Rear Quick Release on a Fixedgear?
Tom Nakashima
a fixedgear bike?
Will the quick release be strong enough to keep the wheel in place?
Does anyone make a fixedgear hub with a quick release, or are they all solid
axles with locking nuts?
Reason for asking these questions,
I'll be riding a fixedgear on the street and I'm trying to get away from
carrying a wrench to undo the locking nuts in case of a flat. Any
alternatives? Enjoy hearing from fixedgear street riders.
-tom
bob...@mediaone.net
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixeda.html
Jon Isaacs
But if you are not riding on the track, there is no real need to use a track
hub, a regular freewheel hub for the street properly spaced is probably what
you want anyway and it will be a QR hub.
IMHO the only real reason to use track hubs is because they have the reverse
threaded lock rings which are keep the cog from unscrewing when back pedalling.
But since you are riding on the street, you will have brakes so this is not a
concern.
jon isaacs
A Muzi
> I was wondering if it's possible to use a quick release on the rear wheel of
> a fixedgear bike?
Sure. MIne is. Campagnolo's old quick release track hubs (before the rules
changed) were the first hubs I ever saw with curved skewers. Looked odd to me
then and now.
> Will the quick release be strong enough to keep the wheel in place?
Most quick release wheels are more secure than most nutted axle wheels. The cam
action is very effective. If you 're worried about it, oil inside the bell
housing so the cam works correctly.
> Does anyone make a fixedgear hub with a quick release, or are they all solid
> axles with locking nuts?
Don't think there are any current Q/R track hubs. 10mm axles are easy to swap
over to Q/R but some hubs are 9.5mm axle so check that first.
> Reason for asking these questions,
> I'll be riding a fixedgear on the street and I'm trying to get away from
> carrying a wrench to undo the locking nuts in case of a flat.
Me too. Never had a problem with my Simplex Q/R. And my gear is low.
> Any alternatives?
Sure, a "peanut butter" wrench. These are flat with a punched 15mm socket on
one end . They are less common now but easy to carry. The problem is that when
you flat, the wrench will be at your girlfriend's house. Of course if you
change it to Q/R you won't have a pump or a spare tub anyway. Cab fare is a
good thing for an urban cyclist.
Andrew "many ways to approach a problem" Muzi
--
Yellow Jersey, Ltd
http://www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
alex wetmore
<3c1145e1$0$65152$272e...@news.execpc.com>:
>> solid axles with locking nuts?
>
>Don't think there are any current Q/R track hubs. 10mm axles are easy
>to swap over to Q/R but some hubs are 9.5mm axle so check that first.
Wheels Manufacturing makes 9.5mm quick release axles. If your LBS doesn't
stock them (mine does) then you can order them from Sheldon Brown. They
cost just over $10.
alex
Tim McNamara
> I was wondering if it's possible to use a quick release on the rear wheel of
> a fixedgear bike?
Yes.
> Will the quick release be strong enough to keep the wheel in place?
Mostly. At 6'4" and 210+ lbs, I have never pulled the wheel forward
in the dropouts with a fixed gear, but then I have made a point of
clamping the wheel down as tight as I can.
> Does anyone make a fixedgear hub with a quick release, or are they all solid
> axles with locking nuts?
You can get a hub suitable for fixed gearing that uses a QR. Any hub
that will take a freewheel will also take a fixed cog. But do have
brakes on your bike!
> Reason for asking these questions,
> I'll be riding a fixedgear on the street and I'm trying to get away from
> carrying a wrench to undo the locking nuts in case of a flat. Any
> alternatives? Enjoy hearing from fixedgear street riders.
I've currently deep-sixed the fixed for street riding and have
gone with a coaster brake hub on my track bike- mainly because the
bike won't permit the use of brakes. I use a bolt-on Bendix hub and
carry a Surly Jethro Tool wrench (with handy bottle opener). It's
small and designed to be used with your foot for leverage if needed-
fits in my small seat pack along with a spare tube and tire levers.
So that's another viable option.
I like the utter simplicity of my bike, which I use to commute to
work. It's tempting to say that "there's nothing to break" but I
can't remember the last time I actually *broke* anything on a bike
other than a spoke or a frame joint. Chains, derailleurs, cables, etc
all seem prety robust. For me it's an aesthetic- I like a bike with
no brake levers, no shift levers, no cables, no brazeons, the bars
flipped over and sawed off... It's stark and dedicated to simple
motion. Not to mention a PITA when there's a hill.
