# fixed bikes and brakes



## biggs682 (19 May 2012)

ok frame i have used does not have a drilled rear bridge for brake mount , what is the legal requirement for brakes on a fixed gear bike , i have a front brake and would feel happier fitting one .

i have seen a kit on flea bay that seams to contain a set of plates and a caliper for around £30 , expensive seeing as i have loads of calipers sitting around that i could use , any ideas ?


----------



## HovR (19 May 2012)

I believe the official wording is something along the lines of "A braking mechanism for both front and rear wheels". It's a big vague, but I think the general consensus is that the fixed gear counts as a braking mechanism for the rear wheel.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (19 May 2012)

^^sorry, but it's quite clear, only a front brake is required on a bike with fixed gearing. dead simple. rear are pretty much useless in an emergency situation. saint sheldon has it all explained.


----------



## HovR (19 May 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> ^^sorry, but it's quite clear, only a front brake is required on a bike with fixed gearing. dead simple. rear are pretty much useless in an emergency situation. saint sheldon has it all explained.


 
I wouldn't know - I don't ride fixed.  I'm just passing on what I've read else where in the forum.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 May 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> ^^sorry, but it's quite clear, only a front brake is required on a bike with fixed gearing. dead simple. rear are pretty much useless in an emergency situation. saint sheldon has it all explained.


 
Yes and no.

I ride my fixopholous fixed-gear fixie bicycle in and around the Malvern Hills and the Beacons with 69" gearing.

I frequently descend on steepish gradients at 150-160 RPM and more, into mid-30s MPH.

At those pedal speeds, my limited skill would make any attempt at braking with the pedals both comical and ineffective.

Around town, in traffic or on flat or rolling A-Roads, I barely touch the rear brake... but on a fast descent I wouldn't be without it.

At first build I removed it, partly to reduce the gubbins to an absolute minimum. One fast descent later, I was back in the workshop re-attaching the lever, caliper and cabling.

The law requires only a front brake on a fixed-gear bicycle, but 35mph on steep hills is less suicidal at my skill level with a rear brake.


----------



## musa (20 May 2012)

If you feel you need one then buy all means do the work to the frame no ones gonna call the BSO police


----------



## wheres_my_beard (20 May 2012)

biggs682 said:


> ok frame i have used does not have a drilled rear bridge for brake mount , what is the legal requirement for brakes on a fixed gear bike , i have a front brake and would feel happier fitting one .
> 
> i have seen a kit on flea bay that seams to contain a *set of plates and a caliper* for around £30 , expensive seeing as i have loads of calipers sitting around that i could use , any ideas ?


 
Is this the kind of thing you mean?






You could easily save yourself a few bucks (euros, pounds, clams or whatever) by cutting out some plates yourself and use a set of your own calipers. It doesn't look like a huge amount of skill would be needed, although you wouldn't get the same finish unless you had them powdercoated or did a nice spray job on them.

If you have a good front brake you should be fine in most situations without a back brake though.


----------



## biggs682 (20 May 2012)

thats them wheres_my_beard have tried a couple of diferant ways of attaching a caliper to no avail


----------



## colly (20 May 2012)

Buy a suitable bridge, drill a hole in it and braze it on.  You know you want to.

On the other hand Bob Jacksons will fit a new brake bridge for you for less than 30 quid. I'm sure someone closer to you could do it for about the same.
http://www.bobjacksoncycles.co.uk/repairs_pl.php


----------



## HovR (20 May 2012)

Argos Cycles in Bristol will fit a new brake bridge for £45, although they may be able to drill the old one?


----------



## Ian H (20 May 2012)

If there's a bridge between the seat stays, it can almost certainly be drilled.


----------



## 3narf (23 May 2012)

Ian H said:


> If there's a bridge between the seat stays, it can almost certainly be drilled.


