Well said.

It all depends on one's riding.

Personally I do fairly hardcore bike commuting/utility riding.

Usually riding non-folding bikes, but similar rides on the folder.

My typical ride is 20 to 40 miles RT. My longest single day one-way commute was 200 miles. My Bike Friday folder towed its trailer for 150 miles in a long day. Occasionally I'll do over mile or a mile and a half of climbing in a day, sometimes hitting 10% to 20% slopes. My folder usually pulls < 100 lbs, but my heaviest load was about 500 lbs including going over a couple of small hills. Heavy enough loads that it is easier to ride in low gears rather than walk and push the bike uphill :eek:

Anyway my rides aren't short loops around the park.

Call me lazy if you wish, but I like my gears.

I have been riding a long time, and when I was a kid, 12 speeds was the maximum number.

As technology improved, more and more gears became available. As a silly and contrary person, I though that more gears were not really necessary, and were just a marketing ploy to get people to buy new bikes or new components. I stubbornly rode my old 10 and 12 speed bikes, which my friends in group rides thought was great.

But then I began to ride more seriously, and I needed a new bike. I bought a new Pinarello with the Campy Record Ergopower 8 speed group. The added gears were a revelation to my riding. The next year the 9 speed group was released, just in time for my first (and only) season racing in Europe. The increased gear range and the precision of the shifting was amazing. And as new improvements have come, I have upgraded. The 11 speed kits now available are simply amazing.

The problem with having only one gear is that whatever you gain from simplicity and saved weight is lost in inefficiency. A single speed is good for flat or mild terrain where speed is unnecessary. The fixie craze is still going on in Japan (though on the decline), but I can out-accelerate and outrun fixie track bikes on my multi-speed folding bike. Most fixie riders are not capable of pedaling fast enough to keep up with any multi-speed road bike on flat ground, and on hills or descents, they are even more at a disadvantage.

If you want to follow your line of logic a little further, having bicycle without brakes will be even lighter, and more simple (and some people in the fixie crowd still ride without brakes).

Pancake flat, it may be fine..

I think that one of the biggest marketing deceits is that you need a 21 or 27 speed bike because, again, more must be better. Having a bunch of redundant gear combinations is not better, but heavier and more complex. Yes, lots of folks (myself included) make use of a range of gear ratios when riding, but I can't imagine ever needing more than 10 or 11.

Agree, I love 1xN bike gearing, but many people aren't good at math, so they don't understand overlapping gear inches.
I'd love to ride single speed, but not realistic for rides in my area. Now if it was just a short ride to transit only, maybe...

I agree that a bike doesn't need more than 11 gears. Anything extra is redundant. But, after owning 2 single speed bikes, I personally need 3 gears or more. Walking up a hill is unacceptable!

One of the greatest beauties of a bicycle is how efficient it is.---Single speeds are not efficient.

Yes they are,...they're EFFICIENT at making me get off and WALK on GIANT HILLS!!! :lol:

This does not make sense to me unless your definition of efficiency is unconventional. Efficiency is the ratio of power out over power in, and cannot be bigger than 1 (100%). So a singlespeed without the drag of the rear derailer is necessarily more efficient.

A single speed or fixed gear bike under the right conditions is easily more efficient. Hills, headwinds and heavy loads mean lower gear inches are required to be at the sweet spot where the cadence is best for you. Having said that, I must admit I enjoy all my bikes a lot... 8 speeds, 10 speeds 3 speed SA hub, or single in either 70 gear inches(Brompton) and 80 gear inches 700 c Surly Steamroller. I enjoy the different workouts and challenges they present and would hate to part with any of them.

When I had my 29er still a single speed I adjusted to riding up hills WITHOUT walking. I just prefer a geared bike nowadays. I ride my 3 speed in the highest gear most of the time now, and do go lower on big hills. But, I'm still well above a true granny gear, and I prefer to tough it out. I have bikes with higher gearing, but I tend to use my 2 3 speed bikes almost exclusively. Go figure,...

Ok so my limited range powerplant is much more efficient with a wide range transmission. I am way faster in a combination of -- up hills and down hills and across flats with a geared bike.

