> > > > My working bike (as most of you know I'm a bike messenger) is a > > Fondriest track bike - single speed, fixed gear, no brakes. > > Serious question, not meant to sound judgmental or confrontational: > > Why no gears, why no brakes? > > I have considered that maybe this was originally intended to make the > bikes less attractive to thieves - stop for a delivery, run in, drop > off, come back out, bike still there. But now that this style of bike > has become trendy amongst a certain set of riders, that doesn't seem to > be a good theory.... > > -Charles
I think low maintenance was the original motivation. Bike messengers are not well paid and presumably don't want to spend what little they earn on bits of bike that wear out and cost money, but are no use to them. Certainly in the centre of London there is no real need for gears - it's flat and the journeys are all short. No gears means you can ride a fixie - no freewheel, so no need for a rear brake. In the UK a bike must legally be equipped with at least 2 brakes, so a front brake is necessary on a fixie, but they are usually minimal; in some countries presumably even that is not required. When you take off all that stuff you're left with a very pretty essence of bike, and that catches the eye of even the least aesthetic of people and becomes a fashion thing. If I had enough room in my house for more than one bike I would have a single-speed for drifting around Greenwich, they're very attractive. I'd also have a butcher's bike for going to the shops, a racer for commuting and a tourer for, er, touring. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