 
...badly


----------



## Pennine-Paul (23 May 2012)

Save yourself the hassle,You don't need a rear brake,
In fact you can lockup the back wheel.
just feather your front brakes on steepish hills
keep your speed down to a reasonable level then sprint the last
30-40 metres and you'll fly up the other side


----------



## biggs682 (23 May 2012)

at the moment just taking it easy but its awkward as most of my journey involves making left turns , and as i have the brake lever on the lhs it makes ot awkward for braking before turning , so will swap lever over to other side and see how it goes


----------



## wheres_my_beard (23 May 2012)

biggs682 said:


> at the moment just taking it easy but its awkward as most of my journey involves making left turns , and as i have the brake lever on the lhs it makes ot awkward for braking before turning , so will swap lever over to other side and see how it goes


 
I'm not sure my brain could cope with fixed wheel _and_ the brake lever on the wrong side of the bars!!

You could get a cable splitter and run a R and L lever for the front brake to cover all signalling and turns.


----------



## biggs682 (24 May 2012)

stupid question as never heard of that before , so will look into them .

anybody any experiance of using them


----------



## Pennine-Paul (24 May 2012)

Not used that system but used a dia compe gran compe shot lever
for a while,that allows you to brake with either hand,

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/dia-compe-gran-compe-shot-lever-prod20983/


----------



## tyred (24 May 2012)

Like Boris, I tend to feather the back brake on steep descents.

I cannot think of a single reason for not having a back brake other than that it's fashionable not to.


----------



## wheres_my_beard (24 May 2012)

tyred said:


> Like Boris, I tend to feather the back brake on steep descents.
> 
> I cannot think of a single reason for not having a back brake other than that it's fashionable not to.


 
I think OP has a good reason not to have a back brake... but is trying to work out how to attach one.


----------



## palinurus (24 May 2012)

I was going to remove the rear brake on my commuter- one less thing to maintain- but I need the lever because I ride on the hoods most of the time. I could put one of those wee levers that goes on the top but I like braking from the hoods too.

Anyway, that's why I've got a back brake. That and going down bastard steep hills with a bag of compost on the rack.


----------



## Ian H (25 May 2012)

palinurus said:


> ...That and going down bastard steep hills with a bag of compost on the rack.


Is that to keep the back wheel on the ground?


----------



## biggs682 (1 Jun 2012)

use to keep a sack of cement in boot of old rs2000 i had moons ago


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 Jun 2012)

biggs682 said:


> use to keep a sack of cement in boot of old rs2000 i had moons ago


 
Working for the UN many moons ago, I used to advise staff driving one of our Hi-Lux pick-ups to keep something heavy over the rear axle.

I see that these days the favoured 'heavy object' over the axle of a pick-up is often a heavy machine gun.

This is not something I would have advised.


----------



## totallyfixed (1 Jun 2012)

Might there be two tribes involved in this discussion? The urbanites [sans hills] and The Ruralites. Now it might be hip to skid your back wheel while swerving around traffic in the smoke and earning enough money to replace your tyres weekly but out here in the sticks your life expectancy is on tricky ground if you only have a front brake.
If you turn a really big gear it's easier to keep your speed down when descending but in a smaller gear [as Boris says] with your legs rotating at the speed of a humming birds wings, I can assure you a rear brake is a very useful bit of armoury to have in ones tool kit. If you are one of those who can ride anywhere without a front brake, come and teach me how.


----------



## colly (1 Jun 2012)

I have a front and a rear brake...............for no other reason than I am a scaredycat.


