US: Judge finds fault with fixies

[Resound]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I presume weight transfer on an unsuspended bicycle isn't as great as
> it is on the heavier suspended motorcycle, but wouldn't a front brake
> be more efficient at stopping the bike than any back brake? Is the
> desire for a completely clean bike worth the lack of redundancy and
> the inefficiency of rear braking?
>
The front brake is enormously more effective than the rear in stopping a
bicycle, just as it is on a motorcycle. When you get it just right, the back
wheel shold effectively be hovering just off the deck, again just like a
motorcycle In this instance, I personally agree that fixies should run a
front brake, but I would also suggest that the law as it's written at the
moment doesn't say that. I kind of agree with the outcome, but I don't agree
with the judges reasoning, nor his reading of the law and I would question
his understanding of what he was ruling on. My fixie's certainly getting a
front brake.

 

[Resound]

"rdk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> John Stevenson Wrote:
>> cfsmtb wrote:
>>
>> Interpreting legislation written by cretins so that it is actually
>> useful out in the world is one thing judges are for.Especially in the US
>> it *is* the judges' job to interpret legislation.
> The people who wrote the law intended that bikes had a brake. No
> reasonable person (reasonable person is actually a legal concept) would
> interpret a brake as back peddling on a fixie. Therefore the cylist was
> wrong and the judge correct.
>
> I was nearly cleaned up by one real cool dude riding a fixie on the
> footpath in the city the other day. I think the law here should say
> they have to have brakes.
>

I like to think I'm a fairly reasonable person. Skip-skidding on a fixie is
a means by which the rear wheel is retarded and it certainly slows the bike
down. It is therefore a braking mechanism. It's not a good braking
mechanism, and I personally think all bikes should have a front brake but to
claim that something isn't a brake because that's not *all* it does isn't
correct.

 

[Friday]

Resound wrote:
> "rdk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>John Stevenson Wrote:
>>
>>>cfsmtb wrote:
>>>
>>>Interpreting legislation written by cretins so that it is actually
>>>useful out in the world is one thing judges are for.Especially in the US
>>>it *is* the judges' job to interpret legislation.
>>
>>The people who wrote the law intended that bikes had a brake. No
>>reasonable person (reasonable person is actually a legal concept) would
>>interpret a brake as back peddling on a fixie. Therefore the cylist was
>>wrong and the judge correct.
>>
>>I was nearly cleaned up by one real cool dude riding a fixie on the
>>footpath in the city the other day. I think the law here should say
>>they have to have brakes.
>>
>
>
> I like to think I'm a fairly reasonable person. Skip-skidding on a fixie is
> a means by which the rear wheel is retarded and it certainly slows the bike
> down. It is therefore a braking mechanism. It's not a good braking
> mechanism, and I personally think all bikes should have a front brake but to
> claim that something isn't a brake because that's not *all* it does isn't
> correct.
>
>

Tell it to the judge buddy.

Friday

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:21:48 +1000
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
> bicycle, just as it is on a motorcycle. When you get it just right, the back
> wheel shold effectively be hovering just off the deck, again just like a
> motorcycle In this instance, I personally agree that fixies should run a
> front brake, but I would also suggest that the law as it's written at the
> moment doesn't say that. I kind of agree with the outcome, but I don't agree
> with the judges reasoning, nor his reading of the law and I would question
> his understanding of what he was ruling on. My fixie's certainly getting a
> front brake.

I think the judge had a problem. He could see that the *intent* of
the law was to have decent brakes. He probably could also see that
the way it was written was subverting the intent given the situation
in front of him.

I dunno if ignoring the written word was sensible.

Zebee

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-05, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In this instance, I personally agree that fixies should run a
> front brake, but I would also suggest that the law as it's written at the
> moment doesn't say that. I kind of agree with the outcome, but I don't agree
> with the judges reasoning, nor his reading of the law and I would question
> his understanding of what he was ruling on.

The precedent he has now set in law is a questionable precedent to be
setting. Not the least his stupid comment about a stick against the
tire being good enough.

--
TimC
Shift to the Left;
Shift to the Right
Pop up; Push down
Byte! Byte! Byte!!! --unknown

 

[dave]

Resound wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I presume weight transfer on an unsuspended bicycle isn't as great as
>>it is on the heavier suspended motorcycle, but wouldn't a front brake
>>be more efficient at stopping the bike than any back brake? Is the
>>desire for a completely clean bike worth the lack of redundancy and
>>the inefficiency of rear braking?
>>
>
> The front brake is enormously more effective than the rear in stopping a
> bicycle, just as it is on a motorcycle. When you get it just right, the back
> wheel shold effectively be hovering just off the deck, again just like a
> motorcycle In this instance, I personally agree that fixies should run a
> front brake, but I would also suggest that the law as it's written at the
> moment doesn't say that. I kind of agree with the outcome, but I don't agree
> with the judges reasoning, nor his reading of the law and I would question
> his understanding of what he was ruling on. My fixie's certainly getting a
> front brake.
>
>
I sort of agreee with you here. THe point is that the bicycle meets the
mandated braking standard. End of story. Thats not to say it would be
good enough for me. All pushbike brakes are ****. (well roadbike
brakes) Just not enough rubber to stop with. I would want them to be as
close to being real brakes as possibel And so would any sensible
person. BUT her brakes met the letter of the law. The case should have
been chucked. And probably will be on appeal

Dave

 

[Random Data]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:22:18 +1000, dave wrote:

> All pushbike brakes are ****. (well roadbike brakes) Just not enough
> rubber to stop with.

