What about people who get into it cos its fashionable - and then discover its fun.
Is that acceptable?
Ha, well that goes to my even deeper anxiety about teenagers vs drugs and sex.
You should see someone about your anxiety. Never too late to get help 
These are what a friend of mine calls “First-World problems”.
But I agree riding SS on the road with only a front brake is stupid.
AND F&R brakes on a fixed gear bicycle will pull you up faster than front only, no matter how madd your skillz are.
(AND I have started three sentences with conjunctions)
learn to brake and you don’t need a rear on a freewheeled bike.
that said, better safe than sorry (bit like having a front on your fixed, eh :evil:)
also, all of this talk of unskilled riders riding shitters, tell me, are any of them powering along at dangerously fast speeds, or just toddling along brunswick st looking at shopfronts
According to Sheldon, "You really should have a front brake. A front brake, all by itself, will stop a bicycle as fast as it is possible to stop. This is true because when you are applying the front brake to the maximum, there is no weight on the rear wheel, so it has no traction. "
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html
well, not really that different. riding undrilled track bike without brakes is purely about aesthetics. you can have a brake (clamp on possibly) installed and (mostly) not use it, so it must be aesthetics.
also, i’d wager that a SS + front brake will pull up quicker than a fixed brakeless every time.
so my stupidity hierarchy is this:
fixed brakeless
SS + front brake
fixed + front brake
etc
i’d agree with this. love the term ‘stupidity heirarchy’ hahaha
I believe you have concocted a hybrid of ‘grinds my gears’ and ‘gets on my goat’. Impressive.
+1, although I’m sure it’s a 80% front, 20% rear.
When I stripped the fixed thread off my hub, I rode single speed with only a front brake for a week, shit was scary. I usually just stop with my legs anyway, but front brake is super necessary imo.
Also, It’s my objective to use ‘grinds my goat’ at least once this weekend.
No, the reduced weight of a bicycle compared to a motorbike means that the bicycle has less weight on the wheels (meaning less braking force is possible) AND has less momentum (meaning less braking force is needed). The two pretty much cancel each other out.
Maximal braking on a bicycle occurs when the front brake is applying just enough force to lift the rear wheel off the ground and the rear brake is not in use, provided that the road is not slippery enough to allow a front-wheel skid and the front brake is strong enough to lift the rear wheel. However, this only applies to regular bikes, not recumbents or tandems, which have a lower centre of mass relative to their wheelbase, and so can apply much greater braking force without flipping over.
I disagree. I don’t think the legs assisting in braking the rear wheel will do anything to keep the rider from going over the bars (OTB). (Of course I should admit that I’ve never riden a fixed bike with brakes, only track.) The only things that affect whether a rider goes OTB are rate of deceleration and the rider’s application of upper body strength. Most OTB, I believe, happen due to the rider not sufficiently bracing themselves against the handlebars, and as a result getting thrown forwards into the bar, the bike then going over after the rider has left the saddle.
One other thing I’ll mention is the effect of using the front and rear brakes together. Don’t do it! Under braking, weight transfers forwards, meaning the front wheel gets more grip and the rear wheel gets less. If you jam on front and rear brakes, the front wheel will grip while the rear wheel will skid. The result of this is that the rear wheel is free to move wherever (as it has bugger all grip while skidding), and so with the front wheel slowing the bike, your momentum causes the rear wheel to start moving out sideways in an attempt to overtake the front wheel! This is seriously bad stuff, although if you react quickly it can be corrected by fully releasing the rear brake. If you don’t apply a rear brake, then this can’t happen because the rear wheel won’t be able to move sideways while rolling.
And just because its relevant, here’s an approximate list of braking capabilities I posted on another forum, ordered from best to worst: :evil:
- Bike with disc brakes
- Bike with V-brakes
- Curling stone
- Bike with calliper brakes
- Puck on an air hockey table
- Brakeless fixie
You can’t ride the latter on the track. 
Mate of mine said he once had a front calliper on a road bike rip off the fork, run down the wheel, tension its cable, then shoot up and hit him on the helmet. :-o
[quote="nexus "]
When you lock it up, you don’t go over the bars?[/quote]
Not being incompetent helps for that problem too.
I’m actually surprised weight weenies haven’t tried this. Maybe there’s a UCI rule requiring 2 brakes?
Apparently 70% of braking goes through the front, and the rear one really helps steady it, in the wet especially. Also stops you form going over the bars. but the brakes they prob run can’t deliver enough force and throw you over the bars anyway.
I can see why they do it.
Some good points Dave, but the original post was referring to “dudes riding singlespeeds with a front brake only” (probably calipers) on the road. Not, mtb’s, disc brakes, v-brakes, motorbikes etc.
Style points come first for these guys I guess. 
under heavy braking, the rear brake does sweet fuck all, as stated above. having a rear brake is therefore not necessary, except as a safety measure in case the front brake fails. I’ve never had a well maintained brake fail on me at all, not that it can’t happen.
all this talk of the rear brake providing stability? i don’t get it. how can slowing a wheel that has no weight on it provide any worth at all?
rear brake = placebo. that said, i run two brakes on my roadie. it’s nice to squeeze both levers at once, for symmetry. and i need the lever for gear changes anyway, so…
There is such a rule.
"1.3.025:
Freewheels, multiple gears and brakes are not permitted for use on the track during competition or training.
Disc brakes are forbidden in cyclo-cross training and competition.
For races on the road and cyclo-cross, the use of fixed sprocket is forbidden: a braking system that acts on both wheels is required.…"
In the absence of a fixed sprocket, this means a separate brake for the rear wheel
Trust me, MY rear wheel has weight on it
That probably doesnt apply to Prologues and TT’s as Stuey O’Grady used one in the 05 Giro. Although he did run both brakes the softy. 
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/giro05/tech/?id=wilier
did it work? did he win?
Not at threshold braking it doesn’t.
Stu didn’t win. And fixed gears are allowed for ITTs, not mass start road racing though.
Dave S has got it all correct. (except he forgot to put poorly setup narrow profile canti brakes on his list, just above brakeless fixed.)
Granted at braking threshold it won’t but weight distribution over the bike will influence how you get there. My point is I just don’t get there unless I try real hard. With more weight lard distributed over (or behind) the rear axle or thereabouts, braking threshold becomes harder to reach.