Gothamist: Fixed In Their Ways

kit

Sat, 10 May 2008 02:29:37 -0500

man, sorry for the typos!

kit

Sat, 10 May 2008 02:27:44 -0500

hmmm speaking from auckland nz might not qualify me on on nyc but akld is more full on than san fran for hills and its virtually impossible to navigate the whole city safely without a front brake at least. theres a whole buch of fixies here and they/we kind of avoid the suicide hills as much as possible. but that it like a bit of a waste of time avoiding the challege of hills if you cant stop. kind of like saying im all about ultimate riding but i cant take the terrain. hats of to the mash crew etc but the average perso wants to ride like a dervish and not wipe out to the extent they need sticthes in their face. im as reckless as they come after riding round london for a decade but but im 3q and i dont really want to get killed by some jockey in a car over cluttering up my handlebars. maybe im the fist to say it here but it seems like once youve ridden without a brake you feel like a charlatan going back, its like the first time you get a skinhead. its stripped down, its fucks of yr mum and kind of scary! that said people get knocked off their bikes/and or killed with or without brakes and if a car decides to change lanes without indicating youre fucked. i cruised past a dude who got knocked over (i was brakeless, he wasnt) the other day and all ill say is when im riding without brakes i take double the care i did when i had brakes. anyway i love the bitching for both sides, keep it up x

gttim

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:01:59 -0500

Please tell my why a cog or hub would cost $200.00 alone? Quality! The difference in the quality and smoothness in the bearings of a hub us huge going from cheap to expensive. There are weight differences. There are differences in materials. A domestic economy car is never going to be as nice as a German sports car. Yeah, you can ride an $80 bike for 4 years. But it is much nicer to ride a $1000 bike for 4 years, and if you ride a lot, the more expensive bike has a better chance of lasting that long.

armchair_warrior

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:20:12 -0500

its all cool and stuff. as a driver i hate some of these guys.

dee bee

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:58:53 -0500

sorry folks, didn't mean to post it multiple times - the comment system isn't working properly.

Shaddap

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:17:36 -0500

We heard you the first 3 times!

dee bee

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:05:52 -0500

why are people hating hipsters so much? oh yeah, it's because there is nothing really unique or expressive about them because they all just mimic each other. it's just another version of conformity - just another way of being 'mainstream' - just a group of people who are afraid of being themselves and therefore blend in with another group. but thank god they're into bikes and not suvs or any kind of car! you gotta love that!

dee bee

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:58:16 -0500

on the topic of hipsters, there is nothing really unique or expressive about them because they all just mimic each other. it's just another version of conformity - just another way of being 'mainstream' - just a group of people who are afraid of being themselves and therefore blend in with another group. but thank god they're into bikes and not suvs or any kind of car!

dee bee

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:57:14 -0500

dee bee

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:56:08 -0500

Shilo

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:37:23 -0500

kiki: regarding comment #8. fyi, gyp is a racial slur. watch yourself.

Rocknrope

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:38:03 -0500

I can't wait to see how many newbie fixies do endovers in this coming weekend's 5-Boro.

g

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:41:17 -0500

actually, brightliner, it's better to brake the rear wheel than the front, which is why on bikes with brakes the rear brake is controlled by a lever on the right handlebar (since most people are righties and would instinctively squeeze that one when time is of the essence.) if you have to stop short, it's better to use the rear wheel's brake so you don't flip your bike over.

kat four

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:31:06 -0500

I'm a fan of New England Cyclocross myself. wow, shimano makes internal gear hubs now? awesome.

Brightliner

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:52:53 -0500

It's a common misconception that a fixed gear is required to do a trackstand. No so. A trackstand is really balancing the forward force on the pedals against a backward force provided by turning the front wheel to point "uphill" on either the track banking or the crowning of the road. Obviously, it's easier on the track because the banking is steeper and provides more backward force. But it can be done on any kind of bike if you know the technique.

DaveH

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:19:30 -0500

We're generally agnostic on this overall topic, but we do enjoy witnessing a great traffic-light trackstand. We wish we could do it ourselves, so appreciate watching people that have mastered it.

