View Single Post
Old 10-15-06, 11:20 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This is not directed at the OP but is in reference to the lame attitude surrounding fixed vs. geared.

Alot of fixed riders think that because they can manage to get over a hill with a big gear or spin really fast that they are superior to roadies, but what does this really mean? Where is the translation?

For cycling there are different types of strengths that suit different types of riding. An olympic sprinter can turn over a massive gear from a standing start and crank it up to fourty miles an hour for a little over ten seconds... A tiny 130 lb climber can spin up mountains for hours...Is one type really stronger?

I think that riding fixed can give inexperienced riders a feeling of supremacy because they are able to match a road bike doing x,y or z. Fine, you just matched Mr. Spandex for five minutes before pulling off, but that same guy might be coming off of a three hour ride or maybe is going to do three hours more.

If you ride fixed and can suffer through terrain that is mostly inefficent for the gear, then great, pat yourself on the back. But being able to tough out the burn is not necessarily a sign of fitness. Basically, someone fitter-and this could be someone who rides a fixed or geared bike- might only feel that sensation at an intensity twice yours.

If we take skills such as skidding, trackstanding, urban riding and posing hard as a messenger, the average roadie on a fix would destroy your average deep v hipster. Sorry...

In the end, we are really comparing the fitness levels of commuters versus dedicated cyclists (this can go towards either type of bike. My generalization is that most fixed riders would fall under the commuter label. In the end, if you ride fixed and have something to prove, don't compare yourself to outsiders. Bring it to you local track and see how much stronger you are...
goggles is offline