Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - Soon to be SS commuter

http://colin.bloodyflapper.com//images/random/bike2.jpg

set up with drops and about 1.5" of drop between the saddle and bars. 52x16. Sprinter4sure.

Neato. I like it. That's quite a nice frame. Know how old it is?
Post pics when it's done, pleeeeeeeeeease.

Looks uncomfortable. At least put some tires on it before you try to ride it...

52x16? you must have legs. nice frame though, i'm jealous.

I do have legs, yes. They assist me in things. 52x16 really isn't bad for the kind of riding I do commuting. It's almost always less than 4 miles so I just sprint, hence the aggressive setup. I may drop it down to 42x16 or something similarly weaksauce once the wind picks up. Going uphill against a sustained 30mph wind with a 3:1 ratio is usually less rewarding than walking.

You're nuts. I commute on a 44x17. Sayin'.

yeah.. I've been riding 47x16 with 165mm cranks daily for a couple weeks. I've yet to get spinning so fast that I couldn't keep up.. I wish I had gotten a 45 or even 43 chainring

-chry

The higher ratios give you the option to always go faster and accelerate QUICKLY. Only takes a couple weeks to get used to. Plus I like always pedaling against resistance instead of just idly spinning away.

"abortionpunch" - that sounds violent.

The higher ratios give you the option to go faster and accelerate QUICKLY.

Uh, no. Have you ever driven a car with a manual transmission?

You wanna go faster, spin faster.

My commuter's a 45x18. One day I'll progress but winter's on its way....

Uh, no. Have you ever driven a car with a manual transmission?

You wanna go faster, spin faster.

truth

It's ok that your weak thighs disagree with me. You'll be spinning your merry little ass like a top while I still have gear to bite into. I'm not saying the smaller gear ratios aren't without their benefits. They don't make you work as hard. But, like I said, I sprint everywhere. Speed is king.

It's ok that your weak thighs disagree with me. You'll be spinning your merry little ass like a top while I still have gear to bite into. I'm not saying the smaller gear ratios aren't without their benefits. They don't make you work as hard. But, like I said, I sprint everywhere. Speed is king.

Get as snippy as you want. I'm just trying to help you out here and you're making yourself sound like a ******.

If you want to run that ratio, go ahead. Nothing's stopping you. I'm just saying that unless you're some olympiad dude you'll be more comfortable with a smaller gear.

Maybe it's the whole illusion of speed thing.

It's ok that your weak thighs disagree with me. You'll be spinning your merry little ass like a top while I still have gear to bite into. I'm not saying the smaller gear ratios aren't without their benefits. They don't make you work as hard. But, like I said, I sprint everywhere. Speed is king.

Tadashi moved to Arizona?

You're trying to help by imposing your view of how my bike should be set up, not knowing me at all, and becoming self-righteous when I explain to you that your ideal setup is not mine? Believe me, I don't need your help here.

This is not my first bike. I've been riding this ratio for years. I've tried other ratios. This is the one I like and ride well with.


So yea, I am a ******. What do you expect from someone with a handle like abortionpunch? Hearts made out of coathangers? And like I mentioned, It's not about comfort for me. Our priorities differ. You can either leave it at that or you can pursue this into another ratio argument where it just turns out people have different riding styles, strengths, and weaknesses.

Oh, and It's worth noting that the "manual transmission" analogy is fundamentally flawed when considering single speed bikes. It's much more akin to putting more current through an electric motor.

You're trying to help by imposing your view of how my bike should be set up, not knowing me at all, and becoming self-righteous when I explain to you that your ideal setup is not mine? Believe me, I don't need your help here.

This is not my first bike. I've been riding this ratio for years. I've tried other ratios. This is the one I like and ride well with.


So yea, I am a ******. What do you expect from someone with a handle like abortionpunch? Hearts made out of coathangers? And like I mentioned, It's not about comfort for me. Our priorities differ. You can either leave it at that or you can pursue this into another ratio argument where it just turns out people have different riding styles, strengths, and weaknesses.

Really making some friends around here. Nice work. I always love to see self-righteous idiots who make a lot of noise about having sh*t for brains.

Folks were trying to be helpful and you and shat on them. How brilliant of you. Why don't you sprint that ratio into a cholla cactus, wingnut?

Yup, I did **** on them (mainly crushkill as the others seemed to respect my ability to determine my own needs) and their ignorance of my riding style, experience, and needs. Someone telling a stranger what they need to be comfortable isn't exactly the most civil approach.

So entertaining that any talk of ratios and comfort always ends up with a bunch of hurt feelings.

Oh, and It's worth noting that the "manual transmission" analogy is fundamentally flawed when considering single speed bikes. It's much more akin to putting more current through an electric motor.

Go try and start a car in 1st gear. Then try and start it in 3rd. Then come back and talk to me.

You seem to be tilting at windmills here. We're trying to help you (a rarity around here, by the way) and you're just barking out of your ass.

with a 3:1 ratio

actually it is 3.25 at 52x16...

I'm not denying that more energy is needed in higher geared system. Provided the energy is available however, the higher geared system will be more efficient at its top end while the top end of the lower geared system will reach a point of diminishing returns, hence the spinning your legs around like a top comment. The electric motor analogy is considerably more sound.

You seem to be having trouble with physics.

And gordiep, it's always nice to see someone criticize another for things said that weren't in the kindest tone while simultaneously wishing them harm.

3.25, thanks.

Didn't feel like doing the division at the time.