Brightliner

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:54:23 -0500

It's been known for many decades that fixed-gear bikes don't stop as well as a bike with good brakes. A skidding tire is one that doesn't have as much friction on the road as a rolling tire. Besides, the best you can do is skid the rear tire, and most braking force comes from the front tire since that's where the weight transfers when you start braking. All else being equal, it's far better to brake the front wheel than the rear. Fixed-gear bikes don't belong on city streets. They were designed for track racing, where sudden stops aren't necessary. Besides, it's all baloney about track bikes being more maneuverable and easier to maintain. Maneuverability is almost exclusively a function of frame geometry, not gearing. And just how much maintenance do a couple of brakes need? Or the nearly maintenance-free internal gears of systems like Shimano's Nexus? And, yes, gearhead, going downhill means either fanning the pedals to keep up or fighting the rotation of the pedals. Despite what fixies claim, the latter is not easy. What would we need with another Nelson Vails anyway? Track racing is slowly dying. We need more road and mountain bike racers, which is where Olympic cycling is going. Not to mention Vails, Gorski and the other track medal winners at the 84 Olympics will always be remembered as winning at least in part because the Soviet riders were boycotting those games. We'll never know if they were really as good as the medals indicate, although I'm pretty sure Connie Carpenter and Rebecca Twigg could have held their own against the Soviet road racers.

b

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:29:51 -0500

biking is NOT the best way to get around this city (NYC) - it's probably the most dangerous city in America to ride in

jammer

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:24:23 -0500

fixed gear purists tend to be really boring people.

pone

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:12:32 -0500

i started riding a fix because i tried it and thought it was cool. that was a bunch of years ago. i have a bike with a brake on it, and one with no place to mount a brake. i love riding both. i'm safe. i have a helmet. i live in the bronx, not williamsburg. i ride 20+ miles a day to and from work and everywhere else. i think people should be safe. also, re: bikes - three characteristics for bikes and parts: cheap, light, and strong. you can only pick two of them. no sense snarking on people for spending money on bikes. everybody spends money on stuff - cars, clothes, apartments in a cool neighborhood, bar tabs, bikes, vacations, whatever. i don't really think it's anybody's place to be overly critical of what other people's choices about stuff like this are. biking is a great way to get around the city. oh, and nick - the glances you get from people riding fixes are, in all likelihood, just people looking at your bike, wondering what it is. there's probably a lot less sneering at gears than you imagine. i know that feeling - i've gotten it too - but i've never actually heard anybody who rides a track or a fix disparage the notion of riding with gears (the notion that gears are absolutely necessary, on the other hand...). biking is the best way to get around this city. it's fast, it's fun, it's healthy - for the rider and for everybody else. if we had a lot more riders, and a lot more bike-centric infrastructure - this city would be even better. oh, and richard sacher - yes, skidding does wear the tire a bit, but i can still get a thousand miles out of a tire (a decent one, like a conti gatorskin) before it gets objectionably worn. anyway, it's just bikes, people, and fun. there's really no reason for vitriol on this issue. oh, but right, this is gothamist's comments section. what would a news source be without people posting unnecessarily hateful things...

r

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:40:33 -0500

The appeal of no breaks? It's a weight issue, an aesthetics issue, and a riding style issue. It feels great to be able to stop your bike with just your legs pressing back on the cranks. If you can't stop your bike, put some breaks on it. Or get smooshed by a truck, I guess.

r

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:35:32 -0500

I've been riding a fixed gear for two years now, (always with a helmet) and have had a great experience with it. The important thing isn't the bike, it's the skill you need to ride it (the Times article goes in to this, it's worth reading). Fixies are dangerous if you don't know how to ride one. If you take the time to learn, it's a perfect city bike. Manuverable, responsive, and easy to maintain. Try one before you talk trash about it!

raul

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:23:35 -0500

josh: "The rhetoric about "out of control" bicyclists...is completely baseless and counterproductive, distracting from the real danger: automobiles." C'mon now, lets not counter hyperbole with more hyperbole. I love riding my bike and I'm all for making the streets safer for bikes, but I think we can agree that anyone operating vehicles irresponsibly is dangerous to themselves and others. This "cars as death machines" rhetoric is also counterproductive. That said, I DO think most people riding fixies know what they're doing and do it safely. But lets not apologize for those handful of macho idiots who feel that the only way to truly be alive is to put themselves (and others) in danger. New York is a crowded place, if you want to be a daredevil go rock climbing in the boondocks.