Sheldon Brown
>
> I was wondering if it's possible to use a quick release on the rear wheel of
> a fixedgear bike?
>
> Will the quick release be strong enough to keep the wheel in place?
Yes.
> Does anyone make a fixedgear hub with a quick release, or are they all solid
> axles with locking nuts?
No, but most track hubs can be converted by swapping out the axle. I do
this a lot.
Most _tracks_ require nutted hubs for historical reasons (used to be wing
nuts, which were potentially hazardous.)
> Reason for asking these questions,
> I'll be riding a fixedgear on the street and I'm trying to get away from
> carrying a wrench to undo the locking nuts in case of a flat. Any
> alternatives?
Most of my own fixed gear fleet are QR equipped, for that exact reason.
> Enjoy hearing from fixedgear street riders.
You might care to have a look at http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed
Sheldon "Keep Pedaling" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| I still feel that variable gears are only for people over |
| forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength |
| of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailleur? |
| We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear! |
| --Henri Desgrange, _L'Equipe_ article of 1902 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
David L. Johnson
low gears for climbing my afternoon commute hill. Originally I used an old
Campy QR (and the old Campy axle) in there, and it was very difficult to clamp
down tightly enough. I switched out the skewer for a Shimano one, and have
not had any problem since. The Shimano skewers clamp stronger -- at least
stronger than a 1970 Campy one.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
MikeYankee
Curiously, though, I used to have this clamping problem on my old Univega
beater with a Shimano QR (Ultegra). I just tightened the crap out of it and
lived with it for a couple of years until -- eureka! -- I figured out what was
going on.
This bike has fairly thin dropouts, so the axle protruded ~1 mm too far on each
side. The QR would just barely start to bottom out no matter how much the nut
was pre-tightened. The fix was simply to add one thin spacer between each cone
and locknut.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
wheel of
a fixedgear bike?
Will the quick release be strong enough to keep the wheel in place?
Does anyone make a fixedgear hub with a quick release, or are they all solid
axles with locking nuts? >>
You can convert many track hubs to hollow axles w/o much problem but if you
have only one brake or none-nuts are a much better idea..just carry a
'peanutbutter' wrench in your back little bag..
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Qui si parla Campagnolo
not a
concern. >>
More than a few fixed gear guys here onm Boulder do not have brakes on their
rigs...so a track hub is essential for them. I use a track hubset as well, as
the rear is a flip-flop, another reason to use a solid axle...just carry a
wrench.
A Muzi
Or trim the excess axle which is quicker sometimes. And do lube inside the
skewer's bell.
Craig Brozefsky
> IMHO the only real reason to use track hubs is because they have the reverse
> threaded lock rings which are keep the cog from unscrewing when back pedalling.
>
> But since you are riding on the street, you will have brakes so this is not a
> concern.
I have brakes and ride on the street and still predominantly use the
pedals to modulate my speed, so I would suggest that one should not
write off the uefulness of having a lock ring without trying it out
for awhile and seeing just how they use the brakes and fixed gear.
And since you can replace the axle in most track hubs to allow the use
of the QR, it seems like a safe bet to me if you're going to be
building wheels up.
--
Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com>
http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Ask me about Common Lisp Enterprise Eggplants at Red Bean!
Peter Cole
news:9urci3$pg9$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
My fixed gear is set up with a (Shimano) QR, no surprise in that since our
own fixed gear guru (check out his fixed gear articles at
www.sheldonbrown.com ) set it up for me (I have the good fortune to live
down the street). I was nervous at first, being 6'10", 235 lb, that it would
hold, but hold it has, for three seasons so far.
We have enough fixed gear converts in our regular riding group that it's not
uncommon to get 6-8 on a ride. Since I ride year 'round, I think fixed gear
is the ultimate winter bike, especially with studded tires. Sheldon set my
rear wheel up with a "flip-flop" hub, one side for typical road riding, the
other side geared lower and with a freewheel, perfect for off-road single
speeding -- a great arrangement.
