Eatadonut
07-08-05, 02:45 PM
What are the differences between a track bike and a fixie? Is a track bike just a specific form of fixed?
View Full Version : difference between track and fixie?
gilby
07-08-05, 03:26 PM
A bike that isn't track-specific can be turned into a fixie, but a track bike is built specifically for riding on the track. It has different geometry--the bottom bracket is higher off the ground, and the handling is different with your weight further forward. The frames don't accomodate deraillers or brakes.
-Blanco-
07-03-06, 01:10 PM
also due to the afformentioned different geometry there is usually toe overlap in true track bikes(ie wen crankarm is at most forward u cant turn the front wheel as ur foot will be in the way)...basically a fixie can be anything...converted road frame/track bike...but a track bike is a track bike
kyledr
08-02-06, 09:18 PM
an easy way to tell is the dropout (or lack of). Track bike has fork end, which is horizontal and the opening is at the very rear of the bike. fixies can be horizontal or even vertical dropouts, but would not be limited to dropouts, and can include track ends, since a track bike is a fixie but a fixie doesn't have to be a track bike.
judson
08-05-06, 10:29 PM
The first pic is of a bike with a dropout & rear derailer hanger, people will remove the derailer, change to a single freewheel or fixed gear sprocket. The second is of a "track" bike with horizontal drops.
Hope pics come out
Hope pics come out
kyledr
08-06-06, 12:29 AM
those are not dropouts on the track bike. read sheldon's site
judson
08-06-06, 09:21 AM
those are not dropouts on the track bike. read sheldon's site
You're right, track does not have a "dropout" more of a fork end. :o (I like horizontal dropout, how about a 'drop-back' lol) But I think most would understand the pictures included.
-Judson
You're right, track does not have a "dropout" more of a fork end. :o (I like horizontal dropout, how about a 'drop-back' lol) But I think most would understand the pictures included.
-Judson
landrover4
08-07-06, 02:31 AM
"Fixie" is slang referring to any bike that has a fixed rear hub, that is to say, it does not have a freewheel so anytime the rear hub is turning the pedals are also turning. You can convert any bike (road, mountain, tricycle etc) into a fixie but a "track bike" is built specifically around the concept of the fixed rear hub and the stresses which come with this type of use. The chain, for example, is 1/8 inch instead of the thinner and weaker 3/32 inch of road bikes, and therefore the rear sprocket and front chainring are also thicker and stronger. The front chainring, which if not strong enough, could possibly suffer from metal fatigue and fail under severe stress such as emergency stopping when the chain is used to lock up the rear wheel. Or when sprinting.
Regarding the frame, yes as someone else mentioned the bottom bracket is higher off the ground than on road cycles and usually the crank arms are shorter, like 165mm instead of 172.5 or 175 on most road bikes. This is due of course to the fact that you can't stop pedaling and therefore when leaning into a turn you must be certain that your crank arms do not touch the ground as the crank arms continue to turn.
The wheelbase is also shorter which lends more stiffness to the frame and depending on what kind of forks you have you may experience "overlap" as someone else stated whereby the front wheel may touch the toes of the rider when turning the wheel, but this is certainly not always the case. The front forks, however, have circular tubing instead of the usual eliptical tubing on road bikes. Again, this is for lateral strength when sprinting away from a stop. For this reason, also, there are special track headsets which are stronger. Stems and bars are usually steel as this is stronger than aluminum. Generally speaking, track parts are stronger than road parts because they take such a pounding, and therefore they tend to command more money. Just check ebay and you'll see.
In short, a fixie may have a road frame, road forks, road cranks, a road headset, a road stem, road bars, a road chainring, a road chain, and a road sprocket but a track bike would not unless someone messed with it and put road equipement on it, or didn't have the good taste or the money to do so. Also, there are no holes for brakes in either the fork or the frame.
Regarding the frame, yes as someone else mentioned the bottom bracket is higher off the ground than on road cycles and usually the crank arms are shorter, like 165mm instead of 172.5 or 175 on most road bikes. This is due of course to the fact that you can't stop pedaling and therefore when leaning into a turn you must be certain that your crank arms do not touch the ground as the crank arms continue to turn.
The wheelbase is also shorter which lends more stiffness to the frame and depending on what kind of forks you have you may experience "overlap" as someone else stated whereby the front wheel may touch the toes of the rider when turning the wheel, but this is certainly not always the case. The front forks, however, have circular tubing instead of the usual eliptical tubing on road bikes. Again, this is for lateral strength when sprinting away from a stop. For this reason, also, there are special track headsets which are stronger. Stems and bars are usually steel as this is stronger than aluminum. Generally speaking, track parts are stronger than road parts because they take such a pounding, and therefore they tend to command more money. Just check ebay and you'll see.
In short, a fixie may have a road frame, road forks, road cranks, a road headset, a road stem, road bars, a road chainring, a road chain, and a road sprocket but a track bike would not unless someone messed with it and put road equipement on it, or didn't have the good taste or the money to do so. Also, there are no holes for brakes in either the fork or the frame.
dutret
08-07-06, 07:02 AM
"Fixie" is slang referring to any bike that has a fixed rear hub, that is to say, it does not have a freewheel so anytime the rear hub is turning the pedals are also turning. You can convert any bike (road, mountain, tricycle etc) into a fixie but a "track bike" is built specifically around the concept of the fixed rear hub and the stresses which come with this type of use. The chain, for example, is 1/8 inch instead of the thinner and weaker 3/32 inch of road bikes, and therefore the rear sprocket and front chainring are also thicker and stronger. The front chainring, which if not strong enough, could possibly suffer from metal fatigue and fail under severe stress such as emergency stopping when the chain is used to lock up the rear wheel. Or when sprinting.
Regarding the frame, yes as someone else mentioned the bottom bracket is higher off the ground than on road cycles and usually the crank arms are shorter, like 165mm instead of 172.5 or 175 on most road bikes. This is due of course to the fact that you can't stop pedaling and therefore when leaning into a turn you must be certain that your crank arms do not touch the ground as the crank arms continue to turn.
The wheelbase is also shorter which lends more stiffness to the frame and depending on what kind of forks you have you may experience "overlap" as someone else stated whereby the front wheel may touch the toes of the rider when turning the wheel, but this is certainly not always the case. The front forks, however, have circular tubing instead of the usual eliptical tubing on road bikes. Again, this is for lateral strength when sprinting away from a stop. For this reason, also, there are special track headsets which are stronger. Stems and bars are usually steel as this is stronger than aluminum. Generally speaking, track parts are stronger than road parts because they take such a pounding, and therefore they tend to command more money. Just check ebay and you'll see.
In short, a fixie may have a road frame, road forks, road cranks, a road headset, a road stem, road bars, a road chainring, a road chain, and a road sprocket but a track bike would not unless someone messed with it and put road equipement on it, or didn't have the good taste or the money to do so. Also, there are no holes for brakes in either the fork or the frame.
Wow! No "road equipment" unless the owner lacked good taste or money? No 3/32" chainrings because they couldn't deal with the force of skidding on the track? Circular tubing only on forks? Steel stems? Special track headsets? Track parts command more money becuase the are stronger?
I think everything except maybe the first two sentences in this post can be disregarded.
Regarding the frame, yes as someone else mentioned the bottom bracket is higher off the ground than on road cycles and usually the crank arms are shorter, like 165mm instead of 172.5 or 175 on most road bikes. This is due of course to the fact that you can't stop pedaling and therefore when leaning into a turn you must be certain that your crank arms do not touch the ground as the crank arms continue to turn.