KevinWalsh

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:07:35 -0500

OK, I've seen the slide show. What's the appeal of no-brake bikes again? Daredeviltry? www.forgotten-ny.com

josh

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:06:49 -0500

Dude: Your statement is patently ridiculous. Bicyclists have legitimate complaints against reckless drivers breaking traffic laws--hardly a day goes by before another driver runs another red light and runs over a pedestrian or cyclist (or makes a hard turn and "doesn't see" the person in the way). And these people DO NOT GET CHARGED WITH CRIMES. And you're getting worked up about a bunch of kids riding "brakeless" track bikes? Have you ever seen someone riding one of these? Have you seen how quickly they can stop? They can certainly meet the requirements of the law (skidding a tire on dry pavement), and they certainly can survive NYC streets. The rhetoric about "out of control" bicyclists "endangering themselves and others" "needing to be stopped and ticketed or arrested" is completely baseless and counterproductive, distracting from the real danger: automobiles. The police should spend their time properly charging those drivers who drive their multi-ton vehicles over innocent people. It happens an awful lot, and it's a tragedy.

brakin away

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:11 -0500

If this hipster fad makes a few Nelson Vails then more power to them. I like single speeds too. Learned how to ride on a single speed folding bike with a coaster brake.

matty

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:44:37 -0500

again, fixies can be dangerous. get a front brake, wear your helmet and always obey traffic laws. kids who think they are too cool to do these things will bust their shit.

gearhead

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:02:31 -0500

I split my time between New York and San Francisco, and I just can't imagine what it's like going DOWN the hills in SF on a fixie. As someone who rides a conventional bike, can you explain to me what happens when you go down big hills? Do you have to move your legs like a cartoon? Or do you strain legs against the momentum of downhill movement? I'm actually just curious, so please no insults that I'm a bourgeois non-fixie who doesn't appreciate or is out of touch with the inner, authentic bike in all of us.

g

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:51:36 -0500

The focus on "no brakes" is misguided. They have brakes, but they are better known as legs. You stop pedaling or you pull back quickly (kind of like on a kid's dirt bike, but a tad more difficult) and you've stopped. No one should drive through traffic their first time out on these things, but with practice they are no less safe than other bikes and no harder to stop than anything else.

brian

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:27:48 -0500

i like single speed bikes, not necessarily fixed (i have bad knees) they're super easy to maintain, just lube the chain once in a while, don't have to fuss with gears and brakes (i only have one) not to mention, track/single speed bikes are a lot lighter than most other bikes, which helps since I carry it up my 5 floor walk-up apartment

nick

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:20:00 -0500

re: 15... no not "that out of shape"..i bought my bike for 80 bucks and its lasted me for almost 4 years now... just dont feel the need to pay more.

Dude

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:19:25 -0500

Can people please put a stop to this hipster madness that's most likely gonna get people hurt?! People blame cars for recklessly hurting and killing cyclists, but these morons turn around and ride no-brake bikes that are even more dangerous to themselves and pedestrians! NYPD should stop and ticket hipsters and fixies who ride these death cycles on NY streets immediately!

teacher_x

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:14:33 -0500

i've riden a brakeless fixed gear for 11 years, with no helmet. i don't have any philosophy against brakes, though-- i just don't find it necessary. it would be nice if people could ride whatever kind of bike they want without being immediately labelled as a member of a particular crowd, or without being accused of having a particular mindset. i find most of the brooklyn-via-the-midwest crowd on fancy fixies really annoying, but they all gather around and drool over my bike whenever they see it.

b

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:12:45 -0500

track bikes (fixed or freewheel) are nice, low/no maintenance. In New York, you really don't need gears unless you're really that out of shape i don't think this is some trend, people are realizing that this is more practical

rdto

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:20:12 -0500

More than anything, this demonstrates how far people go to differentiate themselves and construct an oppositional identity. I'm not saying it is bad at all, do what you like, y'know? Doesn't bother me. But wow, the effort and extent people go through to make themselves feel different is really interesting, especially given how quickly "authentically hip" things become commodified and taken up by the unwashed, unhip masses, its like these true hipsters have to change up their style every single week. I'm glad I'm completely square. My bike has gears and breaks. It's a much easier life (and much easier ride).