Tim McNamara
> joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) writes:
>
> > IMHO the only real reason to use track hubs is because they have the reverse
> > threaded lock rings which are keep the cog from unscrewing when back pedalling.
> >
> > But since you are riding on the street, you will have brakes so this is not a
> > concern.
>
> I have brakes and ride on the street and still predominantly use the
> pedals to modulate my speed, so I would suggest that one should not
> write off the uefulness of having a lock ring without trying it out
> for awhile and seeing just how they use the brakes and fixed gear.
> And since you can replace the axle in most track hubs to allow the use
> of the QR, it seems like a safe bet to me if you're going to be
> building wheels up.
Back when I fixed geared for the first 750-1000 miles of the season, I
just screwed a 16T track cog onto my road hub after taking the
freewheel off. No room for a lockring. I never spun the cog loose
with back-pressure on the pedals, despite being 210+ lbs. Of course,
I *did* have brakes since it was my road bike, so I never tried to
panic stop using only the pedals but using the pedals so slow down was
never a problem. The cog seemed to get torqued on pretty tight from
pedaling forwards.
Hugh N. B. Flynn
> You can convert many track hubs to hollow axles w/o much problem but if you
> have only one brake or none-nuts are a much better idea..just carry a
> 'peanutbutter' wrench in your back little bag..
>
I don't follow your logic here. How does the method of braking have anything to
do with the means by which the wheel is attached to the frame? I can stop with
no brakes on any of my QR equipped fixed gear bikes just fine. How would a
nutted axle effect my ability to stop via back pedaling? What does the presence
of two, one, or no brakes have to do with the nutted/QR issue.
Nuts can loosen over time. QR can't.
--
Hugh N. B. Flynn
Amherst MA
hug...@student.umass.edu
Steven Woo
<t...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
I have a fixed gear with a quick release. I got the parts from
Sheldon Brown a few years ago - IIRC it came as a solid axle and I had
to replace some parts to make it a quick release but no biggie.. No
more problems with slippage than with non-fixed gear.
David L. Johnson
>
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > You can convert many track hubs to hollow axles w/o much problem but if you
> > have only one brake or none-nuts are a much better idea..just carry a
> > 'peanutbutter' wrench in your back little bag..
> >
>
> I don't follow your logic here. How does the method of braking have anything to
> do with the means by which the wheel is attached to the frame?
The (incorrect) assumption here is that the backwards-pressure of a hard stop
exerts more force on the QR than a hard acceleration would.
Mark Hickey
>"Hugh N. B. Flynn" wrote:
>> I don't follow your logic here. How does the method of braking have anything to
>> do with the means by which the wheel is attached to the frame?
>
>The (incorrect) assumption here is that the backwards-pressure of a hard stop
>exerts more force on the QR than a hard acceleration would.
How long does it take to go from zero to 25mph (40kph)?
How long does it take to go from 25mph to zero, using only the back
brake?
That is an indication of the total force being applied to the
dropouts, though under acceleration, the chain is pulling on only one
side of the hub.
Still, I'd have to guess that there's plenty of "backwards pressure"
during a hard stop (one that's done properly at least).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
David L. Johnson
> >> I don't follow your logic here. How does the method of braking have anything to
> >> do with the means by which the wheel is attached to the frame?
> >
> >The (incorrect) assumption here is that the backwards-pressure of a hard stop
> >exerts more force on the QR than a hard acceleration would.
>
> How long does it take to go from zero to 25mph (40kph)?
>
> How long does it take to go from 25mph to zero, using only the back
> brake?
Brake? I believe we were talking about a brakeless bike. I would estimate
that it takes considerably longer for the deceleration, particularly if it's
only the rear wheel (limited by the amount of force required to unload the
wheel). In addition, if you are using just your legs, your deceleration force
is limited by the strength you have to aply in that direction, which would be
considerably less-developed than the acceleration force we tend to concentrate
on. I also understand that such exercises are hard on the muscles, since you
are tensioning the muscles for backward rotation, but moving against that
tension, stretching the muscles that are being worked rather than contracting
them.
>
> That is an indication of the total force being applied to the
> dropouts, though under acceleration, the chain is pulling on only one
> side of the hub.