The wheelbase is also shorter which lends more stiffness to the frame and depending on what kind of forks you have you may experience "overlap" as someone else stated whereby the front wheel may touch the toes of the rider when turning the wheel, but this is certainly not always the case. The front forks, however, have circular tubing instead of the usual eliptical tubing on road bikes. Again, this is for lateral strength when sprinting away from a stop. For this reason, also, there are special track headsets which are stronger. Stems and bars are usually steel as this is stronger than aluminum. Generally speaking, track parts are stronger than road parts because they take such a pounding, and therefore they tend to command more money. Just check ebay and you'll see.
In short, a fixie may have a road frame, road forks, road cranks, a road headset, a road stem, road bars, a road chainring, a road chain, and a road sprocket but a track bike would not unless someone messed with it and put road equipement on it, or didn't have the good taste or the money to do so. Also, there are no holes for brakes in either the fork or the frame.
Wow! No "road equipment" unless the owner lacked good taste or money? No 3/32" chainrings because they couldn't deal with the force of skidding on the track? Circular tubing only on forks? Steel stems? Special track headsets? Track parts command more money becuase the are stronger?
I think everything except maybe the first two sentences in this post can be disregarded.
landrover4
08-08-06, 04:52 AM
Wow! No "road equipment" unless the owner lacked good taste or money? No 3/32" chainrings because they couldn't deal with the force of skidding on the track? Circular tubing only on forks? Steel stems? Special track headsets? Track parts command more money becuase the are stronger?
I think everything except maybe the first two sentences in this post can be disregarded.
I'll try to enlarge on the issues you mentioned. If you want to disregard them, that's fine, but perhaps I wasn't clear in my earlier post -- I'll try again for you.
As far as the 1/8 vs 3/32 chainrings (and chain and sprocket) are concerned, there's a reason they are thicker on track bikes: to enable them to withstand increased force due to sprinting and stopping. This does not apply to other types of bikes converted to fixed gear with handbrakes. I have seen a fixed bike (no handbrake) with a 3/32 chainring throw it's chain during a highspeed skidding stop -- not because the chain broke, but because the 3/32 chainring was bent from the force of the stop. If anyone has heard of this happening with a 1/8 chainring, please let me know. I believe Greg Goode has written an article about this very subject.
Circular tubing was standard on track bike forks (I ride 70s and early 80s track bikes) and the tubing was circular, not eliptical as on road bikes, to withstand the increased lateral forces encountered in track racing. Modern forks may of course be different, I was referring to vintage track bikes. But don't take my word for it, just do your research. Perhaps you could start with Sheldon's site, if you don't find anything there get back to me and I'll point you in the right direction.
Headsets specifically designed for the track were (and presumably still are) made by Shimano and Campagnolo -- again, they are stronger than road headsets in order to withstand the increased stress. A NOS (New Old Stock) Campagnolo Super Record Pista (track) headset will usually command more money on ebay than a NOS Super Record Strada (road) headset. This also appears to be the case with Super Record Pista cranks vs. Super Record Strada cranks. Check for yourself. Same goes for Dura Ace. Perhaps they command more money because they are more scarce, which may be true. Presumably Campagnolo and Shimano have produced more road components than track components and so there are simply fewer track bits out there, hence the increased price. If anyone has noticed that track components are less expensive than road components, please post and let us know where we can get them.
As for the question of taste, well, there is no accounting for taste, is there? I've even seen people drill holes in track bikes to mount brakes levers . . .
Do let me know if you have any other questions.
I think everything except maybe the first two sentences in this post can be disregarded.
I'll try to enlarge on the issues you mentioned. If you want to disregard them, that's fine, but perhaps I wasn't clear in my earlier post -- I'll try again for you.
As far as the 1/8 vs 3/32 chainrings (and chain and sprocket) are concerned, there's a reason they are thicker on track bikes: to enable them to withstand increased force due to sprinting and stopping. This does not apply to other types of bikes converted to fixed gear with handbrakes. I have seen a fixed bike (no handbrake) with a 3/32 chainring throw it's chain during a highspeed skidding stop -- not because the chain broke, but because the 3/32 chainring was bent from the force of the stop. If anyone has heard of this happening with a 1/8 chainring, please let me know. I believe Greg Goode has written an article about this very subject.
Circular tubing was standard on track bike forks (I ride 70s and early 80s track bikes) and the tubing was circular, not eliptical as on road bikes, to withstand the increased lateral forces encountered in track racing. Modern forks may of course be different, I was referring to vintage track bikes. But don't take my word for it, just do your research. Perhaps you could start with Sheldon's site, if you don't find anything there get back to me and I'll point you in the right direction.
Headsets specifically designed for the track were (and presumably still are) made by Shimano and Campagnolo -- again, they are stronger than road headsets in order to withstand the increased stress. A NOS (New Old Stock) Campagnolo Super Record Pista (track) headset will usually command more money on ebay than a NOS Super Record Strada (road) headset. This also appears to be the case with Super Record Pista cranks vs. Super Record Strada cranks. Check for yourself. Same goes for Dura Ace. Perhaps they command more money because they are more scarce, which may be true. Presumably Campagnolo and Shimano have produced more road components than track components and so there are simply fewer track bits out there, hence the increased price. If anyone has noticed that track components are less expensive than road components, please post and let us know where we can get them.
As for the question of taste, well, there is no accounting for taste, is there? I've even seen people drill holes in track bikes to mount brakes levers . . .
Do let me know if you have any other questions.
dutret
08-08-06, 06:49 AM
No you were perfectly clear just clueless.
Noone skids on the track.... ever. If anything any considerations regarding skidding should be for non-track fixies rather then track bikes. Also the width of the teeth has very little to do with how stiff the ring is anyway. The width of the non-toothed section determines that.
Yes so maybe if you said really old track bikes have circular tubing it would have been an accurate statement of what makes a track bike but not many new ones do.
My point with the headsets is that most track bikes don't have a record pista or durace track headset on them. They don't even make a different record pista headset anymore and the only reason the dura ace track exists as a seperate headset is because there is no other dura-ace headset. It was a jab at your silly notion that real people who care about performance instead of collectors with money to blow would only use a "track" headset.
Perhaps they command more money because they are more scarce, which may be true.
more likely it's because everyone and thier brother wants "vintage TRACK RECORD PISTA classic ITALIAN NOT DURA ACE NJS." If you look anywhere else track components are cheaper then road. See the difference in pricing between Record/Record pista or duraace/duraace track.
There was nothing in your post that accurately described what makes a track bike a track bike except in terms of some non-track riding collectors ideal. It's too bad that in your mind the vast majority of track bikes actually ridden on the track have been "messed up" by people lacking in taste.
Noone skids on the track.... ever. If anything any considerations regarding skidding should be for non-track fixies rather then track bikes. Also the width of the teeth has very little to do with how stiff the ring is anyway. The width of the non-toothed section determines that.
Yes so maybe if you said really old track bikes have circular tubing it would have been an accurate statement of what makes a track bike but not many new ones do.
My point with the headsets is that most track bikes don't have a record pista or durace track headset on them. They don't even make a different record pista headset anymore and the only reason the dura ace track exists as a seperate headset is because there is no other dura-ace headset. It was a jab at your silly notion that real people who care about performance instead of collectors with money to blow would only use a "track" headset.
