Originally Posted by
Scrotze
Not taking sides, I just sincerely like this piece of advice. On that note, is it advisable (not really the word I'm looking for, but it's close) to start at a low gear and work on spin/form then work your way up the GI chart? I'm saying this because, as I understand it (from a newb perspective), it would be easier to begin low as it doesn't require as much strength (but a lot of skill: controlling yourself at high speeds) and as you begin to hone your spin/form you are at the same time building strength that will enable you to be able to push 80+ GIs. Just a curious newb question.
Most people I have heard who talk about starting track racing (ie, a structured commitment to going fast on a fixed gear) say to start low, learn to spin, then go with a higher gear when your spin is higher. You build your spin, then work on leg strength.
Originally Posted by
spcialzdspksman
I have to agree with dsh.
Reasons you are wrong:
1. We are not all professional track racers.
2. Most of us aren't Lance Armstrong.
3. The slope in a velodrome (0) is not the same as on the streets.
4. Most of us don't train consistently (so your "average" person can be someone within a wide range of cycling capability) but instead ride to commute, trick (even lower ratio), or for recreation.
5. Your foolish assumption that everyone is "entrenched" in "mediocrity" is senseless; almost all of us realize our own level of cycling, and build our bikes correspondingly.
6. We are aware the gearing of track racers, but since they are racing, professional athletes, and ride in the velodrome and the only thing we have in common is we turn cranks, I hardly think that your little analysis of your "average" cyclist is a plausible answer.
7. Yes, you are right if you are describing the human ability to perform that task of higher gearing is physically possible, but "competence" in your eyes, apparently, is that everyone should be on the same level as professional track riders. So you are assuming that the "average" person should be as fit and fast as those racers? I think not.
"reasons you are wrong", that's cute.
I never said the average person should be comparable to a professional track racer, however it isn't unreasonable that a person who rides every day and pushes himself/herself cannot become easily equivalent to a mediocre amateur track racer. There are likely a lot of people riding fixed gears who have never seen a velodrome (be they messengers, serious commuters or just people who like to ride hard) who could likely fit right in to track racing and do ok on an amateur level. There's no reason for you to be so stubbornly committed to sucking.
And lastly;
Originally Posted by
spcialzdspksman
4. Most of us don't train consistently (so your "average" person can be someone within a wide range of cycling capability) but instead ride to commute, trick (even lower ratio), or for recreation.
7. Yes, you are right if you are describing the human ability to perform that task of higher gearing is physically possible, but "competence" in your eyes, apparently, is that everyone should be on the same level as professional track riders. So you are assuming that the "average" person should be as fit and fast as those racers? I think not.
I'm the one arguing for the LOWER gearing, jesus christ.