20t

..

Rolla

I've only ever used a front brake on a fixed, and it worked so well I wouldn't bother to try anything else. Use your legs to slow and the brake to stop; it's a pretty elegant solution, really.

79pmooney

Yes, a rear brake will do all of those things. But why leave off the brake that will reliably stop you twice as fast unless either you live in a world where hard braking is never needed or the consequences of not being able to don't matter to you?

I use my rear brake as you suggest. I use my front when I actually want to stop or do it in a hurry. I alternate between the two to keep rim temperatures down on long descents. (And I grab both brake levers as handles when I want to climb.)

It is simple math and physics to show that a front brake will stop you in half the distance that the world's best rear braking can do. Every 10 years or so I break out paper, pencil and calculator and do it from scratch. Same answer every time. (Oh, the numbers vary a little depending on where I locate the center of gravity of the rider, bike weights, etc. But that 2:1 never varies a lot.)

stevel610 

I run front and rear. The rear only would work to help modulate speed as you discussed, such as long downhills. Though the front will work better.

79pmooney

I use regular drop handlebars and road brake levers or preferred, semi-pista bars with nice rounded "shoulders" that both offr great climbing hand positions on the tops and don't bone-bruise my forearms rocking the bike climbing out-of-the-saddle. One bike has true pista bars. The usual hands on top and behind the hoods when riding the flat don't work so well but they have all the other advantages and are deep. My hands love 'em.

The true pista bars (with the levers in active use!)


Semi-pista bars

JohnDThompson 

Why bother? On a fixed gear, you can already brake the rear wheel using your legs, and rear wheel braking efficacy is limited by tire traction (once you start to skid, more braking effort will not slow you any better). Run a front brake and get more/better braking power.

REDMASTA

Trakhak

I had only a rear brake on my first track bike, acquired in 1964, and also my second, bought in 1982. Since the seatstay bridge wasn't drilled on either bike (nor was the fork, of course), I cobbled together a brake mount using a Pletscher rear rack mounting plate and a Mafac brake both times. That setup didn't work all that well, but it enabled me to ride everywhere I wanted to. It was only decades later that some manufacturers began selling fixed-gear bikes with fork crowns and seatstay bridges drilled for front brakes.

If your fork isn't drilled for a brake, it's a much better idea to replace it with one that is drilled, but, yes, a rear brake is much better than no brake at all. The main advantage is that your stopping power is independent of how big a gear you're using and of the gradient you're riding on.

JohnDThompson 

If you don't want to drill your frame for a brake caliper, there are a couple options still. First, there are brake mounts that clamp to the fork blades onto which a caliper can be fitted. And there are steer-tube plug mounts that insert into the steer tube below the fork crown to provide a mount point for a caliper. These sometimes have clearance problems with tightly-coupled track frames.


https://www.tracksupermarket.com/hac...no-clamps.html

veganbikes

If you are only going to have one brake always the front. The only reason to go rear brake only is if you are on flat paths by the beach on a beach cruiser or some odd set up for someone who is differently able but even then plenty of options for braking with one lever or alternatively.