----------



## Smurfy (2 Jun 2012)

I have front and rear brakes, my current gear is 65", and a typical 30-40 mile ride for me will include two descents of around 600ft that might require me to use brakes. My own experience:

Front brake:
Vastly more powerful than rear brake
Needs to be used gently, or the back end can start drifting around on bumpy descents.
Difficult to modulate enough to use a drag-brake on a long descent

Rear brake:
Nowhere near as powerful as the front brake, but definitely better than nothing if the front brake were to fail part-way down a descent
Rather unnerving when the back wheel locks up momentarily on bumpy descents. This is a fixed-wheel, the pedals aren't supposed to stop!
Easier to use as a drag-brake on long descents when I'm not wanting to do crazy rpm

A lot of rides I just use the front brake.
Sometimes I use both brakes alterrnately to avoid dumping too much heat into one rim, I've heard some people have had blowouts after getting the tyre and tube too hot.
My speed on the same descent can vary a lot from ride to ride. If my eyes are watering then I might want to slow down a lot more so I can see where I'm going and if there's any new potholes.


----------



## dave r (2 Jun 2012)

I ride in all weathers and run both front and back brakes on my fixed, I rarely use the back, the backs there for when its slippery, to much front brake when its slippery is likely to result in a face plant so when I see its slippery I leave the front brake alone and use the the back brake plus leg braking.


----------



## biggs682 (3 Jun 2012)

guys thanks for all the comments still cant decide what to do , will more than likely get a rr brake , more for safety than other reasons as really enjoy ridint machine


----------



## Gaijin (3 Jun 2012)

why would you need a rear brake ? its a fixed gear you are riding.
As long as you wont slam the front brake whilst at your top speed, front brake is safe and enough. No need for rear imo.


----------



## dave r (3 Jun 2012)

Gaijin said:


> why would you need a rear brake ? its a fixed gear you are riding.
> As long as you wont slam the front brake whilst at your top speed, front brake is safe and enough. No need for rear imo.


 
A back brake is needed on a fixed for when its slippery, use of back brake plus legs is a safer way to stop when its slippery, too much front brake in slippery conditions can lead to a face plant and spoiling your good looks, getting it wrong when using the back brake you have a chance of catching it, and if it goes totally wrong you are most likely to land on your backside, which in my case is well padded.


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Jun 2012)

Gaijin said:


> why would you need a rear brake ? its a fixed gear you are riding.
> As long as you wont slam the front brake whilst at your top speed, front brake is safe and enough. No need for rear imo.


 
I rarely touch my rear brake when riding fixed in London. But in the Marches where I spend most of my time, it is a blessing.

It's easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy to write on a forum how simple it is to stop a fixed-gear safely and quickly from 35mph on a steep descent while spinning at 160+.

Doing it is rather more difficult.


----------



## Dan B (3 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> It's easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy to write on a forum how simple it is to stop a fixed-gear safely and quickly from 35mph on a steep descent while spinning at 160+.


For you maybe it is but personally I'd want my hands on the bars. I suppose you could use dictation software


----------



## Gaijin (3 Jun 2012)

There are not that many hills in central London where I spend most of my time. But I did encounter a few hills in Warren Woods. Having a rear brake would definately help, although I managed without it and lived to tell the tale.It took more concentration on spinning.

But if OP is planning to ride on hilly area then rr is the way to go. (But I do belive that he lives on a relatively flat land)


----------



## Dan_h (4 Jun 2012)

Brakes are for wimps, that is why I have both a front and a back brake fitted to my bike, even when fixed!


----------



## biggs682 (7 Jun 2012)

having now ridden fixed in the rain , i can see more need for rear brake


----------



## simon.r (14 Jun 2012)

I've about 300 miles on mine now, so still very much on a learning curve.

I find there's rarely a ride when I don't use both brakes. My ususal route includes a junction that you need to slow down for as you approach it, at the bottom of a long-ish hill. I can hit 30mph down the hill and I'd need to start slowing a long way before the junction if I was relying on leg power only! I'm definitely getting better at leg braking, but I doubt I'll ever get to the point where my legs are as effective as two bits of rubber squeezing the rim. I'm wary of using too much front brake - as a kid I threw too many motorbikes down the road by using too much front brake

I followed (while driving) a youth riding a brakeless fixed gear through Nottingham a few days ago and while he was obviously fairly skilled, he was relying too much on his positioning and other vehicles doing what he thought they were going to do for my liking.


----------

