|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
|
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On 1 Nov, 17:46, (Király) wrote:
The fixie defenders will maintain that "I have the leg skills to stop just as well as somebody with front and rear hand brakes". Clearly false. I think half of their belief is a lack of understanding of the physics of bicycle braking, and the other half is a machismo-inspired unwillingness to understand it. With no front brake, one needs twice the time and twice the distance to stop, compared to somebody with a front brake. Not quite that bad. Because a track bikes rear wheel is generally tucked in as close as chain adjustment allows to the seat tube, when the rider shift his weight backward with a locked wheel on a dry road surface the stopping distance is generally shorter than most childs bikes. If the rider has enhanced skills, he may brake harder than this by sliding side ways, putting the braking tyre patch further forward in relation to his CofG. This is almost as good as maximum braking with a front brake but is severe on the tyre and you may not have the room to perform the stunt when you really need to use it. *If you are riding on a paved surface and you have a front brake, you don't need your rear brake *at all*. -- K. Lang may your lum reek. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
In article ,
=?windows-1252?Q?Tom_Sherman_=B0=5F=B0?= writes: "Ablang" ? wrote: Unbelievable isn't it? Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law Sacramento police recently began targeting illegal fixed-gear bikes. But are the brake-free rides really dangerous, or are cops simply going after a counterculture scene?[...] "Counterculture" is really just another strict conformist group. There is no reason not to have a front brake [1] other than wanting to look "hip". I find the whining of these over-grown brats about being ticketed to be amusing. [1] The amount of money spent on these bicycles indicates that poverty is not an excuse. I don't recall during the course of my half-century+ lifetime bicycle riding evoking so much law enforcement as it does now. Perhaps it indicates cyclists are finally becoming a known quantity in the collective mind of the general public. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On 2 Nov, 05:41, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
(Király) considered Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:46:28 GMT the perfect time to write: wrote: * *Fixies are a fad too. *There is no defensible reason why they can't have hand brakes in addition to the back-pressure method of stopping. * The fixie defenders will maintain that "I have the leg skills to stop just as well as somebody with front and rear hand brakes". I think half of their belief is a lack of understanding of the physics of bicycle braking, and the other half is a machismo-inspired unwillingness to understand it. With no front brake, one needs twice the time and twice the distance to stop, compared to somebody with a front brake. *If you are riding on a paved surface and you have a front brake, you don't need your rear brake *at all*. It's worse than that - you can get far more braking from the front wheel, so you lose much more than half the braking, and therefore need much more than twice the stopping distance, Somewhere between 3 and 4 times the distance, in fact. On a wet road with a slick tyre. On a dry road with a reasonable (not skinny) tyre, rear braking alone can be acceptable if body weight is shifted back. You cannot shift bodyweight as far back when holding onto brake levers as is possible on a track bike. On a road with little camber, the rider only needs to hold the stem to effect steering when braking, which means his weight can be further back. So 'in fact' it appears your assumptions of braking performance are clearly ill-founded. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On Nov 1, 10:19*am, wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote: Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law Sacramento police recently began targeting illegal fixed-gear bikes. But are the brake-free rides really dangerous, or are cops simply going after a counterculture scene?[...] They're dangerous and illegal. The real story would be a psychological profile piece on people that consistently need to set themselves up to be victims as a component of their "scene". I mean--would a drunk driver have a leg to stand on if he demanded respect because he was supporting the troops by driving a Cavalier? Hahahaha! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On 2 Nov, 18:17, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:23:11 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 2 Nov, 05:41, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: (Király) considered Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:46:28 GMT the perfect time to write: wrote: * *Fixies are a fad too. *There is no defensible reason why they can't have hand brakes in addition to the back-pressure method of stopping. * The fixie defenders will maintain that "I have the leg skills to stop just as well as somebody with front and rear hand brakes". I think half of their belief is a lack of understanding of the physics of bicycle braking, and the other half is a machismo-inspired unwillingness to understand it. With no front brake, one needs twice the time and twice the distance to stop, compared to