Mr. Desalvo wrote:I ride fixed in a very, very hilly city. I also ride gears. Comparably, the fixed is easier, hands down. It's faster, it's more efficient, & it has fucking brakes. No reason to die for looks.

Please elaborate? I really want to understand this "efficiency" everyone talks about.

When I did triathlon a lot of the guys would train on fixed gear because it encourages good pedalling technique.

For efficiency, geiginni, i would imagine that having two cogs connected by a chain is more efficient that having the same two cogs connected via two more cogs in the deraillier.

The chain stays straight. No chain slack. Better grip, both foot and hand. Less weight. Less systems to fail. More weight allowance for critical systems. Better skid control. Quicker acceleration.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:This is me from last Thursday, after I did a flip as a result breaking with the front brake really hard. Photo is staged, I landed on the pavement head first.

I don't buy it. Flipping over your front wheel is an urban myth that makes sense until you actually think about it. Based on standard bike frame proportions, physics dictates that you would have to weigh less than 100 pounds and have arms that touch the ground when you walk in order for you be far enough back for the rear wheel to catapult you forward on the axis of your front hub. [I forget the exact ratio of numbers, but this is in the right ballpark - obviously your size in ratio to the bike and your weight are all relative factors.]

In addition, the front axle of your bike would need to physically stop moving or else not skid either by virtue of the wheel weighing over 2000 pounds or having a tire made of some never before seen miracle compound that sticks to all surfaces no matter how much force is applied. Transferring the horizontal momentum could also be done by being on a high wheel right over the front (that would position you far enough along the rotation of the wheel that it wouldn't take as much energy to push you forwards and use your body weight to prevent the wheel from skidding), but you'd need to be going preposterously fast for it to work.

Ask any bike racer which break they'd want if they can only have 1, and they will all say front. If you're coming down a hill at top speed and need to stop, your front break is the one that does all of the work. If you want to finesse a sharp turn, you use the front. If you need to stop quickly, you use the front. It gives you more control, is more stable, and more useful at reducing speed.

I'd say it's more likely that you crashed because you were wearing headphones, as in the pic. You were distracted because Geddy was singing it like he meant it and you clamped down on the break with the down beat and put a little too much into it and went flying. In that situation, either break would have tossed you, but with the back you probably would have skidded sideways before going off.

And I think a better comparison for fixies would be if Bob Weston played a bass with just one string. While also fun, it's a different thing from a bass with 4 strings, or the more reasonable 8. I'm not knocking single speeds at all, they're just a different animal.

Uncle O. I ask that you please get on a bike with good front brakes, ride fast, and clamp down the front brake as hard as you can. Then come back and tell us it's a myth.



You don't even need a front brake. Just jam the tip of your shoe between the wheel and the fork. Try it, it's awesome!

scott wrote:Uncle O. I ask that you please get on a bike with good front brakes, ride fast, and clamp down the front brake as hard as you can. Then come back and tell us it's a myth.

I do this all the time, using going downhill in traffic in excess of 30 mph. Much more fun than sticking your shoe in there. Well, not exactly - I don't clamp down as hard as I can because then I'd crash, regardless of which break I used. I didn't say that you can't throw yourself off of a bike by causing the bike to stop faster than you, but you can do this with either brake. The myth is that you can hurl yourself over your front bars by using your front brake. This is not true.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:This is me from last Thursday, after I did a flip as a result breaking with the front brake really hard. Photo is staged, I landed on the pavement head first.

I don't buy it. Flipping over your front wheel is an urban myth that makes sense until you actually think about it. Based on standard bike frame proportions, physics dictates that you would have to weigh less than 100 pounds and have arms that touch the ground when you walk in order for you be far enough back for the rear wheel to catapult you forward on the axis of your front hub. [I forget the exact ratio of numbers, but this is in the right ballpark - obviously your size in ratio to the bike and your weight are all relative factors.]

In addition, the front axle of your bike would need to physically stop moving or else not skid either by virtue of the wheel weighing over 2000 pounds or having a tire made of some never before seen miracle compound that sticks to all surfaces no matter how much force is applied. Transferring the horizontal momentum could also be done by being on a high wheel right over the front (that would position you far enough along the rotation of the wheel that it wouldn't take as much energy to push you forwards and use your body weight to prevent the wheel from skidding), but you'd need to be going preposterously fast for it to work.

Ask any bike racer which break they'd want if they can only have 1, and they will all say front. If you're coming down a hill at top speed and need to stop, your front break is the one that does all of the work. If you want to finesse a sharp turn, you use the front. If you need to stop quickly, you use the front. It gives you more control, is more stable, and more useful at reducing speed.

I'd say it's more likely that you crashed because you were wearing headphones, as in the pic. You were distracted because Geddy was singing it like he meant it and you clamped down on the break with the down beat and put a little too much into it and went flying. In that situation, either break would have tossed you, but with the back you probably would have skidded sideways before going off.

And I think a better comparison for fixies would be if Bob Weston played a bass with just one string. While also fun, it's a different thing from a bass with 4 strings, or the more reasonable 8. I'm not knocking single speeds at all, they're just a different animal.

Please learn to spell brake before your next treatise on Newtonian Mechanics. Thanks.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:The myth is that you can hurl yourself over your front bars by using your front brake. This is not true.

Well then I guess those of us who've actually done it will have to take your word over our personal experience. Thanks!

vockins wrote:Please learn to spell brake before your next treatise on Newtonian Mechanics. Thanks.

Touche.

scott wrote:

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:The myth is that you can hurl yourself over your front bars by using your front brake. This is not true.

Well then I guess those of us who've actually done it will have to take your word over our personal experience. Thanks!

You've flown over your handlebars because you clamped down too hard on your front brake? Sounds like you need to learn how to ride a bike.