I'm not denying that more energy is needed in higher geared system. Provided the energy is available however, the higher geared system will be more efficient at its top end while the top end of the lower geared system will reach a point of diminishing returns, hence the spinning your legs around like a top comment. The electric motor analogy is considerably more sound.

You seem to be having trouble with physics.

And gordiep, it's always nice to see someone criticize another for things said that weren't in the kindest tone while simultaneously wishing them harm.

By energy, you mean torque.

Hey abortionpunch go read this paper and then come back and tell us what gear ratios and gearings are most efficient


Effects of Frictional Loss on Bicycle Chain Drive Efficiency
Journal of Mechanical Design -- December 2001 -- Volume 123, Issue 4, pp. 598-605
ABSTRACT: "Chain drive efficiency has been studied to understand energy loss mechanisms in bicycle drive trains, primarily for derailleur-type systems. An analytical study of frictional energy loss mechanisms for chain drives is given along with a series of experimental measurements of chain drive efficiency under a range of power, speed and lubrication conditions. Measurements of mechanical efficiency are compared to infrared measurements indicating that frictional losses cannot account for the observed variations in efficiency. The results of this study indicate that chain tension and sprocket size primarily affect efficiency and that non-thermal loss mechanisms dominate overall chain drive efficiency."

The higher ratios give you the option to always go faster and accelerate QUICKLY.

Now abortionpunch is being a ******, but note how he didn't say that he was accelerating from a standstill.
If he's referring to accelerating while already moving (in a gear that puts his cadence in his powerband) then he has a point. (manual transmission analogy: passing a car in 4th, vs. passing in 1st). It is pretty hard to accelerate more if you're already spinning your gear out.

If he actually did mean accelerating faster from stoplights in a high gear, then he is a ******** ******.

Now abortionpunch is being a ******, but note how he didn't say that he was accelerating from a standstill.
If he's referring to accelerating while already moving (in a gear that puts his cadence in his powerband) then he has a point. (manual transmission analogy: passing a car in 4th, vs. passing in 1st). It is pretty hard to accelerate more if you're already spinning your gear out.

If he actually did mean accelerating faster from stoplights in a high gear, then he is a ******** ******.

but he did say always go faster

Hey abortionpunch go read this paper and then come back and tell us what gear ratios and gearings are most efficient


Effects of Frictional Loss on Bicycle Chain Drive Efficiency
Journal of Mechanical Design -- December 2001 -- Volume 123, Issue 4, pp. 598-605
ABSTRACT: "Chain drive efficiency has been studied to understand energy loss mechanisms in bicycle drive trains, primarily for derailleur-type systems. An analytical study of frictional energy loss mechanisms for chain drives is given along with a series of experimental measurements of chain drive efficiency under a range of power, speed and lubrication conditions. Measurements of mechanical efficiency are compared to infrared measurements indicating that frictional losses cannot account for the observed variations in efficiency. The results of this study indicate that chain tension and sprocket size primarily affect efficiency and that non-thermal loss mechanisms dominate overall chain drive efficiency."

That's not really relevant. Drivetrain resistnace is miniscule when compared to aero and rolling resistance.

That's not really relevant. Drivetrain resistnace is miniscule when compared to aero and rolling resistance.

It is relevant when he is claiming that 52x16 is more efficient than 42x16 or some other lower gear

It is relevant when he is claiming that 52x16 is more efficient than 42x16 or some other lower gear

in terms of just drivetrain efficiency, it actually is.
bigger chainring/cog = less bend in chain = less friction = higher efficiency.

in terms of just drivetrain efficiency, it actually is.
bigger chainring/cog = less bend in chain = less friction = higher efficiency.

Yes but in the larger picture - of all the factors that conspire against you to work harder on the bike- it's a non-issue because aero and rolling resistance plays a much more pronounced role.

The issue at hand is a discussion of torque.* Homeboy is claiming that he has torque enough to be a masher. It's not a baseless claim - people have different styles. Compare and contrast Jan Ulrich (masher who spins against a big gear) and Lance Armstrong (spins above 90 rpm all the time). Physiologically, the spinner is more efficient because mashing causes early muscle fatigue. However, both can put out the same power** at different RPMs.


* Torque is essentially the result of how hard (not how fast) you can press on the pedals.

**Power is the rate you can do that. To most cyclists, having low enough gears, power is the primary concern. If it starts to become too difficult to push on the pedals as the slope increases, you gear down and spin faster.

this thread is stupid

in terms of just drivetrain efficiency, it actually is.
bigger chainring/cog = less bend in chain = less friction = higher efficiency.

true but in that paper it also reveals that higher rpms are more efficient...But like MIN said its all for not once you start to take into the other factors that will affect your overall speed much more drastically

It was cool when it was just pictures of my sick new frame.

And gordiep, it's always nice to see someone criticize another for things said that weren't in the kindest tone while simultaneously wishing them harm.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sonny. Yeah, we're really a tough bunch 'round here. Full of contradictions.

No harm done, just an observation.


Admittedly this thread has delved into a more specific realm than I'm knowledgeable of. I'm working off of experience and trial and error. Time to read up.

It was cool when it was just pictures of my sick new frame.

no ****.. it is a sick looking frame too..

It was cool when it was just pictures of my sick new frame.

You mean your sick new conversion?

I would have responded earlier, but I'm stuck over on scrabulous.com talking to trailer park ladies about their cats and whooping their asses by hundreds of points.

You're nuts. I commute on a 44x17. Sayin'.


+1