somebody with a front brake. *If you are riding on a paved surface and you have a front brake, you don't need your rear brake *at all*. It's worse than that - you can get far more braking from the front wheel, so you lose much more than half the braking, and therefore need much more than twice the stopping distance, Somewhere between 3 and 4 times the distance, in fact. On a wet road with a slick tyre. *On a dry road with a reasonable (not skinny) tyre, rear braking alone can be acceptable if body weight is shifted back. *You cannot shift bodyweight as far back when holding onto brake levers as is possible on a track bike. *On a road with little camber, the rider only needs to hold the stem to effect steering when braking, which means his weight can be further back. *So 'in fact' it appears your assumptions of braking performance are clearly ill-founded. You must live somewhere with different laws of physics than the rest of us. The limit on braking is defined by the angle between the front wheel contact point and the CofG, because weight transfers onto the front wheel when braking. Again. Without brake levers the CofG can be taken further rearwards so that more weight is taken by the rear wheel when braking. You dont need to be in the hooks to brake if it wont do you any good.. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On Nov 2, 2:27*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On 2 Nov, 18:17, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: thirty-six considered Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:23:11 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 2 Nov, 05:41, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: (Király) considered Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:46:28 GMT the perfect time to write: wrote: * *Fixies are a fad too. *There is no defensible reason why they can't have hand brakes in addition to the back-pressure method of stopping. * The fixie defenders will maintain that "I have the leg skills to stop just as well as somebody with front and rear hand brakes". I think half of their belief is a lack of understanding of the physics of bicycle braking, and the other half is a machismo-inspired unwillingness to understand it. With no front brake, one needs twice the time and twice the distance to stop, compared to somebody with a front brake. *If you are riding on a paved surface and you have a front brake, you don't need your rear brake *at all*. It's worse than that - you can get far more braking from the front wheel, so you lose much more than half the braking, and therefore need much more than twice the stopping distance, Somewhere between 3 and 4 times the distance, in fact. On a wet road with a slick tyre. *On a dry road with a reasonable (not skinny) tyre, rear braking alone can be acceptable if body weight is shifted back. *You cannot shift bodyweight as far back when holding onto brake levers as is possible on a track bike. *On a road with little camber, the rider only needs to hold the stem to effect steering when braking, which means his weight can be further back. *So 'in fact' it appears your assumptions of braking performance are clearly ill-founded. You must live somewhere with different laws of physics than the rest of us. The limit on braking is defined by the angle between the front wheel contact point and the CofG, because weight transfers onto the front wheel when braking. Again. * Without brake levers the CofG can be taken further rearwards so that more weight is taken by the rear wheel when braking. *You dont need to be in the hooks to brake if it wont do you any good.. I ride fixed-gear bicycles year 'round and I have no idea how to do what you are proposing. In any reasonable gear for road riding (58in) you cannot lock up the rear wheel without shifting your weight forward. Further, on every road bicycle I have ridden, I can swing behind the saddle with my ass nearly brushing the tire while braking. I can't really do that on a fixed gear, at least easily. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On 2 Nov, 23:25, Norman wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:27*pm, thirty-six wrote: On 2 Nov, 18:17, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: thirty-six considered Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:23:11 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 2 Nov, 05:41, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: (Király) considered Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:46:28 GMT the perfect time to write: wrote: * *Fixies are a fad too. *There is no defensible reason why they can't have hand brakes in addition to the back-pressure method of stopping. * The fixie defenders will maintain that "I have the leg skills to stop just as well as somebody with front and rear hand brakes". I think half of their belief is a lack of understanding of the physics of bicycle braking, and the other half is a machismo-inspired unwillingness to understand it. With no front brake, one needs twice the time and twice the distance to stop, compared to somebody with a front brake. *If you are riding on a paved surface and you have a front brake, you don't need your rear brake *at all*. It's worse than that - you can get far more braking from the front wheel, so you lose much more than half the braking, and therefore need much more than twice the stopping distance, Somewhere between 3 and 4 times the distance, in