And if you are applying the brakes, the force on the hub is considerably less
than with an equivalent acceleration/deceleration from the pedals alone. Much
of the force is transmitted through the brake hanger directly.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of
_`\(,_ | business.
(_)/ (_) |
Keeper of the Mighty Macaulay
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> How long does it take to go from zero to 25mph (40kph)?
>>
>> How long does it take to go from 25mph to zero, using only the back
>> brake?
>
> Brake? I believe we were talking about a brakeless bike.
I'd certainly hope so, but others seem to think differently. I've said it
before, I'll say it again- if you're riding a track bike and you're looking
to stop, start looking for another bike. Hell, if you're going 25mph on any
bike, you'd better be looking to avoid a collision instead of just stopping
before you hit something because at that speed it's already too late to
stop. A fixed wheel combined with other speed-robbing systems will be more
effective at decelerating, of course, but never a substitute for being aware
and avoiding the accident in the first place.
> I would estimate
> that it takes considerably longer for the deceleration, particularly if it's
> only the rear wheel (limited by the amount of force required to unload the
> wheel). In addition, if you are using just your legs, your deceleration force
> is limited by the strength you have to aply in that direction, which would be
> considerably less-developed than the acceleration force we tend to concentrate
> on.
I'd say that almost for sure I can decelerate faster than I can accelerate
using force through the cranks. How effective your deceleration depends
much on weight distribution and not on pedal force alone. Along with
skip-stopping, I often unweight my rear wheel enough to skid for a distance
then shift my weight back and put some backward force on the pedals to
actually stop the bike (so I can lockup, not to avoid collision). With a
little practice, you can reverse the spin of the rear wheel.
> I also understand that such exercises are hard on the muscles, since you
> are tensioning the muscles for backward rotation, but moving against that
> tension, stretching the muscles that are being worked rather than contracting
> them.
Someone who knows physiology better than me please elaborate, but I don't
think there's a significant if any amount of force put into stretching
muscles- force is still through contraction, just of opposing muscles (ie
hamstrings v quads).
To the original poster: sure, you can use a Q/R, but if you're going to have
to carry a tube/patch kit and tire levers, how much worse is it to carry as
small crescent or peanut butter wrench? And if you're riding in the street
I'm going to assume you're going to have to lock your bike somewhere- it's
easy enough to steal a wheel with a wrench, but it takes just a couple
seconds longer than a q/r, just long enough to disuade a thief sometimes.
If you haven't already bought a rear hub, I recommend getting something
double-fixed (ie with lockrings on both sides)- in case you ever strip out
the threads on one side, you won't have lost the functionality of the hub
(riding fixed without a lockring is way to sketch for me unless you never
plan on putting back pressure on it). Phil hubs are pricey, but they're
solid and a 6mm allen takes less space than most tire levers.
BTW, I'm only 135lbs and I have had problems with a q/r slipping lose- I
think it might have been bent, but it doesn't take much to do that
sometimes.
Seng
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> >The (incorrect) assumption here is that the backwards-pressure of a hard stop
>> >exerts more force on the QR than a hard acceleration would.
>>
>> How long does it take to go from zero to 25mph (40kph)?
>>
>> How long does it take to go from 25mph to zero, using only the back
>> brake?
>
>Brake? I believe we were talking about a brakeless bike.
That was my asssumption... I just worded it badly. I meant "back
wheel" rather than "back brake".
> I would estimate
>that it takes considerably longer for the deceleration, particularly if it's
>only the rear wheel (limited by the amount of force required to unload the
>wheel).
It's much quicker to stop a fixed gear bike than to accelerate it (my
point, actually). Maybe not the first time you try it though... ;-)
> In addition, if you are using just your legs, your deceleration force
>is limited by the strength you have to aply in that direction, which would be
>considerably less-developed than the acceleration force we tend to concentrate
>on. I also understand that such exercises are hard on the muscles, since you
>are tensioning the muscles for backward rotation, but moving against that
>tension, stretching the muscles that are being worked rather than contracting
>them.
The legs (and all muscles) can "absorb" much more work than they can
do. In fact, there's even gym equipment that takes advantage of this
- you might press 200 pounds with the leg press, but then it's going
to push back with double that on the release. Going down stairs is
another example.