If you are riding in a fairly narrow range of speed then a Single can work well. But if you are trying to ride a significant portion of your time at 18 mph or higher and also climbing hills at 4 to 6 mph gearing is a necessity unless you want to walk a lot. I totally disagree with your statement that most people don't need more than one gear..

And where does the power come from? Certainly not from the 'bicycle'!

I've seen curves similar to this one

Attachment 566846

published in many cycling journals. Under a vast array of conditions the single speed will have its rider generating power inefficiently.

Wow. Just wow. Fifteen speed bicycles became available in the mid-1930s, so you have been riding a long time!

Hmm, my 1934 Bianchi has the Campy Cambio Corsa gear set, which consists of 4 speeds, and requires two shifters, one to shift, the other to move the axle to take up slack in the chain. Just wow man.

What I mean by 12 speeds is a six speed rear cog, though technically triple fronts could make it 18 speeds.

I like my 2 speed folder. I use it for day rides, and don’t haul anything heavy with it.
It stays in the 66” gear, unless there is a long hill coming up.
I drop it in the low gear by using my heel to drop the chain on the smaller chainring. That results in a 48” gear. Most hills and mountain passes are possible with that. Sometimes I have to walk for a short interval here and there, and I don’t see that as a “fail”. It’s a different kind of experience, more like hiking, where I notice more of my surroundings. Walking is my third gear, and I like to walk.
Pedaling cadence varies a lot. I use more of my upper body strength to get me over the hills. It’s seems like a more complex physical workout. I climb faster on this bike overall, but I can’t fly down descents as with a fully geared bike, so I do more coasting.
The 2 speed saves a bit on weight and maintenance, but I like it for how it changes the way I ride compared to my geared bikes. There is less mental energy spent deciding which gear to be in. That sounds trivial, but i find the simplicity of a 1 or 2 speed is refreshing.

Well that's very clever of you. But that is a different topic and does not affect the proper definition of efficiency. What you were highlighting is not efficiency but ability to generate power, and where that peak power occurs. It may be called efficiency by some but erroneously.

Reading this thread got me worried that my new Allen Sport's "Downtown" single speed would not be of much use in my neighborhood, as I live in hilly terrain.
Not sure of the gearing as the teeth are hidden in the crank's chain guard. But it feels around a 50 inch gear.

So I took it down to the hilly road in front of my property. I normally drop into around a mid forties inch gear to get up that hill, and surprise, I had no problem getting up the medium steep hill on the one speed. On the flats the bike felt comfortable and fairly fast enough to get me places. I did have to get up off the saddle and use my standing technique, but with the new drop bars, it felt like my normal road bikes!

Sleepcactus, what are the size of the chainrings you are running? And do you need a chain tensioner to take up the slack? And do you have to stop to manually switch back to the larger chainring?

Engineering efficient definition.
Maybe the poster meant overall or biomechanically efficient.
A person having to put a huge amount of torque due to a drive chain ratio that cant be altered when the demand changes is going to be very metabolicaly inefficient.

Just to chime in and describe my first ride on a SS Strida. My friend bought one (I pointed him in that direction ;) ). Afer a few seconds on the bike I was thinking "WOW, I could ride this thing FAR"! May be the efficiency of the single speed drivetrain. I think we are cheating ourselves by just comparing IGH gear inches to derillium (yes linberl :) ) gear inches to SS gear inches. Yes, the gears are the same with same cog and chainring but some of the riders power is lost somewhere in the system.

I had to pull myself together to not go and buy the other of the two (almost unused) Stridas for sale at approx 220 USD.

Would of course not want it as my only bike but I was impressed. Kojacks helped of course.:)

I'd have to agree with this. Most of my riding is done in just one gear (~76gi) regardless of whether I'm riding my SS, 3 spd or up to 18spd bikes and the SS seems to transfer power more efficiently. There's also something very cathartic about riding a very quiet bike like my coaster braked single speeds where the tires rolling on the pavement make more noise than the drivetrain.

I once met my wife/daughter for a pediatric appointment in NW DC and took the Strida. Unfortunately, the 1/2 mile between the Metro station and office was roughly a 3-4% grade uphill. I could have used a little inefficiency with gears that day! ;)

Dingle cog & Double chainring, would give two,
the tooth counts total for 2 combinations being equal,
the chain length would be similar..