nick

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:20:00 -0500

i ride a bicycle with gears and i routinely get sideways glances from fixies. it's like, the gears on my bike aren't contributing to pollution, chill out on me, people! i can see why you'd have a preference for fixed gear (simplicity), but it seems most of these "fixies" do it just to further separate themselves from "the mainstream"

josh

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:10:19 -0500

kiki: having destroyed cheap cogs, factory-built wheels, cranks, and cheap frames, I can attest to the usefulness of well-made bike parts. while a $800 frame is not necessary and may indeed be more fragile than a cheaper, newer one, "expensive" cogs ($30), cranks ($150), and hubs ($200) are absolutely 100% worth it, even on the city streets. it's not about "efficiency" or even speed, it's about durability. style is a separate point. some people like having nice, beautiful things. some think it's wasteful. that's cool. as long as more people are riding bikes, that's all that matters to me. see you on the streets!

richard sacher

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:56:36 -0500

$1000 for a track bike? wow, that's a lot of money. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't this still a niche market? Who skids to a stop? That's a good way to put a flat spot on your tires and if you're using Tubulars it wears right through to the casing. What's King Kog?

andrew

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:50:41 -0500

Amen to the Bicycle. I live in a Rural/Suburban town, and use a bike as my primary mode of transportation (don't own a car, and don't like waiting for the bus). I frequently get comments from the grocery store cashier after asking for my groceries to be loaded into a messenger bag. One of the local supermarkets even gives me a small discount.

jampay

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:49:46 -0500

Damn, my ass hurts just looking at that bike. Look at that hard saddle and thin wheels. You'd probably get hemmorhoids and testicle cancer by the end of the week.

kiki

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:47:17 -0500

Oksana: High End bike Parts? please! A bike is just cogs and grease and ball bearings. Please tell my why a cog or hub would cost $200.00 alone? It's not going to make you go 30 mph faster. Most track bikers go kinda slow on the streets so they can slow down so it kinda negates the point. It's not like they are on a velodrome on the special surfaces and are capable of going 100 miles per hour. The rough city road actually fucks up your cogs tension so buying delicate precision parts that are uber expensive is STUPID. Making your own fixed gear from junk and parts is SOoo much cheaper than buying it from King Kog. I bet I could make the same efficient bike from 150 dollars worth of parts as King Kog's 1000 dollar models. Total Gyp.

Alex

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:45:45 -0500

"what a bunch of pretentious crap." that sounds about right.

yeah

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:43:43 -0500

yeah I agree with Drewo. Who cares if you are hipster, non-hipster, Martian, Nazghul, whatever... the fact that you are not driving a huge SUV and are participating in a sustainable form of transportation is all that should matter.

drewo

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:26:43 -0500

Beyond the hipster pretense, what I draw from this article is that more young people have discovered that the bicycle, for so many reasons, is the best mode of transport in this town.

matty

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:14:03 -0500

i loved my bianchi track bike when i had it (sold it a couple years ago). It was fast and light and no nonsense. I had a front brake and wore a helmet unlike these people. Truth be told no one in the times except the velodrome riders had helmets. I hope these kids don't get brain damage just cause they decided o look cool.

jj

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:11:23 -0500

all i could think of after reading this is thank god i'm an old fart and i don't need to devote this kind of energy to boosting myself esteem. what a bunch of pretentious crap.

oksana

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:55:44 -0500

actually, king kog is not taking advantage of "hipster trend stealers" but charging the prices that any other shop in the country would charge for high end track parts. It's a great shop, please refrain from talking shit on it. and a comment on the potential shitstorm that might ensue about a certain contemporary youth culture and their means of transportation Hipsters: People who jumped on the bandwagon a day after you did.

kiki

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:37:56 -0500

I love track bikes but i hate the ones without a front brake. Sure, most of the guys won't get into an accident 90% of the time but they have to run red lights and risk other people getting injured to do it. that 10% of the time where you can't stop in time is TROUBLE! Also I hate the fact that they made fixed gears so expensive. Hello? you have less parts than a conventional bike so it should be cheaper. Goddamn Opportunists like King Kog taking advantage of dumb hipster trend stealers.