Every modern bike I've ridden has a maximum braking limit involving
throwing the rider over the bars, unless there is *serious* weight out
back (a trailer, or 15kg+ on a rack). In the wet this isn't the case, but
maximum braking is normally right hand only, because the back is floating
just off the ground.

It is possible to get a front 2.5" bald knobbly to skid on tar, but it
takes ~40kg of trailer behind the bike.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order." - The Doctor

 

[Resound]

"Random Data" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:22:18 +1000, dave wrote:
>
>> All pushbike brakes are ****. (well roadbike brakes) Just not enough
>> rubber to stop with.
>
> Every modern bike I've ridden has a maximum braking limit involving
> throwing the rider over the bars, unless there is *serious* weight out
> back (a trailer, or 15kg+ on a rack). In the wet this isn't the case, but
> maximum braking is normally right hand only, because the back is floating
> just off the ground.
>
> It is possible to get a front 2.5" bald knobbly to skid on tar, but it
> takes ~40kg of trailer behind the bike.
>
> --
> Dave Hughes | [email protected]
> "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." - The Doctor
>

I think both TimC and I can attest that that's not the case with OCR3s.
Great honkin' handfuls of brake and absolutely no sign of the thing wanting
to lift the rear off the deck. Unfortunately

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-05, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "Random Data" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> It is possible to get a front 2.5" bald knobbly to skid on tar, but it
>> takes ~40kg of trailer behind the bike.

And you don't really want that even then. Lack of steering and all.

> I think both TimC and I can attest that that's not the case with OCR3s.
> Great honkin' handfuls of brake and absolutely no sign of the thing wanting
> to lift the rear off the deck. Unfortunately

Put koolstops on and have a taxi threaten to complete their U-turn on you.

<nod> <nod> <nod> <nod>.

Wheee!

--
TimC
My other car is a cdr

 

[suzyj]

Random Data wrote:

> Every modern bike I've ridden has a maximum braking limit
> involving throwing the rider over the bars, unless there is
> *serious* weight out back (a trailer, or 15kg+ on a rack).

Agreed. With the notable exception of my old roadie with single-pivot '80s vintage Campy brakes (which are dreadful), all of my modern bikes have the ability to lift the rear wheel. I reckon the only reason for rear brakes is to give you an indication (via skidding) that the rear wheel is starting to leave the road.

On a related note, center of gravity is a surprisingly important contributor to how quickly you can lose speed. On descents, I can brake much deeper into corners by simply pushing my (ample) bum off the back of the seat.

Cheers,

Suzy

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 6 Aug 2006 09:08:53 +1000
suzyj <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. With the notable exception of my old roadie with single-pivot
> '80s vintage Campy brakes (which are dreadful), all of my modern bikes
> have the ability to lift the rear wheel. I reckon the only reason for
> rear brakes is to give you an indication (via skidding) that the rear
> wheel is starting to leave the road.

I'm not sure that follows. After all, if you have the front on
lightly and the rear on hard, the rear is likely to lock and skid
before being anywhere near lifting.

I can skid the bent rear wheel dead easy, I'm still practicing to lift
it. Seems a lot harder than on an upright.

Zebee

 

[Random Data]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:08:53 +1000, suzyj wrote:

> I reckon the only reason for rear brakes is to give you an indication
> (via skidding) that the rear wheel is starting to leave the road.

Backup system in case of front failure (pads worn out, cable snaps, etc.)

On really **** surfaces it's useful to have lots of braking contact. You
can't generate enough to really push your weight forward. This is very
rare on road, but not that uncommon offroad. If you've got a trailer or
lots of weight out back it's also useful because the back has more weight
to keep contact, so becomes quite effective.

The back brake is also useful for emergency turning, mainly offroad. Just
like a rally car uses a hand brake to slide sideways through a corner you
can use the back brake to slide a bike. It's slower than riding the corner
properly, but can get you through if you've overcooked something. It's
also rather nasty to the track, so not recommended.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"I have an asteroid named after me. Isaac
Asimov's got one too. It's smaller and more
eccentric. " - Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Random Data]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:40:51 +0000, TimC wrote:

> And you don't really want that even then. Lack of steering and all.