Perhaps they command more money because they are more scarce, which may be true.
more likely it's because everyone and thier brother wants "vintage TRACK RECORD PISTA classic ITALIAN NOT DURA ACE NJS." If you look anywhere else track components are cheaper then road. See the difference in pricing between Record/Record pista or duraace/duraace track.
There was nothing in your post that accurately described what makes a track bike a track bike except in terms of some non-track riding collectors ideal. It's too bad that in your mind the vast majority of track bikes actually ridden on the track have been "messed up" by people lacking in taste.
dutret
08-08-06, 07:19 AM
"Noone skids on the track... ever." May have been a bit of an overstatement before you jump on it. People will skid if they have a mechanical that locks up their back wheel.
landrover4
08-08-06, 01:39 PM
vvNo you were perfectly clear just clueless.
Noone skids on the track.... ever. If anything any considerations regarding skidding should be for non-track fixies rather then track bikes. Also the width of the teeth has very little to do with how stiff the ring is anyway. The width of the non-toothed section determines that.
Thanks for taking the time to develop your thoughts a bit more than in your original post, but all of us reading this could do without the insults.
I didn't say anything about riding in velodromes, or about skidding in them, so no, I won't jump on your sentence as you thought I might. If you go back and reread my post it should be clear that this was a discussion about track bikes vs. fixies and no where did I mention velodromes. As for the chainrings, of course the width of the ring itself gives it strength, not only the teeth of the ring. It's fair to say that the width of the chainring is also a factor in the width of the teeth, which are, of course, thicker on a track ring than on a road ring. Of course the whole thing is thicker.
Yes so maybe if you said really old track bikes have circular tubing it would have been an accurate statement of what makes a track bike but not many new ones do.
Many of the new bikes must be using something that originally came out of a bottle and later hardened -- circular forks still exist, however.
My point with the headsets is that most track bikes don't have a record pista or durace track headset on them. They don't even make a different record pista headset anymore and the only reason the dura ace track exists as a seperate headset is because there is no other dura-ace headset. It was a jab at your silly notion that real people who care about performance instead of collectors with money to blow would only use a "track" headset.
Easy on the allusive insulting remarks. It's a pity that Campagnolo has ceased production of the track headset, but at least they have continued producing the track bottom bracket. If you are riding a track bike why put road parts on it? Why not take a road bike and turn it into a fixie with a little front brake and then you won't need track parts.
more likely it's because everyone and thier brother wants "vintage TRACK RECORD PISTA classic ITALIAN NOT DURA ACE NJS." If you look anywhere else track components are cheaper then road. See the difference in pricing between Record/Record pista or duraace/duraace track.
No, everybody and their brother wants vintage Dura Ace Track as well, and it's expensive. Just peruse ebay and you'll see that vintage NOS track will usually go for more than vintage NOS road. A Cinelli 2A steel stem will more often than not go for more money than a Cinelli 1A aluminum stem. Thanks for the tip on current 06 pricing, I might check into it.
There was nothing in your post that accurately described what makes a track bike a track bike except in terms of some non-track riding collectors ideal. It's too bad that in your mind the vast majority of track bikes actually ridden on the track have been "messed up" by people lacking in taste.
Again, I think you should go back and reread my post. I never said anything about bikes ridden on the track, I described track bikes and some of the inherent differences with road bikes which might become "fixies" for the person who had asked. Was there really "nothing in [my] post that accurately discribed what makes a track bike?" My post was quite clear about some of the geometrical differences of the frame, the fork tubing -- especially for older track bikes -- and the components. Please add more if you wish.
I didn't say anything about bikes ridden on the track being "messed up." Careful when you quote someone. I said, "In short, a fixie may have a road frame, road forks, road cranks, a road headset, a road stem, road bars, a road chainring, a road chain, and a road sprocket but a track bike would not unless someone messed with it and put road equipement on it, or didn't have the good taste or the money to do so." Go back and reread it. I didn't say that those bikes were "messed up" as you stated. "Messed up" as you put it is an adjective, I used the verb "to mess with something" as in "to change something." Personally I don't have the money for a Cinelli 2A track stem on my bike, so I have a 1A road stem. I'm one of those who doesn't have the money for all that stuff.
Finally, I don't have any particular image or idea about "the vast majority of track bikes actually ridden on the track," as you say I do, so why not drop the jabbing insults and innuendo and come back to a decent discussion about track bikes and fixies. If my post offended you earlier, that was not my intention. That said, I appreciate your knowlegable contribution to this thread.
.
Noone skids on the track.... ever. If anything any considerations regarding skidding should be for non-track fixies rather then track bikes. Also the width of the teeth has very little to do with how stiff the ring is anyway. The width of the non-toothed section determines that.
Thanks for taking the time to develop your thoughts a bit more than in your original post, but all of us reading this could do without the insults.
I didn't say anything about riding in velodromes, or about skidding in them, so no, I won't jump on your sentence as you thought I might. If you go back and reread my post it should be clear that this was a discussion about track bikes vs. fixies and no where did I mention velodromes. As for the chainrings, of course the width of the ring itself gives it strength, not only the teeth of the ring. It's fair to say that the width of the chainring is also a factor in the width of the teeth, which are, of course, thicker on a track ring than on a road ring. Of course the whole thing is thicker.
Yes so maybe if you said really old track bikes have circular tubing it would have been an accurate statement of what makes a track bike but not many new ones do.
Many of the new bikes must be using something that originally came out of a bottle and later hardened -- circular forks still exist, however.
My point with the headsets is that most track bikes don't have a record pista or durace track headset on them. They don't even make a different record pista headset anymore and the only reason the dura ace track exists as a seperate headset is because there is no other dura-ace headset. It was a jab at your silly notion that real people who care about performance instead of collectors with money to blow would only use a "track" headset.
Easy on the allusive insulting remarks. It's a pity that Campagnolo has ceased production of the track headset, but at least they have continued producing the track bottom bracket. If you are riding a track bike why put road parts on it? Why not take a road bike and turn it into a fixie with a little front brake and then you won't need track parts.
more likely it's because everyone and thier brother wants "vintage TRACK RECORD PISTA classic ITALIAN NOT DURA ACE NJS." If you look anywhere else track components are cheaper then road. See the difference in pricing between Record/Record pista or duraace/duraace track.
No, everybody and their brother wants vintage Dura Ace Track as well, and it's expensive. Just peruse ebay and you'll see that vintage NOS track will usually go for more than vintage NOS road. A Cinelli 2A steel stem will more often than not go for more money than a Cinelli 1A aluminum stem. Thanks for the tip on current 06 pricing, I might check into it.
There was nothing in your post that accurately described what makes a track bike a track bike except in terms of some non-track riding collectors ideal. It's too bad that in your mind the vast majority of track bikes actually ridden on the track have been "messed up" by people lacking in taste.
Again, I think you should go back and reread my post. I never said anything about bikes ridden on the track, I described track bikes and some of the inherent differences with road bikes which might become "fixies" for the person who had asked. Was there really "nothing in [my] post that accurately discribed what makes a track bike?" My post was quite clear about some of the geometrical differences of the frame, the fork tubing -- especially for older track bikes -- and the components. Please add more if you wish.
I didn't say anything about bikes ridden on the track being "messed up." Careful when you quote someone. I said, "In short, a fixie may have a road frame, road forks, road cranks, a road headset, a road stem, road bars, a road chainring, a road chain, and a road sprocket but a track bike would not unless someone messed with it and put road equipement on it, or didn't have the good taste or the money to do so." Go back and reread it. I didn't say that those bikes were "messed up" as you stated. "Messed up" as you put it is an adjective, I used the verb "to mess with something" as in "to change something." Personally I don't have the money for a Cinelli 2A track stem on my bike, so I have a 1A road stem. I'm one of those who doesn't have the money for all that stuff.
