Rear Brake on a Fixed?

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

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?

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

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.

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 :?!

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.

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.

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.)

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- 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.)

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:

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.

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

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...

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.