It's fun though. It used to be a bit of a trick to see how far through
Martin Place you could ride in the wet with the front wheel locked. This
was in the middle of the night with no one around, and Martin Pl has one
of those surfaces that gets ridiculously slippery in the rain. I think the
most any of the guys I rode with ever made was around 10m.

The reason I know I can lock that wheel is because I wanted to see if I
could. Sufficiently short application in a straight line makes it unlikely
you'll fall off.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Frankly, your argument wouldn't float were the sea composed of mercury.
- Biff

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-05, suzyj (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On a related note, center of gravity is a surprisingly important
> contributor to how quickly you can lose speed. On descents, I can
> brake much deeper into corners by simply pushing my (ample) bum off the
> back of the seat.

I admit I'm a shite descender and cornerer, but I've found I can
corner a lot better (well, I feel more comfortable doing it, and I
haven't slipped over yet) by lowering my centre of gravity and perhaps
moving it forward -- by getting far down into the drops.

What's the go, two different almost opposing methods -- which is the
one that the pros do?

--
TimC
You can't tuna fish, but you can put tuna on a piano.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-06, Random Data (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> The back brake is also useful for emergency turning, mainly offroad. Just
> like a rally car uses a hand brake to slide sideways through a corner you
> can use the back brake to slide a bike. It's slower than riding the corner
> properly, but can get you through if you've overcooked something. It's
> also rather nasty to the track, so not recommended.

Nah, you use the pedals for that. Seemed to work well for Ess this
morning on the hairpin

--
TimC
Obviously, "Mother Nature" disagrees with your assessment that money
equates with success. I wonder who will win the argument? -- someone on /.

 

[Random Data]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:21:09 +0000, TimC wrote:

> What's the go, two different almost opposing methods -- which is the
> one that the pros do?

Both. Back for braking, forward for pushing the front wheel in. You need
the grip on that wheel, and the back will follow you around. On a dual
suspension bike you can even move your weight back as you come out of a
tight corner to force the tail through and get a bit of a spring out of it
- hardtails don't react in quite the same way.

On road I don't move around anywhere near as much as I do offroad, but
it's still important to get on the bike properly. Watching the behind
rider camera in motorbike races is interesting to get an idea of how much
body position matters. Admittedly those bikes are a lot heavier in
comparison, and have a throttle to upset the balance as well, but the
idea of moving your body around is obvious.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order." - The Doctor

 

[Random Data]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:23:29 +0000, TimC wrote:

> Nah, you use the pedals for that. Seemed to work well for Ess this
> morning on the hairpin

The idea of using the back brake is to limit your time losses. And skin
losses

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
We tend to view 'all publicity is good publicity' as a challenge
we should endeavour to meet - The Register

 

[suzyj]

TimC wrote:

> I admit I'm a shite descender and cornerer, but I've found
> I can corner a lot better (well, I feel more comfortable
> doing it, and I haven't slipped over yet) by lowering my
> centre of gravity and perhaps moving it forward -- by
> getting far down into the drops.

I'm a self-confessed brick. There's no one right position for a quick descent. When I want to lose speed, I push my body back while holding the drops, as that allows me to lose speed quicker without lifting the back wheel. Once I've finished decellerating, I'll bring my bum back onto the seat to do the main part of the corner, then bum up to sprint back up to speed as I leave the corner.

Once up to speed, bum back on the very nose of the saddle, knees together, hold near the middle of the bars and tuck elbows in, with chin just tapping stem, until the next corner, where the whole process repeats.

I noticed some of the guys in the Tour this year actually pulled their bum forward off the saddle while descending on the straighter parts. I'm not that keen.

A decent twisty descent (like Falls Creek, for example) can be pretty exhausting to do really quickly.

Cheers,

Suzy (**** climber)

 

[Resound]

"TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-05, Resound (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> "Random Data" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>> It is possible to get a front 2.5" bald knobbly to skid on tar, but it
>>> takes ~40kg of trailer behind the bike.
>
> And you don't really want that even then. Lack of steering and all.
>
>> I think both TimC and I can attest that that's not the case with OCR3s.
>> Great honkin' handfuls of brake and absolutely no sign of the thing
>> wanting
>> to lift the rear off the deck. Unfortunately
>
> Put koolstops on and have a taxi threaten to complete their U-turn on you.
>
> <nod> <nod> <nod> <nod>.
>
> Wheee!
>
> --
> TimC
> My other car is a cdr

I've got salmons on and it's much improved, but I haven't had the back wheel
up yet.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-06, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-08-05, Resound (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>> to lift the rear off the deck. Unfortunately
>>
>> Put koolstops on and have a taxi threaten to complete their U-turn on you.
>>
>> <nod> <nod> <nod> <nod>.
>>
>> Wheee!
>
> I've got salmons on and it's much improved, but I haven't had the back wheel
> up yet.

What's your address? I'll send a taxi right your way

--
TimC
"You can't trust any bugger further than you can
throw him, and there's nothing you can do about it,
so let's have a drink." -- Terry Pratchett