Finally, I don't have any particular image or idea about "the vast majority of track bikes actually ridden on the track," as you say I do, so why not drop the jabbing insults and innuendo and come back to a decent discussion about track bikes and fixies. If my post offended you earlier, that was not my intention. That said, I appreciate your knowlegable contribution to this thread.
.
bitingduck
08-08-06, 05:54 PM
A lot of six-day (and other madison) riders use road bars for comfort. It's also nice to have road bars that have a real "top" position when you're riding relief. For a 30-40 km points race they're going to be a lot more comfortable than steel sprint bars, too.
I have a couple or three 70's and 80's steel track bikes and IIRC (since they're at home and I'm not), they all have at least slightly elliptical fork tubes.
A lot of guys are also riding 170s, and even 172.5 on the track, particularly if they ride shallow tracks or are primarily pursuiters. I pretty much stick to 165, but I also get called old school.
The main reason anymore to use 1/8" chain is compatibility. 3/32" stuff is quite strong, and as mentioned above, nobody skids on the track except as the consequence of something else already being extremely wrong. At that point, the last thing you need to worry about is 1/8 vs 3/32.
Now that almost all forks are threadless (even on track bikes) you mostly see alloy stems, even on the very highest end bikes. They seem to work fine.
Track headsets probably take much less of a beating than road headsets (except when they're on the roof of the car on the way to the track). A lot fewer potholes on most tracks. Again, there's nothing really track specific about headsets. The only time it will matter is if you're racing keirin in Japan and have to have all NJS stuff.
I have a couple or three 70's and 80's steel track bikes and IIRC (since they're at home and I'm not), they all have at least slightly elliptical fork tubes.
A lot of guys are also riding 170s, and even 172.5 on the track, particularly if they ride shallow tracks or are primarily pursuiters. I pretty much stick to 165, but I also get called old school.
The main reason anymore to use 1/8" chain is compatibility. 3/32" stuff is quite strong, and as mentioned above, nobody skids on the track except as the consequence of something else already being extremely wrong. At that point, the last thing you need to worry about is 1/8 vs 3/32.
Now that almost all forks are threadless (even on track bikes) you mostly see alloy stems, even on the very highest end bikes. They seem to work fine.
Track headsets probably take much less of a beating than road headsets (except when they're on the roof of the car on the way to the track). A lot fewer potholes on most tracks. Again, there's nothing really track specific about headsets. The only time it will matter is if you're racing keirin in Japan and have to have all NJS stuff.
lotek
08-08-06, 06:00 PM
actually the differences in headsets (pista vs strada) have nothing to do
with strength.
From Sutherlands:
campy super record pista has a stack height of 33.7 and uses 25 5/32 ball bearings
(and stack height is lower for both upper and lower halves).
Campy super Record Strada has a stack height of 39.1 and uses 22 3/16 ball bearings.
the lower stack height has the effect of lowering the front end of the bike.
The shorter crank arms and higher bottom bracket (not BB drop) are designed
to avoid pedal strike while in the steeply banked corners (up to 50 degrees at some
tracks).
Marty
with strength.
From Sutherlands:
campy super record pista has a stack height of 33.7 and uses 25 5/32 ball bearings
(and stack height is lower for both upper and lower halves).
Campy super Record Strada has a stack height of 39.1 and uses 22 3/16 ball bearings.
the lower stack height has the effect of lowering the front end of the bike.
The shorter crank arms and higher bottom bracket (not BB drop) are designed
to avoid pedal strike while in the steeply banked corners (up to 50 degrees at some
tracks).
Marty
landrover4
08-09-06, 08:33 AM
I went up and spoke with a wheel-builder guy, an old track racer who has a little shop here in the city, and his take on the track headsets vs. the road headsets was that the track headsets were indeed not only stronger due to the increased number of bearings (and other differences) but also smoother. (Hard to imagine.) Yes, they lowered the front end of the bike, but that was not the sole aim except perhaps to decrease the amount of torque and/or lateral leverage power during hard sprints in order to reduce damage.
He also showed me a couple 70s track frames and forks with, you guessed it, eliptical forks, but ALL of the frames with eliptical forks had holes drilled in the forks for brake calipers, so perhaps they were either dual purpose forks or simply borrowed from a road bike. Are there holes drilled in your eliptical forks?
In terms of skidding on a track, no indeed, 1/8 or 3/32 is the least of your worries there, but on the streets with track bikes we skid all the time, and having a 3/32 road ring suffer metal fatigue and fail is just not an option in traffic or going down a hill. With a "fixie" you can get away with a 3/32 road ring as long as you have at least one brake caliper mounted on the bike.
Does anyone know what the technical differences are between a track bottom bracket and a road bottom bracket?
He also showed me a couple 70s track frames and forks with, you guessed it, eliptical forks, but ALL of the frames with eliptical forks had holes drilled in the forks for brake calipers, so perhaps they were either dual purpose forks or simply borrowed from a road bike. Are there holes drilled in your eliptical forks?
In terms of skidding on a track, no indeed, 1/8 or 3/32 is the least of your worries there, but on the streets with track bikes we skid all the time, and having a 3/32 road ring suffer metal fatigue and fail is just not an option in traffic or going down a hill. With a "fixie" you can get away with a 3/32 road ring as long as you have at least one brake caliper mounted on the bike.
Does anyone know what the technical differences are between a track bottom bracket and a road bottom bracket?
bitingduck
08-09-06, 11:00 AM
He also showed me a couple 70s track frames and forks with, you guessed it, eliptical forks, but ALL of the frames with eliptical forks had holes drilled in the forks for brake calipers, so perhaps they were either dual purpose forks or simply borrowed from a road bike. Are there holes drilled in your eliptical forks?
None are drilled.
None are drilled.
Voodoo76
08-09-06, 12:08 PM
BB height and Crank lenght are to keep you from hitting the track riding SLOW, not leaning into a turn. Look at em, the RH pedal has the bevel worn in. Never seen an intentional "skid" on the track, at least one w/o loss of skin.
I beleive the Chain width thing is just a carry over, not a consious design consideration. Road Bikes got narrower (and still are) and Track stuff just stayed the same (with the breif exception of Shimano 10).
I beleive the Chain width thing is just a carry over, not a consious design consideration. Road Bikes got narrower (and still are) and Track stuff just stayed the same (with the breif exception of Shimano 10).
dutret
08-09-06, 02:49 PM
From Sutherlands:
campy super record pista has a stack height of 33.7 and uses 25 5/32 ball bearings
(and stack height is lower for both upper and lower halves).
Campy super Record Strada has a stack height of 39.1 and uses 22 3/16 ball bearings.
interestingly that also goes against landrovers assumptions about "track" headsets. More bearings are used because they are smaller. This larger number of smaller bearings will actually deal with stress more poorly then the road headset.
I didn't say anything about riding in velodromes, or about skidding in them, so no, I won't jump on your sentence as you thought I might. If you go back and reread my post it should be clear that this was a discussion about track bikes vs. fixies and no where did I mention velodromes. As for the chainrings, of course the width of the ring itself gives it strength, not only the teeth of the ring. It's fair to say that the width of the chainring is also a factor in the width of the teeth, which are, of course, thicker on a track ring than on a road ring. Of course the whole thing is thicker.