Jump as high as your leg muscles will take you. If you're like me,
it's not all that high. Now climb onto something twice as high as
your jump, and jump off. VERY easy to land without straining anything
or feeling any significant exertion, even though you just "absorbed"
more than twice as much force (and in a shorter time frame).
Qui si parla Campagnolo
My point also-if you have a fixed with one brake or none-I think that a nutted
rear is essential as I don't think a QR will hold the wheel tight enough..Most
around here use a single front or none...
Daniel Connelly
> rear is essential
Sounds painful.
Pete Geurds
>nutted
>rear is essential as I don't think a QR will hold the wheel tight
>enough..Most
>around here use a single front or none...
>
I just don't understand the fascination of a bike with no brakes (outside a
track environment).
In unrelated news, "Death Wish 2" was on over the weekend........
Pete Geurds
Douglassville, PA
Sheldon Brown
> > >exerts more force on the QR than a hard acceleration would.
I'm having trouble keeping track of all of the ">"s, but let me point out
that the net forces on the rear axle are clearly less under leg "braking" of
a fixed gear than they are with forward accelleration.
Lets look at the two horizontal forces on the wheel. There's the pull of
the chain, and the horizontal force exerted by the traction of the tire on
the road.
標ith forward acceleration, these forces both point forward, so they add together.
標ith leg "braking", the traction force is pulling backward, while the chain
still pulls forward, so the net horizontal force is the chain pull _minus_
the traction pull.
Even without theoretical analysis, any reasonable amount of observation of
bikes in the real world would reveal that improperly-secured wheels always
pull forward, never backward.
Further, maximum leg "braking" force is limited by tire slip, and the weight
transfer that arises from decelleration allows the tire to slip fairly
easily in this direction.
Maximum driving force is limited by a tendency to wheelie, which is almost
impossible with gears and frame geometry typical for fixed-gear bikes.
Sheldon "Free-Body Diagram" Brown
+------------------------------------------------+
| Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, |
| but most of the time he will pick himself up |
| and continue on. -- Sir Winston Churchill |
+------------------------------------------------+
John Henderson
wrote:
>I just don't understand the fascination of a bike with no brakes (outside a
>track environment).
At least 'round here, the fascination is made up of some combination
of:
Tradition (that's they way they've always done it)
Street "Cred" (No brakes! That's 'core, dude!)
Reducing "steal-ablity" (fewer parts to steal, plus some reduced
likelyhood the thief will ride off with your bike)
Of course, just because I kinda understand the fascination, it doesn't
mean that I agree with it. I have a front brake on my fixie, and have
only taken it off to race it on the track.
John Henderson, New York City, USA
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Let's roll!" -- Todd Beamer, 9/11/01
"After five and weekends" -- 711th SOS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David L. Johnson
> > Brake? I believe we were talking about a brakeless bike.
>
> I'd certainly hope so, but others seem to think differently.
I didn't say I approved of riding on the road without a brake. Frankly, it's
dumb.
> I've said it
> before, I'll say it again- if you're riding a track bike and you're looking
> to stop, start looking for another bike. Hell, if you're going 25mph on any
> bike, you'd better be looking to avoid a collision instead of just stopping
> before you hit something because at that speed it's already too late to
> stop.
That doesn't take away from the need of a brake. There is a reason why road
bikes have two brakes -- several, actually, but the one that is relevant is
that you need a backup. If you have only one way to stop you are SOL if
something happens to it. Fr example, on your brakeless bike, if the chain
brakes.
> A fixed wheel combined with other speed-robbing systems will be more
> effective at decelerating, of course, but never a substitute for being aware
> and avoiding the accident in the first place.
Of course.
> I'd say that almost for sure I can decelerate faster than I can accelerate
> using force through the cranks. How effective your deceleration depends
> much on weight distribution and not on pedal force alone.
That weight distribution effectively shifts away from the rear wheel during
deceleration.
> Along with
> skip-stopping, I often unweight my rear wheel enough to skid for a distance
> then shift my weight back and put some backward force on the pedals to
> actually stop the bike (so I can lockup, not to avoid collision). With a
> little practice, you can reverse the spin of the rear wheel.
Which does not matter. Your stopping distance is still longer than when using
a front brake properly.