fact. On a wet road with a slick tyre. *On a dry road with a reasonable (not skinny) tyre, rear braking alone can be acceptable if body weight is shifted back. *You cannot shift bodyweight as far back when holding onto brake levers as is possible on a track bike. *On a road with little camber, the rider only needs to hold the stem to effect steering when braking, which means his weight can be further back. *So 'in fact' it appears your assumptions of braking performance are clearly ill-founded. You must live somewhere with different laws of physics than the rest of us. The limit on braking is defined by the angle between the front wheel contact point and the CofG, because weight transfers onto the front wheel when braking. Again. * Without brake levers the CofG can be taken further rearwards so that more weight is taken by the rear wheel when braking. *You dont need to be in the hooks to brake if it wont do you any good.. I ride fixed-gear bicycles year 'round and I have no idea how to do what you are proposing. *In any reasonable gear for road riding (58in) you cannot lock up the rear wheel without shifting your weight forward. *Further, on every road bicycle I have ridden, I can swing behind the saddle with my ass nearly brushing the tire while braking. I can't really do that on a fixed gear, at least easily. Move the handlebars close. Jump the rear wheel and hang behind the saddle. You should lock the rear wheel easily. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
On 3 Nov, 00:33, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:27:16 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 2 Nov, 18:17, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: thirty-six considered Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:23:11 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 2 Nov, 05:41, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: (Király) considered Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:46:28 GMT the perfect time to write: wrote: * *Fixies are a fad too. *There is no defensible reason why they can't have hand brakes in addition to the back-pressure method of stopping. * The fixie defenders will maintain that "I have the leg skills to stop just as well as somebody with front and rear hand brakes". I think half of their belief is a lack of understanding of the physics of bicycle braking, and the other half is a machismo-inspired unwillingness to understand it. With no front brake, one needs twice the time and twice the distance to stop, compared to somebody with a front brake. *If you are riding on a paved surface and you have a front brake, you don't need your rear brake *at all*. It's worse than that - you can get far more braking from the front wheel, so you lose much more than half the braking, and therefore need much more than twice the stopping distance, Somewhere between 3 and 4 times the distance, in fact. On a wet road with a slick tyre. *On a dry road with a reasonable (not skinny) tyre, rear braking alone can be acceptable if body weight is shifted back. *You cannot shift bodyweight as far back when holding onto brake levers as is possible on a track bike. *On a road with little camber, the rider only needs to hold the stem to effect steering when braking, which means his weight can be further back. *So 'in fact' it appears your assumptions of braking performance are clearly ill-founded. You must live somewhere with different laws of physics than the rest of us. The limit on braking is defined by the angle between the front wheel contact point and the CofG, because weight transfers onto the front wheel when braking. Again. * Without brake levers the CofG can be taken further rearwards so that more weight is taken by the rear wheel when braking. *You dont need to be in the hooks to brake if it wont do you any good.. The rear-wheel braking limit will be limited by the deceleration which produces enough unloading of the rear wheel that the tyre will no longer grip. *The front wheel braking is limited only by the need to stop the rear wheel actually rising. There's one hell of a difference between just keeping the rear wheel on the ground and keeping enough weight on it to provide any useful grip for braking. The best use for rear wheel braking in an emergency or maximum effort stop is to judge when the rear wheel is about to lift, at which point it will start sliding. This thread is about track bikes (without specific mechaincal braking devices). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento fixed-gear bikes: braking the law
Phil W Lee wrote:
[...] You must live somewhere with different laws of physics than the rest of us. The limit on braking is defined by the angle between the front wheel contact point and the CofG, because weight transfers onto the front wheel when braking. On a recumbent lowracer or tadpole trike with a low seat, it is possible to lock the front wheel(s) on dry pavement. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sacramento bike dealers hit high gear as gas prices climb | Ablang | General | 0 | June 30th 08 05:02 PM |
A fixed gear question from a "gear head" | !Jones | Techniques | 155 | June 30th 07 06:50 PM |
Fixed gear bikes through cyclepath barriers | David | UK | 5 | April 20th 06 11:46 AM |
Fixed gear bikes | spider | Techniques | 24 | December 3rd 05 11:08 PM |
54 cm fixed gear frame (potential for fixed 'cross) | Andrew Karre | Marketplace | 0 | August 30th 04 02:13 PM |