I'm sorry I figured when we where discussing what a track bike was we were refering to bikes designed to be ridden at a velodrome. I see now you define a track bike as ""track bike" is built specifically around the concept of the fixed rear hub and the stresses which come with this type of use." which I guess has nothing to do with a track... In that case I take back what I said about the first two sentences of your post making sense. The entire thing is absurd. A track bike is a bike meant to be ridden on a track not any bike specifically designed to have a fixed gear.
In terms of skidding on a track, no indeed, 1/8 or 3/32 is the least of your worries there, but on the streets with track bikes we skid all the time, and having a 3/32 road ring suffer metal fatigue and fail is just not an option in traffic or going down a hill. With a "fixie" you can get away with a 3/32 road ring as long as you have at least one brake caliper mounted on the bike.
This can't be serious...
campy super record pista has a stack height of 33.7 and uses 25 5/32 ball bearings
(and stack height is lower for both upper and lower halves).
Campy super Record Strada has a stack height of 39.1 and uses 22 3/16 ball bearings.
interestingly that also goes against landrovers assumptions about "track" headsets. More bearings are used because they are smaller. This larger number of smaller bearings will actually deal with stress more poorly then the road headset.
I didn't say anything about riding in velodromes, or about skidding in them, so no, I won't jump on your sentence as you thought I might. If you go back and reread my post it should be clear that this was a discussion about track bikes vs. fixies and no where did I mention velodromes. As for the chainrings, of course the width of the ring itself gives it strength, not only the teeth of the ring. It's fair to say that the width of the chainring is also a factor in the width of the teeth, which are, of course, thicker on a track ring than on a road ring. Of course the whole thing is thicker.
I'm sorry I figured when we where discussing what a track bike was we were refering to bikes designed to be ridden at a velodrome. I see now you define a track bike as ""track bike" is built specifically around the concept of the fixed rear hub and the stresses which come with this type of use." which I guess has nothing to do with a track... In that case I take back what I said about the first two sentences of your post making sense. The entire thing is absurd. A track bike is a bike meant to be ridden on a track not any bike specifically designed to have a fixed gear.
In terms of skidding on a track, no indeed, 1/8 or 3/32 is the least of your worries there, but on the streets with track bikes we skid all the time, and having a 3/32 road ring suffer metal fatigue and fail is just not an option in traffic or going down a hill. With a "fixie" you can get away with a 3/32 road ring as long as you have at least one brake caliper mounted on the bike.
This can't be serious...
Retem
08-10-06, 03:11 PM
track bikes are stiffer and the forks often have no rack the frames have fork ends and high bb's different geometry and twitchy handling alot of them are drilled for brakes but will not work well with brakes as the currnet trend is to ride a track bike on the street
as afar as 1/8 vs 3/32 3/32 is quieter and a little weaker the 1/8 has a little better mechanical engagement and is a little stronger the size of the chain doesn't matter both standards are track legal in the us
now if you are some idiot who will never ride in japan but has to have a keirin njs certified rig then be that way but 1/8 and 3/32 make no real difference except maybe you will find chains easier for 3/32
as afar as 1/8 vs 3/32 3/32 is quieter and a little weaker the 1/8 has a little better mechanical engagement and is a little stronger the size of the chain doesn't matter both standards are track legal in the us
now if you are some idiot who will never ride in japan but has to have a keirin njs certified rig then be that way but 1/8 and 3/32 make no real difference except maybe you will find chains easier for 3/32
taras0000
08-10-06, 06:44 PM
a 1/8th chain is a lot stiffer laterally than a 3/32 chain. Yes it's probably more of a holdover thing, but I would take the less flexible chain anyday.
Retem
08-10-06, 07:26 PM
3/32 is actually cheaper as well but I undertand stiffness i use 1/8 and swear by it I just don't like people getting down in 3/32 I also weigh about 230lbs and sprint so....
sivat
08-16-06, 08:20 PM
I would think that braking on a road bike would put far more stress on a headset than sprinting. With good form, your bike isn't leaning much in either direction while sprinting. Braking, however, puts the entire mass of rider+bike times the acceleration (thanks Newton!) of braking on the headset using the fork as a lever arm.
Though i usually disagree with Dutret, i have to agree with him this time on the point that talking about the stresses put on a track bike without infering that the bike is being ridden on a track is pretty absurd.
Though i usually disagree with Dutret, i have to agree with him this time on the point that talking about the stresses put on a track bike without infering that the bike is being ridden on a track is pretty absurd.
landrover4
08-21-06, 03:18 PM
Though i usually disagree with Dutret, i have to agree with him this time on the point that talking about the stresses put on a track bike without infering that the bike is being ridden on a track is pretty absurd.
If you've ridden a track bike in any large city without brakes you know that it takes much more of beating than in a velodrome. According to Campagnolo, they will not guarantee any of their track parts if they are ridden on the road -- see Sheldon's site for the letter and photo of the imploded Campagnolo rear track hub. Since this is a thread comparing track and fixie bikes it seemed likely that whoever posed the question was thinking of riding on the road.
If you've ridden a track bike in any large city without brakes you know that it takes much more of beating than in a velodrome. According to Campagnolo, they will not guarantee any of their track parts if they are ridden on the road -- see Sheldon's site for the letter and photo of the imploded Campagnolo rear track hub. Since this is a thread comparing track and fixie bikes it seemed likely that whoever posed the question was thinking of riding on the road.
sivat
08-23-06, 12:35 AM
But track bikes and fixed gears go through the same beating on the road. And yes, the beating is almost as severe as the one we're giving this dead horse.
Besides, weren't you the one saying that track parts are built so much stronger than road parts? And yet, they don't hold up when used on the road...
Besides, weren't you the one saying that track parts are built so much stronger than road parts? And yet, they don't hold up when used on the road...
landrover4
08-23-06, 02:53 AM
From what I have read, heard and experienced personally I would say that track frames/parts are built stronger than road parts for various reasons, so I was surprised to see the photo of the imploded campag track hub, but it's true that locking up the rear wheel and skidding in the velodrome just doesn't happen unless something goes horribly wrong whereas on the street in a big city it happens with surprising regularity unless the bike has been fitted with a brake, in which case the bike would not experience the same punishment as a brakeless bike, track or otherwise. Track bikes and "fixies" do go through the same punishment on the road if both are brakeless, hence my preference for 1/8 chain and chainrings. As stated earlier, I have seen a 3/32 chainring fail under severe braking with a thrown chain resulting. If the bike has a brake, 3/32 would do nicely I imagine.
Also I liked what you said about the stresses incurred by headsets of road bikes when braking. Good point. What do you think about the track BB? Why is Campagnolo still making it and what is the difference been it and the road version?
I've included the photo of the hub and below is link to the full letter.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/record-track.html
Also I liked what you said about the stresses incurred by headsets of road bikes when braking. Good point. What do you think about the track BB? Why is Campagnolo still making it and what is the difference been it and the road version?
I've included the photo of the hub and below is link to the full letter.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/record-track.html
'nother
08-23-06, 08:35 AM
I've included the photo of the hub and below is link to the full letter.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/record-track.html
I'm glad you brought up Sheldon Brown. From the same source we have another tidbit debunking the "trackies-need-stronger-chains-because-trackies-are-stronger" myth:
Block Chain
An obsolete type of chain, formerly popular with track racers. Block chain had solid blocks as inner links, without rollers. It had a 1" pitch with 3/16" wide blocks, the same as the "skip link" roller chain that appeared on the market about 1930 to replace it.