>
> > I also understand that such exercises are hard on the muscles, since you
> > are tensioning the muscles for backward rotation, but moving against that
> > tension, stretching the muscles that are being worked rather than contracting
> > them.
>
> Someone who knows physiology better than me please elaborate, but I don't
> think there's a significant if any amount of force put into stretching
> muscles- force is still through contraction, just of opposing muscles (ie
> hamstrings v quads).
Yes, the force of the muscle is through contraction, but the forward motion of
the bike stretches those muscles you are trying to contract.
>
> To the original poster: sure, you can use a Q/R, but if you're going to have
> to carry a tube/patch kit and tire levers, how much worse is it to carry as
> small crescent or peanut butter wrench? And if you're riding in the street
> I'm going to assume you're going to have to lock your bike somewhere- it's
> easy enough to steal a wheel with a wrench, but it takes just a couple
> seconds longer than a q/r, just long enough to disuade a thief sometimes.
I'd agree here. There really isn't much advantage to the QR in the rear.
>
> If you haven't already bought a rear hub, I recommend getting something
> double-fixed (ie with lockrings on both sides)- in case you ever strip out
> the threads on one side, you won't have lost the functionality of the hub
and it's also nice to have a different gear in reserve if conditions change.
> (riding fixed without a lockring is way to sketch for me unless you never
> plan on putting back pressure on it). Phil hubs are pricey, but they're
> solid and a 6mm allen takes less space than most tire levers.
You can get cheaper double-sided hubs. I have a Dura-Ace that is a beautiful
component.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]
David L. Johnson
> It's much quicker to stop a fixed gear bike than to accelerate it (my
> point, actually). Maybe not the first time you try it though... ;-)
>
I have tried it once or twice 8^). Still, though, I think I can accelerate
it more quickly. It really doesn't take that long to get up to speed.
> Jump as high as your leg muscles will take you. If you're like me,
> it's not all that high. Now climb onto something twice as high as
> your jump, and jump off. VERY easy to land without straining anything
> or feeling any significant exertion, even though you just "absorbed"
> more than twice as much force (and in a shorter time frame).
Good analogy. But I still think it takes longer to stop the bike (w/o brakes)
than start it. I'll have to try an experiment.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
_`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |
David L. Johnson
> My point also-if you have a fixed with one brake or none-I think that a nutted
> rear is essential as I don't think a QR will hold the wheel tight enough..Most
> around here use a single front or none...
Well, around here (Philly) there are enough hills for me to be "encouraged" to
get a second brake for my track bike. I also like having the second brake
hood for climbing.
Tom Nakashima
I also ride with a front brake on my fixedgear. I rigged it so I can
disconnect the lever, cables and brakes if needed. I've learned my lesson
once on a descent, where I nearly crashed because I couldn't keep the bike
under control just backpedaling. I did have toe clips, but removed them when
I put on the brake.
I have seen some awesome fixedgear street riders who can stop on a dime
without a brake, by just backpedaling. On the same note, I asked Richard
Moon (master bike builder) why he has a front and rear brakes on his
fixedgear bike. His reply; "because I like to ride fast!" Others I have
met on the road, a 60+yr. old cyclist on his fixedgear with no brake but a
glove on one hand. He uses the gloved hand to brake the front tire while
backpedaling at the same time.
I do find fxedgears fascinating, it's simplicity that I enjoy, no
derailleurs, shifters, or cluttered cables. You definitely can't go as fast
as a geared bike on the flats or decents, but you may take a few on the
hills. I once caught a rider ascending up a hill. He said; "no fair, you
have more gears than me!" I said; "look again!" I still remember the look
on his face.
Fixedgears are not for everyone but I sure enjoy it.
-tom
"John Henderson" <jh...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3c16373d...@news.nyu.edu...
Marjan Sterk
<capt...@sheldonbrown.com> wrote:
>Even without theoretical analysis, any reasonable amount of observation of
>bikes in the real world would reveal that improperly-secured wheels always
>pull forward, never backward.
If the wheel would move from braking, it would still pull forward as
the forward force from the chain is much larger than the backward
force from the ground - as many times larger as the wheel is bigger
than the cog.
Toby Hamilton
news:3c1601d4....@netnews.att.net...
