steve-in-kville 

The Kilo is currently undergoing phase 1 of its long overdue rebuild. New wheels, cog, and chain. Phase 2 will be a new crank and bars. That being said, I'm going full time fixed. I have plans to ride some longer events, maybe a century and perhaps a 200K (gotta justify that RUSA membership, right?)

Anyways... since I am going from SS to FG I am really considering taking the back brake off. I'd like to hear opinions on this before I do, especially those that put big miles in.

(If you are pro-brakeless, this thread doesn't apply to you. Thank you)

TMonk

I vote both, It's nicer to use than F only.

ThermionicScott 

Mine only has a front brake, but if I were to ride centuries and brevets on it, I'd install a rear.

Bandera

What possible "benefit" is there other than to lose a few grams, and be "fixie-cool" by removing the rear brake from a LD/FG machine?
Removing the possibility to "feather" the rear brake on steep descents to prevent over-spin, giving up maximum stopping performance and losing the important "hands-on-hoods" and leverage on both hoods while standing positions you get what in return?

Style points?

Style points won't get you up and over grades, afford a comfortable and efficient position for long hours of riding or provide a margin of safety when dead-dog-tired with weakening legs and slowing reaction time.

As always, suit yourself.

-Bandera

seau grateau

Yeah, unless there's some reason you want to take it off, I'd let it be.

rustystrings61 

Everything that Bandera said is absolute truth.

I've ridden multi-day cross-state event rides, centuries, and long mixed surface road jaunts fixed and I've never regretted having a rear brake.

veganbikes

Never have I said to myself, I wish there wasn't a brake! If you don't need it great but when you do you will be glad you have it. Plus it keeps things symmetrical and if you have drop bars you won't have to do silly things to have a lever hood.

krusty

My FG bikes all have no drilling for back brake, so I just use front. My NJS have drilling for neither, so I use a clamp-on occasionally. Other times such as when I'm riding my favorite, usually empty bike path, I don't bother with a brake. This particular path sees very light use, and is a long way from a city, so the risk is minimal. My Pinarello X-Track never sees the street, so it's OK with no brake drillings, and no brakes.

79pmooney

Riding centuries? Not all centuries are flat. Two very real reasons to have two brakes - gives you two of the best handholds you can get going uphill on a fix gear. And, going down any serious (say 6 mile, 2000') descents, having brake redundancy could save your life. (Braking with your legs just doesn't really happen pedaling 200+ RPM at 40+ mph.) Never mind that with two brakes you can eat or get to your pockets with either hand in a paceline and that slowing ahead isn't an issue.

On a century with major climbs, that second hood will be worth its weight in gold. And once you have gone there, the extra weight of the lever, cable and caliper isn't much.

Ben

Bandera

Long distance cycling, generally considered to be at least a 100 mile distance, and organized Brevet events ranging from 200-1,200 kilometers don't make much use of MUPs, empty or not. The bike set-up requirements for hours on end of effort at pace in all weathers in varied "scenic" terrain with a self supported load on indifferent road surfaces and with the mental pressure of a timer/clock running are not the same as a nice brisk Saturday AM FG ride on local roads.

There is an interesting (or not) BF sub-forum Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling that has an active community of experienced LD riders, including FG riders who choose a self-imposed handicap on what is already a challenging type of cycling. A good place to ask the OP's question to get a response from the LD/FG types who "been there, done that, doing it yet again".

-Bandera

krusty

I probably should have completed my thoughts rather than posting and running off to FB. If a frame is drilled for 2 brakes, it would be silly to omit one. If planning long events with many other cyclists present, it would be smarter to find a frame that will accommodate both rather than try to make do with a frame that takes one or none.

steve-in-kville 

Thanks for the replies. I'm always glad to hear from those that do FG distance rides. Badass for sure!

mihlbach

Been riding fixed on road and off road for 17 years with FB only, and can honestly say I have never missed having a RB, ever.
Saw the lever off your right hood and you'll never miss it.

TMonk

Cool, but having a RB is undoubtedly more comfortable. You didn't miss the RB because you got used to not using it, not because it doesn't come in handy (see what I did there)

79pmooney

I've been riding fixed, mostly on the road, for 40 years and never regretted having a rear brake. One particular incident I was really glad I had it; coming down from McKenzie Pass to Sisters, OR. I was into the flow and going fast when I realized the next turn was much sharper than anything I had seen. Two good brakes that knocked my speed down from perhaps 45 mph to say 30 or less very quickly were much appreciated! (I had changed cogs at the top and was in a 42-13 so that speed down that hill was easily doable.)