The remaining stock of block chain was [B]coveted by track riders who believed it was the only chain strong enough to withstand their imagined strength. When the stock of block chains finally ran out in the late 1970's, it was replaced by 1/2" pitch 3/32" wide chain, as used with derailers, although track riders still prefer an 1/8" wide chain, believing they are stronger than other riders. MTB's with 18 tooth granny chainwheels produce several times the chain tension any track rider can muster.
see http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_b.html, "Block Chain"
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/record-track.html
I'm glad you brought up Sheldon Brown. From the same source we have another tidbit debunking the "trackies-need-stronger-chains-because-trackies-are-stronger" myth:
Block Chain
An obsolete type of chain, formerly popular with track racers. Block chain had solid blocks as inner links, without rollers. It had a 1" pitch with 3/16" wide blocks, the same as the "skip link" roller chain that appeared on the market about 1930 to replace it.
The remaining stock of block chain was [B]coveted by track riders who believed it was the only chain strong enough to withstand their imagined strength. When the stock of block chains finally ran out in the late 1970's, it was replaced by 1/2" pitch 3/32" wide chain, as used with derailers, although track riders still prefer an 1/8" wide chain, believing they are stronger than other riders. MTB's with 18 tooth granny chainwheels produce several times the chain tension any track rider can muster.
see http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_b.html, "Block Chain"
mickster
08-23-06, 10:58 AM
I'm glad you brought up Sheldon Brown. From the same source we have another tidbit debunking the "trackies-need-stronger-chains-because-trackies-are-stronger" myth:
No, trackies tend to prefer 1/8" width chains for a bunch of other reasons unrelated to strength:
- They've less sideways flex, making them less likely to ship if chainline / tension is marginal.
- They've 50% more width than a 3/32 chain and hence more metal in contact with the teeth of the chainring, meaning the drivetrain wears less quickly.
- They are available with bushings unlike almost all 3/32 chains (and as far as I know all 9sp and 10 sp chains) - bushings make em run smoother and last longer than bushingless designs (a point made by Sheldon somewhere in his article I think)
- They allow you to use both 1/8" and 3/32" sprockets and chainrings; this is not possible with a 3/32 chain. It makes swapping stuff with yr pals at the trackside easier, and you can take advantage of the considerable second-hand market in old track rings / sprockets when building yr collection of gears.
Now this doesn't mean that a 3/32" chain can't be used at the track (cos they clearly can), or that you're in danger of snapping one through brute strength etc etc. It's just a question of which is better suited to the job. Put it another way, what material advantage is there by NOT going with 1/8" for the track, all other things being equal? The only one I can see is maybe cost...
mickster
No, trackies tend to prefer 1/8" width chains for a bunch of other reasons unrelated to strength:
- They've less sideways flex, making them less likely to ship if chainline / tension is marginal.
- They've 50% more width than a 3/32 chain and hence more metal in contact with the teeth of the chainring, meaning the drivetrain wears less quickly.
- They are available with bushings unlike almost all 3/32 chains (and as far as I know all 9sp and 10 sp chains) - bushings make em run smoother and last longer than bushingless designs (a point made by Sheldon somewhere in his article I think)
- They allow you to use both 1/8" and 3/32" sprockets and chainrings; this is not possible with a 3/32 chain. It makes swapping stuff with yr pals at the trackside easier, and you can take advantage of the considerable second-hand market in old track rings / sprockets when building yr collection of gears.
Now this doesn't mean that a 3/32" chain can't be used at the track (cos they clearly can), or that you're in danger of snapping one through brute strength etc etc. It's just a question of which is better suited to the job. Put it another way, what material advantage is there by NOT going with 1/8" for the track, all other things being equal? The only one I can see is maybe cost...
mickster
'nother
08-23-06, 11:30 AM
No, trackies tend to prefer 1/8" width chains for a bunch of other reasons unrelated to strength:
I do not disagree with you and I did not mean it as any kind of "slam" on trackies; I was responding specifically to what landrover4 was saying:
...the stresses which come with this type of use. The chain, for example, is 1/8 inch instead of the thinner and weaker 3/32 inch of road bike...
I do not disagree with you and I did not mean it as any kind of "slam" on trackies; I was responding specifically to what landrover4 was saying:
...the stresses which come with this type of use. The chain, for example, is 1/8 inch instead of the thinner and weaker 3/32 inch of road bike...
sivat
08-23-06, 07:04 PM
Also I liked what you said about the stresses incurred by headsets of road bikes when braking. Good point. What do you think about the track BB? Why is Campagnolo still making it and what is the difference been it and the road version?
I don't know much about the campy bb, but I would imagine that a track bb undergoes more stress than a road bb. Since track bikes have only a single speed, in a sprint, or quick acceleration, I would think that pushing against the tall gear ratio on a track bike would be harder on the bb than sprinting through the gears on a road bike. The fact that some sprinters will use straps with thier clipless pedals on the track shows how much force is being put on the cranks and bb. I would say that smoothmess may have something to do with it as well. Because of the effiency of a fixed gear transmission, combined with the normally clean conditions of the track, track riders seem to be more concerned with a smooth drivetrain than road racers, who will use sealed bearings for better durability in sandy/dirty/wet conditions.
As for what mickster said,
-sideways flex just isn't an issue on a fixed gear. Unless your chainline is more that 2mm off, unheard of on any respectable track bike, there is no sideways force on the chain. If the chainline is off by that much, a more flexible chain would actually be better since it would be able to move more smoothly normal to the force of the chainwheel.
-1/8 is 33% bigger than 3/32, not 50%.
-Mixing 3/32 and 1/8, though possible, really defeats the purpose of running the bigger components.
I don't know much about the campy bb, but I would imagine that a track bb undergoes more stress than a road bb. Since track bikes have only a single speed, in a sprint, or quick acceleration, I would think that pushing against the tall gear ratio on a track bike would be harder on the bb than sprinting through the gears on a road bike. The fact that some sprinters will use straps with thier clipless pedals on the track shows how much force is being put on the cranks and bb. I would say that smoothmess may have something to do with it as well. Because of the effiency of a fixed gear transmission, combined with the normally clean conditions of the track, track riders seem to be more concerned with a smooth drivetrain than road racers, who will use sealed bearings for better durability in sandy/dirty/wet conditions.
As for what mickster said,
-sideways flex just isn't an issue on a fixed gear. Unless your chainline is more that 2mm off, unheard of on any respectable track bike, there is no sideways force on the chain. If the chainline is off by that much, a more flexible chain would actually be better since it would be able to move more smoothly normal to the force of the chainwheel.
-1/8 is 33% bigger than 3/32, not 50%.
-Mixing 3/32 and 1/8, though possible, really defeats the purpose of running the bigger components.
landrover4
08-24-06, 03:06 AM
Great information. Thanks very much.
mickster
08-24-06, 06:23 AM
As for what mickster said,
-sideways flex just isn't an issue on a fixed gear. Unless your chainline is more that 2mm off, unheard of on any respectable track bike, there is no sideways force on the chain. If the chainline is off by that much, a more flexible chain would actually be better since it would be able to move more smoothly normal to the force of the chainwheel.
-1/8 is 33% bigger than 3/32, not 50%.
-Mixing 3/32 and 1/8, though possible, really defeats the purpose of running the bigger components.