I agree that most people could stop a fixed-gear bike (using reverse torque
only) from any reasonable speed in less time and space than it takes to
accelerate to that speed. But I wonder if that isn't clouding the issue with
respect to using a QR rear wheel on a fixed gear bike? If the issue is
whether or not the QR will hold the wheel securely enough, then we should be
looking at the peak forces involved. Either they are high enough that the QR
will slip, or they aren't.
The bike messengers I see around here riding fixed gears don't seem to have
any trouble locking up their rear wheels on dry pavement, so the limiting
case in that direction seem to be traction at the rear wheel. In the forward
direction I'd expect peak forces to occur at a standing start, and I'd also
expect most people could apply at least as much torque in the forward
direction as the reverse, since the crank is stationary in both of these
cases. So if you've got enough muscle x gear to lock up the wheel stopping,
you should be able to generate more than that starting up, where the weight
transfer works for you rather than against you.
What I don't know is if this kind of gearing is "typical" for a fixed gear
bike, or if these guys are just riding around with small gears that make
locking the rear wheel possible. In the case where the rider can't lock up
the rear wheel, then it's not so simple.
--
Toby Hamilton (th-...@rogers.com)
Daniel Mitchell
news:3jwR7.7173$JL11...@news2.bloor.is:
> have any trouble locking up their rear wheels on dry pavement, so the
> limiting case in that direction seem to be traction at the rear wheel.
It's worth knowing that the trick to locking up the rear wheel on a fixie
(without using the brake) is to throw your weight forwards to unload the
rear wheel until it starts to slide, then put weight back as you slow down.
I don't think anyone can just lock their legs and stop the back wheel
without some weight shift (well, unless they're on ice/have _mammoth_ legs).
It's also completely different things going on when you're accelerating to
decelerating (with your legs, at least -- QR ignored for now) --
acceleration you pull up/push down, use your arms to gain power, etc.
Braking, you lock both legs straight as best as you can, pull up with the
front foot, push down with the back, and lean on the bars to get the weight
shift.
In other words, there's a lot of other complicating issues at work here..
-- dan
Steve Taylor
Most of the rides were 40-60 miles with a group of 35-80 riders, all on geared
bikes. It makes for a very interesting ride......
When I used to actually use a track bike on these rides I had a nutted rear
wheel.
When I started using a road bike conversion, I did notice at times (when I
checked after) that the wheel "slightly" pulled forward on the drive-side
dropout. When I started using a "Shimano, MTB skewer that was sharply knurled on
the contact area AND.......tightening it very well........ the movement went
away.
And WHEN this movement happens on a fixed gear the slack can then be just enough
that the chain can jump off the rear cog...YIKES!!!!
Steve
Lets talk REAL man stuff!! How many of you fixed roadies do not use a lock
ring????
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
Tom Nakashima
reverse motion of the cranks, has a lot to do with technique and development
of the leg muscles.
It took me awhile (approx. six months) before I felt comfortable braking.
One of the techniques I've learned was to stand and put a lot of my weight
on the rear, while using my leg muscles to backpedal. I also ride a
unicycle both frontward and backwards which has helped in strengthing these
muscles.
-tom
A Muzi
500 sidepull but very effective compared to rear wheel braking alone.
Tom Nakashima wrote:
--
Tom Nakashima
I still have a front brake on my fixedgear, but rarely use it, and when I
do, it's on descents and panic stops. I don't have toe-clips or clipless
pedals, just open pedals. The hills I ride, I know the routes by heart.
What's fun is lifting my feet/legs out of the way of the moving pedals while
descending, sometimes feathering the front brake. Rolling hills are the most
fun.
I usually use reverse crank for braking in the city.
btw, what's a 500 sidepull? Is that the brand or the price?
-tom
"A Muzi" <am...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:3c180e69$0$43572$272e...@news.execpc.com...
A Muzi
"a cheap 500 brake" is a standard Weinmann or DiaCompe standard reach sidepull -
still costs $10~$15 today. The sizes are 450, 500, 730, 810, 1000 ranging from
modern short-reach (which Sheldon correctly points out has become "standard")
through BMX length.
Personally I'm chicken to ride my fixed with feet off the pedals. Hats off to
you!