I actually find rear brakes are better on fix gears than the road because you have instant feedback when you lock up, kinda like anti-lock brakes.

Ben

hairnet

When I would take my FG into the canyons having two brakes were really helpful on the descents. Sometimes the descent is long and twisty and it's good to be able to feather both brakes and set up for corners while your legs are spin spin spinning away. Other times the descent is fairly steep and it takes all you've got to keep up with the cranks but you still need to modulate your speed, unfortunately too much front brake while your legs are barely hanging on can induce some scary speed wobbles that are really difficult to control because your legs are still spinning like lightning!! A rear brake is your friend in that situation. Of course having redundancy in your braking isn't a bad idea when you go for those long outings.

Most of the time it isn't needed but it's good to have it, especially when you venture into more ambitious athletic riding.

mihlbach

No, I get plenty of use out of the rear brake on freewheel bikes, so its not that I'm used to not having it. And on my BMX race bikes, I only have a RB.

I've tried riding fixed with and without a RB. I have come to the conclusion that on a FG its just unnecessary. The stopping power of a RB is minimal, and indeed diminishes further when the FB is applied, thereby unweighting the rear wheel an amount proportional to the stopping power of the FB. Heavy braking with the FB will just cause the rear wheel to skid (or lift off the ground), which actually creates a dangerous situation for an unskilled cyclist.

Given the minor role of the RB (compared to the FB) for slowing a bicycle, legs can do the same job and possibly better. I do not care to have my legs suddenly locked by a RB skid. Would rather just use my legs to modulate and preserve the fluidity.

Perhaps a rear brake is useful for a skilled fixed gear rider in some situations, like mountain descents, as some posters have suggested, but frankly I would choose to ride a geared bike in that situation.

In addition to regular FG road and gravel riding, I sometimes ride a FG on hilly technical singletrack (mostly to handicap myself when riding with slower riders) and I've never really been in a situation where I wished I had a RB.

TejanoTrackie 

My personal POVs are closest to those expressed by @mihlbach and all of my road fixed gear bikes are front brake only (I don’t ride fixed offroad). I actually find it easier to modulate rear wheel braking with my legs to prevent unwanted skidding than with a mechanical rear brake. I routinely do long fast descents with no problems using just the front brake to control my speed, while maintaining a smooth pedaling cadence to avoid bouncing and instability. Even on my geared and singlespeed bikes, I use the rear brake sparingly. As @mihlbach points out, once you apply a strong force to the front brake, the rear brake becomes more of a hindrance than a help. The main situation in which a rear brake is most useful are very slick conditions where a front brake cannot be used, and even in these situations I prefer a legs brake over a mechanical brake. As far as loaded touring, I will always choose a geared bike over a SSFG, and this is one situation in which a rear brake is mandatory.

TMonk

edited

@mihlbach there is nothing inherently advantageous to not having a RB; your arguments are essentially that it's just not necessary, which is probably true. I just want to point out that the same logic is employed by rides who choose to ride brakeless as well.

Over the years I went from riding brakeless, to FB only, and now on to dual brakes. Go figure.

mihlbach

Yes


I dabble in brakelessness a bit. From experience, I would say that a FB provides significant advantages over having no brake at all. It allows you to stop faster and with much less effort and transforms at what speeds you can and can't safely ride, particularly on heavily traveled roads with numerous intersections, pedestrians, and traffic. The option of a RB, on the other hand, has fewer, if any, obvious benefits. But by all means use as many brakes as you like.

TejanoTrackie 

There is no such thing as a “brakeless” fixed gear bike. It is simply a bike with rear braking provided by the rider via back pedaling effort. The real issue is that no bike should be ridden on public roads w/o having a front brake, regardless of the type of rear brake that is installed. It is just as bad to ride a bike with a rear coaster brake only as to ride fixed gear “brakeless.”

TMonk

dont be pedantic

TejanoTrackie 

Who are you calling pedantic ?

mihlbach

I'll happily contribute more pedantry. Many bikes come equipped with only a rear brake (beach cruiser, BMX, kids bikes, "brakeless" fixies). Should you race thru traffic or bomb down mountains with only a rear brake? No, but it is perfectly fine to ride such bikes on public roads without front brakes and people have been safely doing so for a long time.

TejanoTrackie 

Tell that to my neighbor’s kid who slammed into a car that turned in front of him while he was riding his BMX bike with only a coaster brake.