny people a bit of excitement, but surely this is not the climate in which to be relying on the pitiful braking performance of a rear Durano to maintain separation from the rear window of the ve-hicle in front.

Discuss; or not; as you see fit.

xxx etc

In case it's not obvious, I'm referring to their use on the road rather than on track, skate park etc.

happytramp

I can see this being a very one sided poll.

RobFowl

Definite proof that evolution and survival of the fittest is bollocks.

Biblical creationism must be a fact as otherwise how are these fookers still alive??

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

Biblical creationism must be a fact as otherwise how are these fookers still alive??

Possibilities:

a) Fixie-ism is not an inheritable trait.
b) Fixie-ists are already fathers..

Chips Lovell

I was mocking brakeless fixies before it was cool.

Carawaystick

Lumen wrote: »

Saw a dude on a brakeless fixie this morning skid-stopping

Why does it matter to you how a person cycling stops their bike? Live and let live.

rollingscone

Surely the terrain is a factor.

I'm too weak-stoopid to ride fixed but I've ridden backpedal drumbrakes in Copenhagen and they were fine.

While I'd definitely want a front brake I can imagine a skilled and cautious rider could be fairly safe


Ps: is it Harrybelafonte's birthday or something?

scott.s

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why does it matter to you how a person cycling stops their bike? Live and let live.

...because it endangers other road users?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why does it matter to you how a person cycling stops their bike? Live and let live.

Is that your answer to all dangerous or reckless road users?

Lumen

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why does it matter to you how a person cycling stops their bike? Live and let live.

I'm not proposing any sort of cull, if that's what you're concerned about.

iwillhtfu

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why does it matter to you how a person cycling stops their bike? Live and let live.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're the one that voted No.

Carawaystick

scott.s wrote: »

...because it endangers other road users?

Can you provide any evidence to show how many non-fixie road users were injured or suffered property damage which would have beed prevented or substantially mitigated by having extra brakes fitted to the fixed wheel bike?

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not proposing any sort of cull, if that's what you're concerned about.

Kill them all, let God sort them out....

Carawaystick

iwillhtfu wrote: »

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're the one that voted No.

I only vote in those twitter snail race polls

Wishbone Ash

It can be hairy enough riding fixed in urban type traffic with front and rear brakes nevermind without them.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why does it matter to you how a person cycling stops their bike? Live and let live.

Well for a start it's illegal.

Moflojo

There's a very interesting article on Bike Radar about why brakeless fixies (and their riders) are actually very important for society in general:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/brakeless-fixies-what-are-they-a-good-for-48450/

OleRodrigo

Don't see what the problem is, once they know what their doing.

Has anyone who voted yes ridden a brake-less fixie?

Or are qualified opinions taboo among the serially outraged ?

happytramp

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Don't see what the problem is, once they know what their doing.

Has anyone who voted yes ridden a brake-less fixie?

Or are qualified opinions taboo among the serially outraged ?

I'm confused. I think you've got an odd understanding of the word outraged...

Chips Lovell

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Has anyone who voted yes ridden a brake-less fixie?

Yep. I own one.

Beasty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Yep. I own one.

I own 4 ......:P

Lumen

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Don't see what the problem is, once they know what their doing.

It is impossible to stop rapidly with rear wheel braking only, because the deceleration unloads the rear wheel, reducing available grip.

So survival depends on being able to avoid ever having to stop rapidly. This seems like a risky strategy.

What if you are doing 40kph downhill in the wet towards a pedestrian crossing which is going red (for you). You can't brake before the crossing, so your options are either (a) disembark the bicycle before you reach the crossing and hope neither you nor the bicycle hit anyone (b) shout at the peds to move out of the way as you sail through in a sideways skid.

Carawaystick

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Well for a start it's illegal.

along with not having yellow reflectors on your pedals or a bell.
Or according to the geniuses in the rsa not cycling on a cycle path when its unsafe to do so...

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I had assumed that all those people were dead or retired from such activities.

There's definitely a lot less of them these days, which is kind of a shame because they used to provide endless entertainment on my commute

We still haven't reached peak beard and tats though. That just runs and runs.

ThisRegard

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Don't see what the problem is, once they know what their doing.

Has anyone who voted yes ridden a brake-less fixie?

Or are qualified opinions taboo among the serially outraged ?

When I was a kid the hub on my Raleigh Burner once broke so I had my first fixie in the early 80s. All the other kids were mad jealous because I could do some cool back peddle skids. I was cool before all the current coolers were born, and I didn't even have bum fluff. My shins are still lumpy though.