Tom Nakashima wrote:
--
David L. Johnson
Tom Nakashima wrote:
> Don't get me wrong Muzi,
> I still have a front brake on my fixedgear, but rarely use it, and when I
> do, it's on descents and panic stops. I don't have toe-clips or clipless
> pedals, just open pedals. The hills I ride, I know the routes by heart.
> What's fun is lifting my feet/legs out of the way of the moving pedals while
> descending, sometimes feathering the front brake.
That is just plain foolhardy.
> I usually use reverse crank for braking in the city.
> btw, what's a 500 sidepull? Is that the brand or the price?
Weinmann sidepull brake. Fairly common years ago, it was the only
side-pull that worked at all reasonably before Campy came along.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
Sheldon Brown
> > btw, what's a 500 sidepull? Is that the brand or the price?
"David L. Johnson" wrote:
> Weinmann sidepull brake. Fairly common years ago, it was the only
> side-pull that worked at all reasonably before Campy came along.
I beg to differ. All sidepull calipers with similar length arms work about
equally well. GB sidepulls were the equal of Weinmann, as were the Lam
units that came on my OTB. I'd rate the old Universals a bit higher, though
the Universal _levers_ had less mechanical advantage, which somewhat
detracted from them as a system.
Even the steel sidepull calipers common on 3-speeds work just fine if given
decent shoes and aluminum rims.
A caliper is a simple leverage device, and there is very little difference
in braking power bewteen one and another. Some newer ones have lower
friction in the moving parts, which is a Good Thing. That's why I consider
the Shimano 105 SLRs to be the finest sidepulls ever, thanks to their ball
bearing pivots.
Some have more or less flexible arms, but that has more effect on "feel"
than on actual braking power.
Sheldon "Used To Like Altenberger Dual Pivots" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------+
| When it is dark enough you can see the stars. |
| --R.W. Emerson |
+-------------------------------------------------+
David L. Johnson
> "David L. Johnson" wrote:
>
>
>>Weinmann sidepull brake. Fairly common years ago, it was the only
>>side-pull that worked at all reasonably before Campy came along.
>>
>
> I beg to differ. All sidepull calipers with similar length arms work about
> equally well.
My memory was that most of them would not stay centered very well, and
would rub on the rim in a short time. I never had trouble with the
Weinmanns with that, but did with the Universals. It may have been a
spring problem (corroded or otherwise not working evenly), but I found
it annoying. I also found that when the Campy brakes came out (or,
actually, much later when I could afford them) they were much easier to
keep centered, and of course the modern dual-pivot makes this mindless.
Tom Nakashima
I gave up riding with toeclips because of the city, stop & go traffic. Got
to be a hassle strapping and unstrapping, when track stands weren't
possible. Too many close calls not being able to get out fast enough and
then having to strap back in. A lot of riders like yourself do it and feel
safe, in my opinion, "That's Gutsy!"
Many people think you have to ride a fixedgear on the street as if you were
riding a tack bike on the velodrome. For me it's the opposite. I use my
roadbike for fast pace riding and the fixedgear as relaxation.
-tom
"A Muzi" <am...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:3c194252$0$65153$272e...@news.execpc.com...
A Muzi
> > "David L. Johnson" wrote:
> >>Weinmann sidepull brake. Fairly common years ago, it was the only
> >>side-pull that worked at all reasonably before Campy came along.
> >>
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > I beg to differ. All sidepull calipers with similar length arms work about
> > equally well.
>
> My memory was that most of them would not stay centered very well, and
> would rub on the rim in a short time. I never had trouble with the
> Weinmanns with that, but did with the Universals. It may have been a
> spring problem (corroded or otherwise not working evenly), but I found
> it annoying. I also found that when the Campy brakes came out (or,
> actually, much later when I could afford them) they were much easier to
> keep centered, and of course the modern dual-pivot makes this mindless.
I'm with Sheldon. Each brand of sidepull has its own foibles (OK, except for the
Record which is pretty bombproof) but nearly all can be made to work very well.
Especially Raleigh steel sidepulls, which have a horrible reputation. They are a
dream when set up properly with modern PTFE cables - and _stiff_ as anything
you'd want!
The Universal #51 and later the Super 68 came late to the
wrench-flat-on-the-centerbolt idea. We used to file flats on them making them
quicker to center.