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

yeah.

or dwarves

dwarves would be easier to get hold off

where's sano? :p

LMAO!! Yah know i didnt realise until now how much of a touchie subject brakes/lessie can be.

was over at FGGF and saw this.Now thats a front brake(scroll to light purple frame pic)

http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16619

dogsballs where's sano? :p

Oh, you bastard...

Sano [quote]dogsballs where's sano? :p

Oh, you bastard...[/quote]what? oh, i was referring to something earlier, oops. :p

wheels You can stop in a shorter distance with a brake.

Being able to stop quicker allows you to cycle faster.

I've found that is quite a compelling reason not to have a brake, personally. Without one I can't ride as fast a) for the obvious reason of not having a brake and therefore having to be careful, and b) because of the lower gearing brakeless riding is suited to.

Saying that I do wear a helmet some of the time which is quite paradoxical for a brakeless rider in itself.

|³|MA3K It should be two competitions in one:

Race to a line within a set time(12 seconds or something) - brake - shortest distance

or even simpler, race from point A to point B without overshooting point B, with the distance just enough to get up to top speed. brakeless will accelerate (-200g or so) faster but will have to slow down earlier.

Reminds me of the science fiction staple, the low but sustained acceleration voyage: you accelerate at 1g with your heads pointing forward so you get gravity for free. After a few day/weeks/months of this, you're going screamingly fast, but you have to turn around half way and decelerate at 1g otherwise you'll overshoot your destination.

RPM "arguing on the internet"

but that's what the internet is for!!

(link to original)

oddsock
brakeless will accelerate (-200g or so) faster

You are never gonna see this difference in reality.

how's the new bob jackson sano? i didn't realise they did those frames in a 36cm.

wheels
[ I prefer the term bareback ;P ]

In certain circles "barebacking" refers to bum sex without a condom.

Thanks, Captain Obvious! ;)

willski [quote]wheels
[ I prefer the term bareback ;P ]

In certain circles "barebacking" refers to bum sex without a condom.[/quote]

No way !

;P

I was making a humorous analogy between the two.

doh.

sorry.

Had to explain to someone that "fisting" wasn't always punching recently.

I'll get my coat.

I read that "Brakes are for flakes" article. Perhaps I'm a completely clueless but from reading that article, is the guy implying that it is just as illegal to ride fixed with only a front brake, according to the law? Kind of makes this discussion irrelevant then, no?

two brakes...the fixed-wheel is considered to be one, as a back pedal brake would be.

No, it is legal to ride with one rim brake and a fixed sprocket.
Yes, this discussion is irrelevant.

I don't know if you're saying no to me or sebby richard....but I think we're saying the same thing....two brakes required, one of which can be a fixed-wheel.....they have to be independent though, so the rim brake must be a front brake.

I think Richard was saying no to me. I'm glad to hear that it's ok though - I got smacked by a car riding my fixed and broke a couple of bones in my hand. Just making sure that I was still legal by riding with just a front and fixed.

winston two brakes...the fixed-wheel is considered to be one, as a back pedal brake would be.

back pedal brake doesn'r count, which is why all kids bikes are sold with three brakes. has to be two "rim brakes"

One brake will suffice only in the following two circumstances:

(1) The cycle has a "fixed wheel" drive, i.e. no freewheel, i.e. to pedal backwards makes it go backwards. In that case one brake, acting on only the front wheel (or front two wheels if it has that many), will suffice. Resisting the forward rotation of the pedals, although nowhere near so effective as a proper back-pedal or coaster brake, is assumed adequate to slow down the back wheel.

(2) The cycle has its pedals fixed directly to one wheel, without any intervening gears or chain. In that case no proper brakes are needed at all. This exception allows the continued use of antique cycles such as “penny-farthings”.

Yeah sorry Winston, we posted the same thing at about the same time... unless we're both wrong, in which case so was my dad, my uncle, my grandad and his brothers, all of whom rode fixed presuming it to be legal

required to have at least two efficient braking systems, by which the front wheel (or wheels) can be braked independently of the rear wheel (or wheels). This means that if there are two wheels at the front or rear, the relevant system must act on the pair. It also means that the combined operation of front and rear brakes from one lever is not allowed except as an extra braking system: additional to the two independent front and rear braking systems required by this law.

Apart from saying that a brake that acts directly on a pneumatic tyre shall not be deemed to be in efficient working order, these regulations do not define how the brakes are operated (by hands, feet or maybe even the teeth?) or how they work.

No mention of what braking systems are not allowed...Hassan, what's your source?

certainly the legal requirement for fixed wheel bikes is a front brake and the above suggests that a back pedal brake is the same....what type of brake is not clear....if all brakes had to be rim brakes there's a hell of a lot of illegal disc-braked bikes out there!

the shop i work for. but that may only apply to bikes as they are sold, and maybe not necessarily as they are ridden. all bike have to be sold with two hand brakes (sorry not rim brakes, as this would disallow any disc brake bikes, as you just pointed out), one red reflector, one white reflector, pedal reflectors (must be yellow), wheel reflectors (must be yellow). every childrens bike, even though most of them (12"-18" wheels) have a coaster brake, has two hand brakes.