One of those perennials like whether to use lockrings, but I'll bite:
I still maintain that sideways flex, or lack thereof, is a desirable characteristic in a track bike chain. Chainlines are not always spot on, even on 'repectable' track bikes - just run a pair of Mavic ellipse track wheels, for instance, on your otherwise respectable fully-Dura Ace pista equipped track bike and yr chainline is instantly 2mm off - and tolerances change as drivetrain parts wear. I also said that chain tension is a factor in this, and contend that a less-than-perfectly-adjusted chain is less likely to ship if it has less sideways flex as per a 1/8" track chain. If there was no sideways force involved on a track chain they wouldn't ever ship on the track, but we both know that this does occasionally happen.
I said a 1/8 chain has 50% more width than a 3/32 - put another way, a 3mm chain has 50% more width than a 2mm chain. I think that statement still holds; in any case, we're into petty semantics - the point about it being wider and therefore longer lasting remains.
mickster
-sideways flex just isn't an issue on a fixed gear. Unless your chainline is more that 2mm off, unheard of on any respectable track bike, there is no sideways force on the chain. If the chainline is off by that much, a more flexible chain would actually be better since it would be able to move more smoothly normal to the force of the chainwheel.
-1/8 is 33% bigger than 3/32, not 50%.
-Mixing 3/32 and 1/8, though possible, really defeats the purpose of running the bigger components.
One of those perennials like whether to use lockrings, but I'll bite:
I still maintain that sideways flex, or lack thereof, is a desirable characteristic in a track bike chain. Chainlines are not always spot on, even on 'repectable' track bikes - just run a pair of Mavic ellipse track wheels, for instance, on your otherwise respectable fully-Dura Ace pista equipped track bike and yr chainline is instantly 2mm off - and tolerances change as drivetrain parts wear. I also said that chain tension is a factor in this, and contend that a less-than-perfectly-adjusted chain is less likely to ship if it has less sideways flex as per a 1/8" track chain. If there was no sideways force involved on a track chain they wouldn't ever ship on the track, but we both know that this does occasionally happen.
I said a 1/8 chain has 50% more width than a 3/32 - put another way, a 3mm chain has 50% more width than a 2mm chain. I think that statement still holds; in any case, we're into petty semantics - the point about it being wider and therefore longer lasting remains.
mickster
landrover4
08-24-06, 10:50 AM
I said a 1/8 chain has 50% more width than a 3/32 - put another way, a 3mm chain has 50% more width than a 2mm chain. I think that statement still holds; in any case, we're into petty semantics - the point about it being wider and therefore longer lasting remains.
mickster
It's specious reasoning to make the analogy of 3mm and 2mm chain when refering to 1/8 chain and 3/32 chain. Better would be to say that 1/8 is to 4mm as 3/32 is to 3mm and therefore we see that 1/8 chain is neither 33% bigger/wider nor 50% bigger/wider but rather only 25% bigger/wider (choose your adjective).
I'll end with an email from Sheldon Brown regarding track vs. road headsets and bottom brackets:
Track stuff isn't generally going to be as well sealed as road stuff.
Headsets have no effect on the bicycle's "ride"
but track usage is much gentler on a headset,
partly 'cause there's no dirt, partly 'cause
there are no potholes.
Track bottom brackets are commonly shorter than road bottom brackets.
All the best,
Sheldon
So there you have it.
mickster
It's specious reasoning to make the analogy of 3mm and 2mm chain when refering to 1/8 chain and 3/32 chain. Better would be to say that 1/8 is to 4mm as 3/32 is to 3mm and therefore we see that 1/8 chain is neither 33% bigger/wider nor 50% bigger/wider but rather only 25% bigger/wider (choose your adjective).
I'll end with an email from Sheldon Brown regarding track vs. road headsets and bottom brackets:
Track stuff isn't generally going to be as well sealed as road stuff.
Headsets have no effect on the bicycle's "ride"
but track usage is much gentler on a headset,
partly 'cause there's no dirt, partly 'cause
there are no potholes.
Track bottom brackets are commonly shorter than road bottom brackets.
All the best,
Sheldon
So there you have it.
mickster
08-24-06, 12:08 PM
It's specious reasoning to make the analogy of 3mm and 2mm chain when refering to 1/8 chain and 3/32 chain. Better would be to say that 1/8 is to 4mm as 3/32 is to 3mm and therefore we see that 1/8 chain is neither 33% bigger/wider nor 50% bigger/wider but rather only 25% bigger/wider (choose your adjective). <snip>
It'd be specious reasoning if I just pulled the 2mm/3mm figures out of thin air; however, they're frequently used as nominal metric equivalents when talking about 1/8 and 3/32 inch drivetrain width eg http://www.businesscycles.com/tr-refspec.htm#width.
3 is 150% of 2. 2 is one third less than 3. Both statements are true.
Like I said earlier, we're just p1ssing about with semantics.
mickster
It'd be specious reasoning if I just pulled the 2mm/3mm figures out of thin air; however, they're frequently used as nominal metric equivalents when talking about 1/8 and 3/32 inch drivetrain width eg http://www.businesscycles.com/tr-refspec.htm#width.
3 is 150% of 2. 2 is one third less than 3. Both statements are true.
Like I said earlier, we're just p1ssing about with semantics.
mickster
landrover4
08-24-06, 01:08 PM
It'd be specious reasoning if I just pulled the 2mm/3mm figures out of thin air; however, they're frequently used as nominal metric equivalents when talking about 1/8 and 3/32 inch drivetrain width eg http://www.businesscycles.com/tr-refspec.htm#width.
3 is 150% of 2. 2 is one third less than 3. Both statements are true.
Like I said earlier, we're just p1ssing about with semantics.
mickster
150%? I thought you said 50%? No matter, neither one comes into play when discussing how much larger 1/8 is to 3/32 or how much smaller 3/32 is to 1/8. However, regarding your numbers 3 and 2, yes, 3 is indeed 150% of 2 and 2 is one third less than 3, I agree 100%.
To come back to the chain issue, my 25% is wrong if you're talking about how much wider 1/8 is compared to 3/32, but it is correct if you are talking about how much narrower 3/32 is compared to 1/8. But if you are talking strictly about how much larger/wider 1/8 is to 3/32, then the answer is 33%.
1/8 = 4/32. 4/32 is 33% larger than 3/32. For example: 200 is 33% larger than 150. To increase the number 150 (3/32) to 200 (4/32) you need to add 33% of itself, or the number 50. (To reduce 200 to 150you need to remove 25% of itself.)
3 is 150% of 2. 2 is one third less than 3. Both statements are true.
Like I said earlier, we're just p1ssing about with semantics.
mickster
150%? I thought you said 50%? No matter, neither one comes into play when discussing how much larger 1/8 is to 3/32 or how much smaller 3/32 is to 1/8. However, regarding your numbers 3 and 2, yes, 3 is indeed 150% of 2 and 2 is one third less than 3, I agree 100%.
To come back to the chain issue, my 25% is wrong if you're talking about how much wider 1/8 is compared to 3/32, but it is correct if you are talking about how much narrower 3/32 is compared to 1/8. But if you are talking strictly about how much larger/wider 1/8 is to 3/32, then the answer is 33%.
1/8 = 4/32. 4/32 is 33% larger than 3/32. For example: 200 is 33% larger than 150. To increase the number 150 (3/32) to 200 (4/32) you need to add 33% of itself, or the number 50. (To reduce 200 to 150you need to remove 25% of itself.)
moxfyre
08-24-06, 09:17 PM
No, trackies tend to prefer 1/8" width chains for a bunch of other reasons unrelated to strength:
- They've less sideways flex, making them less likely to ship if chainline / tension is marginal.