Wishbone Ash

OleRodrigo wrote: »

...Has anyone who voted yes ridden a brake-less fixie?

Or are qualified opinions taboo among the serially outraged ?

Yes.

One doesn't have to experience something to be of the opinion that it is stupid. I've never cycled on a motorway......

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

I own 4 ......:P

Bet you've never crashed

OleRodrigo

Lumen wrote: »

It is impossible to stop rapidly with rear wheel braking only, because the deceleration unloads the rear wheel, reducing available grip.

So survival depends on being able to avoid ever having to stop rapidly. This seems like a risky strategy.

What if you are doing 40kph downhill in the wet towards a pedestrian crossing which is going red (for you). You can't brake before the crossing, so your options are either (a) disembark the bicycle before you reach the crossing and hope neither you nor the bicycle hit anyone (b) shout at the peds to move out of the way as you sail through in a sideways skid.

It might be difficult to stop rapidly but that depends on your gearing. How often do you need to stop rapidly ? Not very often if you're paying attention to your environment.

Survival is an exaggerated term. The key to avoiding any problem is modulating your speed to your environment, ie, don't go so fast that you wont be able to slow down quickly in a built up/ busy area.

In the scenario you present, you reduce your speed by putting back pressure on the pedals as they rotate forward ( you probably wouldn't be doing 40 kmph downhill to begin with, having already spotted the pedestrian lights before your descent ). How fast you stop is a combination of the strength in your legs, your gearing and the distance between you and the lights. Its rarely as melodramatic as you suggest. Even with brakes if you're paying attention to the road you rarely need to stop suddenly. You generally use brakes to slow down. With no brakes, you use your legs.

In my opinion, riding without brakes enhances your road awareness, much more than it would riding normally in city traffic, but some people seem to confuse the idea of it with no brakes on a freewheel bike. They don't have the experience of what its like to control a fixed gear bike with their body, so they get all neurotic about it.

It is still something to be cautious about, though. And whatever you do, don't tell your cycling buddies or they'll have a self righteous conniption, a meltdown from cognitive dissonance.

o1s1n

I only cycle a brakeless fixie penny-farthing while twisting my handlebar moustache, all other bicycles are just too mainstream.

Yes, they're silly bicycles. Insane using one in a city.

OleRodrigo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Yes.

One doesn't have to experience something to be of the opinion that it is stupid. I've never cycled on a motorway......

I'm convinced you're really Alan Partridge.

Wishbone Ash

Carawaystick wrote: »

along with not having yellow reflectors on your pedals....

That only a requirement in the UK AFAIK - most bikes come shipped to UK standards,

(Just like rear fog lights on motor vehicles - not a legal requirement here but most vehicles come with them as they are legally required in the UK).

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Bet you've never crashed

Never on a brakeless fixie...

....but I've not ridden them in the road (much!)

(Corkagh Park's a good place to try them out though)

Chips Lovell

OleRodrigo wrote: »

In my opinion, riding without brakes enhances your road awareness, much more than it would riding normally in city traffic, but some people seem to confuse the idea of it with no brakes on a freewheel bike.

Now I'm not sure who's winding up who.

15 ALL, I reckon.

Wishbone Ash

OleRodrigo wrote: »

.... but some people seem to confuse the idea of it with no brakes on a freewheel bike. They don't have the experience of what its like to control a fixed gear bike with their body.....

Agree with you on that - it's a totally different experience. I rarely use the brakes on my fixie adjusting speed with my legs (but I still like to have the brakes there!).

Wishbone Ash

OleRodrigo wrote: »

I'm convinced you're really Alan Partridge.

Lost on me I'm afraid --can't bear Coogan so I've never seen it.

Kaisr Sose

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence to show how many non-fixie road users were injured or suffered property damage which would have beed prevented or substantially mitigated by having extra brakes fitted to the fixed wheel bike?

It's not about that. I have seen many non-independent brake fixies nearly come a cropper or nearly collide with people or vehicles to say they are not great for use in major urban/ high traffic situations. No matter how good a cyclist is, they can't control or predict the behaviour of other road users all the time....

Also, is it not illegal to 'drive' (legal term for 'cycle') a bicycle without an independent brake or is there another loop hole in legislation that permits them?

Lusk_Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

Possibilities:

a) Fixie-ism is not an inheritable trait.
b) Fixie-ists are already fathers..

Or mothers. Bloody sexism.

