Rear Brake on a Fixed?

speedy641

Ok, this may have been discussed already, but at the risk of getting burnt.....


I am taking my old, chipped, much loved Holdsworth frame to be renovated tomorrow, with the intention of building it up into a fixed wheel. I had intended to have various braze-on's removed from the frame, (keeping it clean and simple looking). These included the rear brake cable guides along the crossbar. I have now read that some fixed wheel riders do ride with both front and rear brakes, apparently it does cut your legs a little slack on fast descents...............

...so, what do I do, keep the braze on's, so I have the option of fitting a rear brake, or commit myself, get rid of them and ride a 'pure' fixed wheel?

Fixed Wheelnut

Personally I prefer two brakes, less strain on the knees, I also find it safer braking with the rear on fast descents and especially steep descents.

It depends on how hilly it is where you ride and how fast you want to ride or stop

Tail end Charlie

I cannot understand why you would not want a rear brake, it is so much safer particularly in traffic when the unexpected happens.
Personal preference but if you value your bones .....

ride_whenever

I'm thinking of taking off the rear brake on my singlespeed. I never ever use it, at all, ever. In fact I'm pretty sure it has gunked up and doesn't return now, but ho hum...

And tail end charlie, if the unexpected happens then presumably you want to stop as fast as possible? Or are you referring to brake failure?

Has anyone ever had a preoperly maintained brake fail on them?

meagain

"apparently it does cut your legs a little slack on fast descents..............."

And more importantly (if less likely) it may just save your life IF the front fails (and believe me it CAN happen). If you MUST for reasons of purity (although it seems as far as I recall to be a very recently dicovered purity!) have only a front, follow the old practice of having the lever on the left!

Pete Beer

I've ridden fixed with just the front brake for years. My first fixed had 2 brakes but being a weight weenie I took off the rear after a year. For singlespeed I'd always have 2 brakes. But it's yor bike start with 2 try 1 and see which you prefer. If you're a complete mechanical numpty you can use 2 just in case 1 fails

meagain

"a complete mechanical numpty you can use 2 just in case 1 fails"

Ah, so THAT'S why I once had one fail!

rendo

meagain

i think its safe to say that its a very rare occurance for a brake or cable to fail.
i think pete's point maybe that its likely to show some wear and tear before a brake will fail giving time to make any repairs.

When i first started fixed i had a rear brake and whenever i used it on any descent i found the back wheel could lock up very easily (maybe combined with leg resistance).
i found this really quite alarming and i started to avoid using it. then on the next bike it wasn't fitted.

everyone knows the front brake is the most efficient.

Dustine

I only run a rear brake but i still um and ar about that. But then the other day, approaching a country lane junction at speed i spotted a car, and the combination of legs and front brake was plenty enough to stop me without drama.

I dont live near any long steep hills mind; i guess if i did i might not ride a fixed anyway, though im sure many people do.

ColinJ

ride_whenever wrote:

I'm thinking of taking off the rear brake on my singlespeed. I never ever use it, at all, ever. In fact I'm pretty sure it has gunked up and doesn't return now, but ho hum...

That's actually illegal! You can get away with it on fixed because the transmission counts as your rear brake.

It's true that most braking is done with the front brake but when the road surface is slippery it can be very dodgy using it. One can often recover from a rearwheel slide (I've done it several times), but once the front starts to go, you'd have to have a super-human reaction time to save yourself. It's only happened to me once and one millisecond I was thinking "Perhaps I shouldn't have applied my front brake on this surface" and the next, I was bouncing off some greasy cobbles and wishing that I hadn't :?!

don_don

I've been pretty scared on some faster descents, when the legs are spinning so quickly there's no hope of slowing them down without assistance from both tyres!

I agree with the safety aspects around town as well.

I am 13 stone mind, and its surprising how much momentum you can pick up on a fixed. Personally, I'll be sticking with both brakes

bigflangesmallsprocket

I keep 2 brakes on mine. I'm on single-free at the moment, but even on fixed find the rear brake useful. Someone mentioned that brake failure is very rare and cable wear would be spotted quite easily. I have to disagree there. More than once I've discovered a frayed cable at the lever end (I've also had them snap, though this was a long time ago and possibly modern wires are stronger?), obviously not spotted until time taken apart for maintenance, and, if you're on one brake only, brake will get heavier usage. when younger I did use a single brake lever on fixed, and am not really against it if you think you can pedal downhill fast enough to not have to feather and regulate your speed; but you'd need to make sure of using a good quality cable, keeping it maintained well, checking/replacing regularly, and when fitting, ensure the wire part of the cable housing is not sharp and protruding against the cable which might cause friction and fraying. Also make sure you're using a good strong lever, as I remember back in the day, using cheap levers, giving lots of wellie and the thing flexing bloody loads and not slowing the bike down much!

I've found, possibly just cos I'm older, that a rear brake does help on downhills. I always have my rear brake adjusted slacker, and I use both very gently, literally just tickling the brakes, helping to reduce speed whilst allowing a good smooth rythmn to keep going.

Keeping the back brake will also allow you to switch to singlespeed, and give somewhere to hang a mudgaurd if you ever feel so inclined. For keeping a minimal appearance, if you have the old standard three braze-on cable guides on the top-tube, you could take them off, and then have a couple of the new type put on, at a less visible/obtrusive angle, for use if you feel so inclined, which would also enable you to whip that back break on and off with minimum fuss.

fluff.