- They've 50% more width than a 3/32 chain and hence more metal in contact with the teeth of the chainring, meaning the drivetrain wears less quickly.
- They are available with bushings unlike almost all 3/32 chains (and as far as I know all 9sp and 10 sp chains) - bushings make em run smoother and last longer than bushingless designs (a point made by Sheldon somewhere in his article I think)
- They allow you to use both 1/8" and 3/32" sprockets and chainrings; this is not possible with a 3/32 chain. It makes swapping stuff with yr pals at the trackside easier, and you can take advantage of the considerable second-hand market in old track rings / sprockets when building yr collection of gears.
No, Sheldon clearly explains that bushingless chains are more durable, and he believes this is because of better lubricant flow: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html ... this probably means that they run smoother too.
- They've less sideways flex, making them less likely to ship if chainline / tension is marginal.
- They've 50% more width than a 3/32 chain and hence more metal in contact with the teeth of the chainring, meaning the drivetrain wears less quickly.
- They are available with bushings unlike almost all 3/32 chains (and as far as I know all 9sp and 10 sp chains) - bushings make em run smoother and last longer than bushingless designs (a point made by Sheldon somewhere in his article I think)
- They allow you to use both 1/8" and 3/32" sprockets and chainrings; this is not possible with a 3/32 chain. It makes swapping stuff with yr pals at the trackside easier, and you can take advantage of the considerable second-hand market in old track rings / sprockets when building yr collection of gears.
No, Sheldon clearly explains that bushingless chains are more durable, and he believes this is because of better lubricant flow: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html ... this probably means that they run smoother too.
sivat
08-25-06, 01:16 AM
One of those perennials like whether to use lockrings, but I'll bite:
I still maintain that sideways flex, or lack thereof, is a desirable characteristic in a track bike chain. Chainlines are not always spot on, even on 'repectable' track bikes - just run a pair of Mavic ellipse track wheels, for instance, on your otherwise respectable fully-Dura Ace pista equipped track bike and yr chainline is instantly 2mm off - and tolerances change as drivetrain parts wear. I also said that chain tension is a factor in this, and contend that a less-than-perfectly-adjusted chain is less likely to ship if it has less sideways flex as per a 1/8" track chain. If there was no sideways force involved on a track chain they wouldn't ever ship on the track, but we both know that this does occasionally happen.
I said a 1/8 chain has 50% more width than a 3/32 - put another way, a 3mm chain has 50% more width than a 2mm chain. I think that statement still holds; in any case, we're into petty semantics - the point about it being wider and therefore longer lasting remains.
mickster
Why wouldn't you run a 4mm wider bb with the ellipses to keep the chainline? I don't buy it that there are track bikes racing with a chainline off by that much. Even so, with a chainline 2 mm off that mean that less than .5% of your pedaling force is pulling the chain sideways (assuming a 425mm chainstay length). A chain will only flex to the side if there is a force acting on it in that direction. That being said, if you put 200lbs of force on the pedals, and .5% of that is acting sideways on the chain, that 1 lb of force needs to be delt with. If the chain is perfectly rigid in that direction (which is impossible according to Einstein) that just means that it is going to be transfered directly to your chainring and cog teeth and wear them more quickly. Running a more flexible chain means that the force will be spread out and the drivetrain will last longer. Neither one will have an impact on how much force is transfered to the movement of the rear wheel. The fact is, 1/8th drivetrains are traditional on track bikes. Thats the main reason for running them. The chains are marginally stronger than 3/32 and may in fact give a slightly more responsive feel. Chains will only slip (and by this I assume you mean come off the chainwheel or cog) when something goes wrong. The chainwheel bends, the rear wheel moves in the fork ends, or something slips.
I still maintain that sideways flex, or lack thereof, is a desirable characteristic in a track bike chain. Chainlines are not always spot on, even on 'repectable' track bikes - just run a pair of Mavic ellipse track wheels, for instance, on your otherwise respectable fully-Dura Ace pista equipped track bike and yr chainline is instantly 2mm off - and tolerances change as drivetrain parts wear. I also said that chain tension is a factor in this, and contend that a less-than-perfectly-adjusted chain is less likely to ship if it has less sideways flex as per a 1/8" track chain. If there was no sideways force involved on a track chain they wouldn't ever ship on the track, but we both know that this does occasionally happen.
I said a 1/8 chain has 50% more width than a 3/32 - put another way, a 3mm chain has 50% more width than a 2mm chain. I think that statement still holds; in any case, we're into petty semantics - the point about it being wider and therefore longer lasting remains.
mickster
Why wouldn't you run a 4mm wider bb with the ellipses to keep the chainline? I don't buy it that there are track bikes racing with a chainline off by that much. Even so, with a chainline 2 mm off that mean that less than .5% of your pedaling force is pulling the chain sideways (assuming a 425mm chainstay length). A chain will only flex to the side if there is a force acting on it in that direction. That being said, if you put 200lbs of force on the pedals, and .5% of that is acting sideways on the chain, that 1 lb of force needs to be delt with. If the chain is perfectly rigid in that direction (which is impossible according to Einstein) that just means that it is going to be transfered directly to your chainring and cog teeth and wear them more quickly. Running a more flexible chain means that the force will be spread out and the drivetrain will last longer. Neither one will have an impact on how much force is transfered to the movement of the rear wheel. The fact is, 1/8th drivetrains are traditional on track bikes. Thats the main reason for running them. The chains are marginally stronger than 3/32 and may in fact give a slightly more responsive feel. Chains will only slip (and by this I assume you mean come off the chainwheel or cog) when something goes wrong. The chainwheel bends, the rear wheel moves in the fork ends, or something slips.
mickster
08-25-06, 07:59 AM
sivat - you seem to be talking about *sideways force* on the chain in the sense of the sideways force that would be exerted via pedalling by virtue of the chain being misaligned; this isn't how chains ship (note the 'h') in my contention. IME they tend to ship because of looseness / misalignment / 'flapping about' which causes them to jump off a tooth, rather than because they're under a strong sideways force through pedalling. This looseness is a prerequisite, and as you say it can be caused by something slipping, or simply because the chain tension was not perfect to begin with. I'm suggesting that a laterally-stiffer bushinged (hence usually 1/8) chain will be more tolerant of such slippages / mistensioned chains and will be less easily thrown than a chain designed for sideways flexibility.
And this stuff happens from time to time at the track - chainlines really aren't always perfect, trackies don't always fettle their BBs / chainlines to match a specific set of wheels / hubs (and in fact how could they as you tend to use several different rear wheels when racing / training), chains get tensiuoned imperfectly and sometimes they get shipped.
On the 1/8-is-tradition point, I think we're in agreement; this is just a more general way of reiterating what I said about availability of used parts / ease of swapping and borrowing parts with other trackies.
mickster
And this stuff happens from time to time at the track - chainlines really aren't always perfect, trackies don't always fettle their BBs / chainlines to match a specific set of wheels / hubs (and in fact how could they as you tend to use several different rear wheels when racing / training), chains get tensiuoned imperfectly and sometimes they get shipped.
On the 1/8-is-tradition point, I think we're in agreement; this is just a more general way of reiterating what I said about availability of used parts / ease of swapping and borrowing parts with other trackies.
mickster
sivat
08-25-06, 02:28 PM
Ok, i'll bite. What is chain ship? I've never heard that term
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.