The Ultimate Brakeless/Front/Rear/How many brakes? thread

@danstuff your use of up chevrons is confusing. I believe that the rule is one chevron for each post above to count to get to the one that you are referring to. Hence your post begins as you agreeing with dfp but then goes on to contradict him.

I bore myself.

^ This (like that?)

Because an appeal of fixed wheels is that they allow/make for a very stripped down bike, the lack of "stuff" on the bike can be immensely satisfying. One less brake to think about, just the reliable feedback and ability to lockup from your legs.

Well, not being able to lock up from my legs is one reason that I have a rear brake, plus locking up is a crap way to stop. It's uncontrolled, it eats tyres and you have to wait for your legs to hit the right position before you can even get into your skid.

A fixed bike has a lot less stuff than a road bike anyway. You've already lost two derailleurs, at least one chainring, a bunch of sprockets and quite a lot of chain. This gives you a radically different experience from a road bike, even if you have two brakes. An second brake is hardly a whole heap of stuff, especially if you've got drop-bar levers on it anyway because you like the "hoods" position.

This is why it is considered odd. The front brake does a lot on a fixed, a rear brake kind of just kills your flow with the rear wheel.
Don't use it other than in emergencies then. That's basically what Sheldon recommends anyway.