Dermot Illogical

I wouldn't like to cycle one down from Howth summit on the village side.

kumate_champ07

its silly, I have brakes for emergencies but slow myself down using my my legs. I accidentally skid stopped a few days ago and felt a little embarrassed but also angry at wasting rubber. I was slowing down coming up to lights and hit a bump in the road which locked my rear wheel

Alanbt

I have a fixed gear, and enjoy it as a change from my road bikes, but no brake is simply dumb.

Don't have to use it all the time, but at least have it there for emergencies

Harrybelafonte

JBokeh

I'd be very slow to use one on the road, I set up a bike as fixed gear, but left the brakes on, stopping or slowing with the legs alone is a really alien feeling, and surprisingly effective, up to a certain point, then it just feels like you're doing damage to leg muscles

Brakeless BMX is the only way to go, they don't go fast enough for you to get in any trouble for not having brakes

Harrybelafonte

JBokeh wrote: »

I'd be very slow to use one on the road, I set up a bike as fixed gear, but left the brakes on, stopping or slowing with the legs alone is a really alien feeling, and surprisingly effective, up to a certain point, then it just feels like you're doing damage to leg muscles

Brakeless BMX is the only way to go, they don't go fast enough for you to get in any trouble for not having brakes

Why would you set up a fixed gear bike and leave the brakes on the back? Just leave it single speed.

Bomb Down Broadway has evidence that you can get into trouble for not having brakes.

Lumen

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Or mothers. Bloody sexism.

I don't recall ever seeing a brakeless fixie being skidded down the road by a woman. That's not to say it doesn't happen.

OleRodrigo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

It might be difficult to stop rapidly but that depends on your gearing. How often do you need to stop rapidly ? Not very often if you're paying attention to your environment.

Survival is an exaggerated term. The key to avoiding any problem is modulating your speed to your environment, ie, don't go so fast that you wont be able to slow down quickly in a built up/ busy area.

In the scenario you present, you reduce your speed by putting back pressure on the pedals as they rotate forward ( you probably wouldn't be doing 40 kmph downhill to begin with, having already spotted the pedestrian lights before your descent ). How fast you stop is a combination of the strength in your legs, your gearing and the distance between you and the lights. Its rarely as melodramatic as you suggest. Even with brakes if you're paying attention to the road you rarely need to stop suddenly. You generally use brakes to slow down. With no brakes, you use your legs.

In my opinion, riding without brakes enhances your road awareness, much more than it would riding normally in city traffic, but some people seem to confuse the idea of it with no brakes on a freewheel bike. They don't have the experience of what its like to control a fixed gear bike with their body, so they get all neurotic about it.

It is still something to be cautious about, though. And whatever you do, don't tell your cycling buddies or they'll have a self righteous conniption, a meltdown from cognitive dissonance.

I'm sorry but the laws of physics say that you are plain wrong.

As lumen says during braking the deceleration unloads the rear wheel reducing available grip.
Conversely the increased loading on the front wheel increases available grip (which goes complete unutilised without a front brake).

Under ideal conditions using front wheel braking only a bicycle can generate a braking force of around 0.6g. Braking force is limited by the possibility of the rear wheel lifting off the ground and the bicycle and rider flipping over the front wheel rather than by grip.

Using rear wheel braking only the maximum braking force that can be generated is a measly 0.15g.

Then we have to consider static vs kinetic friction. Static friction is the initial resistance that one object has to moving against another. Once the static friction is overcome and the object is set in motion the force required to keep it moving is much less.

In the case of a bicycle tyre when not skidding we are dealing with the higher static friction, once a skid is initiated the friction of the tyre against the surface is significantly reduced.

This means that when skid stopping a fixie is probably not even capable of producing 0.15g of braking force, less than a quarter of what a bike with actual brakes can provide.

I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've genuinely had to use all 0.6g of braking force my front brake can give, due to anticipating the road conditions etc.

One occasion that stands out in my memory is when I was descending at around 60kph on a country road and a truck turning right pulled across the road in front of me. Thinking it was going to be clear of my path by the time I reached the junction I braked and moved to the left of the road. I got a nasty surprise when a second truck appeared coming out of the junction connected to the first by a tow rope.

Using a slight amount of rear brake allowed me to modulate the front brake to achieve maximum deceleration. Every time the rear wheel locked up (meaning rear wheel liftoff was imminent) I slightly eased off on the front brake. Doing this provided a deceleration G force that felt not dissimilar to slamming on the brakes in a car, as in it felt like my face was being pulled off. I came to a stop about 3 feet away from the 2nd truck which rumbled on by me.

Had I been on a brakeless fixie, collision with the 2nd truck would have been unavoidable, with a real risk of it then rolling over and crushing me.

No amount of anticipatory road positioning, speed modulation or sharp look out can protect you from the downright unexpected and unexpectable.