Mine came with 2 brakes, never thought about taking the rear off. It' easier on the knees than just front brake, and is hardly weighing me down. Maybe it's not super cool to have two, but oh well, I will carry on being uncool.

miffy-on-a-bicycle

If my experience is anything to go by you're safer WITHOUT a rear brake on a fixie. Once when having to stop suddenly a the bottom of a long - and by Norfolk standards fairly steep - hill my instincts to apply both brakes and my fixie instincts to slow down with my legs all kicked in at once, resulting in too much presure on the rear wheel. I felt the light rear end start to move from beneath me. Kept control of the bike okay but removed the rear brake soon afterwards.

robbarker

I've now relented and fitted a rear brake to my Langster. It is hilly round here and it was foolhardy purism to stick to one brake.

It did look cool though..

blorg

I have both brakes on a fixed bike and wouldn't see and reason to get rid of the back one. The rear is useful on long descents all right and also there are some circumstances you are probably better with it than just the front (cornering in particular.) It is also useful if your right hand is otherwise engaged, carrying something or wheeling another bike for example.

miffy- the rear end of any bike will move beneath you if you apply sufficient braking force to the rear wheel, whether by rear brake or locking your legs in a skid stop. It's a good thing to be familiar with this so you can control it when it happens (it can also happen with a rear blow-out for example.)

dreamlx10

I cannot understand why you would not want a rear brake

Thats's because your'e BUFTY !!

cougie

2. Bufty

To clean, shine, and detail a car to perfection. On average a 2-4 hour job cleaning the inside, outside, and underside.


:?:

BUICK

Don't really understand the argument that it is better or more 'pure' to not have a rear brake? If the idea is that it looks more like a track bike, then - it's still not a track bike! If you have a rear brake you don't HAVE to use it, if braking by backpedalling gives you special jollies, but if a smidsymobile is flying at you unexpectedly it's surely just safer to have the back up and the ability to stop with extreme prejudice?

blorg

Buick- you can stop a bike quicker using the front brake only. If you are using your front brake optimally the rear wheel will not have traction and will be incapable of adding anything to the braking. Having said that I agree I don't see any reason to get rid of a rear brake as there are circumstances in which it is useful. I can understand not being bothered to add one if you didn't have one to start with though (and some frames will not take them.)

mattsccm

Maybe you should look at it from another point of view. Do you want to damage a classic by removing braze ons? They don't do any harm and the bike can always be returned to original this way. maybe you will want to run a fixed/free flipflop.

BUICK

Hey Blorg. Interesting idea about stopping on the front brake. It occurs to me that I tend to shift my weight further back when braking hard (if I get time to) - I lift on the pedals, drop off the back of the saddle and clamp on the brakes. Would that mean I'm making the back brake do it's share of the work as well and making the braking more efficient? Or is it just that I'm trying to keep my face further away from whatever I'm about to crash into? :shock:

cougie

I like a rear brake on my 'fixie'. ;-)

Its good to 'drag' on the 3 mile descents in Wales - its good to have a backup in case your front brake breaks - and you need a brake hood there anyway to climb out of the saddle well.

I don think its the 'done' thing posey-wise - but I dont care about that.

blorg

Sheldon Brown has an article on braking here. Shifting your weight back is indeed good practice but the general idea is that you get maximum stopping power when you are applying the front brake hard enough that the back wheel is just about to lift off the ground. In this circumstance, braking with the back won't help braking but will cause a skid.

FixedNewbie

I would go for the back brake being very important!

I don't use it in the dry but i've found it very useful in the wet on the Fixie. If ever you carry a little too much speed down hill in the wet you will know what i mean, under braking the backend starts moving side to side even with a little backward pedal pressure, the only way ive managed to sort this out is with a light application of the rear brake - brings it in-line beautifully.

I think i would have come of a couple of times without it.

meagain

Yes. Just wait til the only one fails .....

blorg

meagain wrote:

Yes. Just wait til the only one fails .....

In fairness with a fixie if your front brake fails, you can stop with your legs. Not as well as with a front brake, but almost as well as a back one.

meagain

blorg wrote:

meagain wrote:

Yes. Just wait til the only one fails .....

In fairness with a fixie if your front brake fails, you can stop with your legs. Not as well as with a front brake, but almost as well as a back one.

I guess I ain't strong enough! The one time I "lost" the front stopper was on a half-mile down hill suburban road, about 5 almost blind (for the emerging commuter traffic) side turnings and a major junction at the bottom. I could NOT have stopped it by leg power alone before the bottom...nor if anyone had pulled out into my path...
Slowed, yes, emergency stop, no.
With a rear, jam it on hard, weight back, skid and lay the bike down. Better to slide into a motor than hit full on and sail neatly over the top...

blorg

As I mentioned to you before, it's technique, not strength! Having said that you certainly wouldn't have the same level of control you have with the brake. And no modulation. I have certainly come down hills that I would not want to be brakeless on. But we are talking about an emergency situation here.

lfcquin

Am I the only one who likes riding with my hands on the brake hoods and climbing out the saddle? Since I want the levers on the bars then I may as well keep both brakes. The back doesn't get used very often but its nice to have the reserve just in case. A few times after a 4 hour ride its been nice not to rely on my legs and trust the rubber.

blorg

@lfcquin- I would be the same, I use the brake hoods a lot climbing so as you say may as well keep the brake. I have ridden a fixie with a dummy brake hood and it was disconcerting to say the least, if there is a lever there I am going to squeeze it and expect something to happen