Riding without a front brake is out and out insanity. For the sake of saving a few unobtrusive grams of metal mounted at the top of your fork you are exposing yourself and those around you to needless increased risk.

But hey at least you look cool.

Harrybelafonte

And if you'd been on roller blades you would have been totally screwed. How many grams of braking force do they have?

ford2600

Deleted User wrote: »

Using rear wheel braking only the maximum braking force that can be generated is a measly 0.15g.
QUOTE]

Not disagreeing with your post but are you sure about that? I would have thought about 0.4g? (assuming we are talking about dry conditions and a decent quality asphalt surface)

Maximum breaking power comes just before lock up, something which abs braking utilizes to maximize breaking power and to keep some steering control.

Importantly with a combination of front and rear I'd expect an experienced cyclist to get circa 0.9g breaking force. Lynn B Fricke quotes 0.95 for an experiences motorcyclist.

OleRodrigo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but the laws of physics say that you are plain wrong.

As lumen says during braking the deceleration unloads the rear wheel reducing available grip.
Conversely the increased loading on the front wheel increases available grip (which goes complete unutilised without a front brake).

Under ideal conditions using front wheel braking only a bicycle can generate a braking force of around 0.6g. Braking force is limited by the possibility of the rear wheel lifting off the ground and the bicycle and rider flipping over the front wheel rather than by grip.

Using rear wheel braking only the maximum braking force that can be generated is a measly 0.15g.

Then we have to consider static vs kinetic friction. Static friction is the initial resistance that one object has to moving against another. Once the static friction is overcome and the object is set in motion the force required to keep it moving is much less.

In the case of a bicycle tyre when not skidding we are dealing with the higher static friction, once a skid is initiated the friction of the tyre against the surface is significantly reduced.

This means that when skid stopping a fixie is probably not even capable of producing 0.15g of braking force, less than a quarter of what a bike with actual brakes can provide.

I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've genuinely had to use all 0.6g of braking force my front brake can give, due to anticipating the road conditions etc.

One occasion that stands out in my memory is when I was descending at around 60kph on a country road and a truck turning right pulled across the road in front of me. Thinking it was going to be clear of my path by the time I reached the junction I braked and moved to the left of the road. I got a nasty surprise when a second truck appeared coming out of the junction connected to the first by a tow rope.

Using a slight amount of rear brake allowed me to modulate the front brake to achieve maximum deceleration. Every time the rear wheel locked up (meaning rear wheel liftoff was imminent) I slightly eased off on the front brake. Doing this provided a deceleration G force that felt not dissimilar to slamming on the brakes in a car, as in it felt like my face was being pulled off. I came to a stop about 3 feet away from the 2nd truck which rumbled on by me.

Had I been on a brakeless fixie, collision with the 2nd truck would have been unavoidable, with a real risk of it then rolling over and crushing me.

No amount of anticipatory road positioning, speed modulation or sharp look out can protect you from the downright unexpected and unexpectable.

Riding without a front brake is out and out insanity. For the sake of saving a few unobtrusive grams of metal mounted at the top of your fork you are exposing yourself and those around you to needless increased risk.

But hey at least you look cool.

ford2600

ford2600 wrote: »

Not disagreeing with your post but are you sure about that? I would have thought about 0.4g? (assuming we are talking about dry conditions and a decent quality asphalt surface)


Maximum breaking power comes just before lock up, something which abs braking utilizes to maximize breaking power and to keep some steering control.

Importantly with a combination of front and rear I'd expect an experienced cyclist to get circa 0.9g breaking force. Lynn B Fricke quotes 0.95 for an experiences motorcyclist.

Obviously there will be some variation. The main difference between motorbikes and bicycles is the centre of gravity is much lower in the motorbike due to the weight of the engine being down low. This reduces the tendency to rotate around the front wheel, also keeping more weight on the rear wheel.

For a bicycle the majority of the weight is in the rider, which is much higher up. Thus an increased tendency to rotate around the front wheel and more rapid unloading of the rear.

Chuchote

If you want the possibility of dying young and leaving a beautiful* corpse, fine. I'd be happier to see one brake on a fixie, just in case you discover how long the Knockmaroon Hill is at the same time as discovering how hard it is to stop pedals going around with the force of the pedals.

* Guarantee invalidated by road rash and slight crushing

Harrybelafonte

What about brakeless and no foot retention, that's going to send some of you apoplectic!

nak

Lumen wrote: »

I don't recall ever seeing a brakeless fixie being skidded down the road by a woman. That's not to say it doesn't happen.

I have many times.