Wind: Fixed vs. Geared
 

I generally don't use my fixed gear for my 14 mile commute when it is or is going to be windy, opting for my 27sp Surly instead.

Recently I've been rethinking that philisophy. The few times I've had to face a long headwind on my fixed gear have not seemed much more miserable than the times when I've been in the same situation on the Surly.

So my question is for those like me who go back and forth between fixed and geared: Do you notice a big speed difference between the two in terms of how the bike perform in a headwind. Does having those easier gears really make a difference in the wind?

I don't know about that difference but...yesterday I went down a steep hill on my fixed, in the city. Normally I would have resisted w/ my legs to moderate my speed, since it was trafficky, but there was a strong headwind, and I was able to relax the whole way down, it was nice.

For me it is probably more a question of posture than drivetrain. Wind isn't much fun one way or the other, but an upright riding posture makes it really unbearable.

I'd say it depends on how big you're geared on the fixed.

If you're geared for the flats and have to really push up the hills, you're going to be hurting when a 20mph wind rolls in.

Last year I rode my fuji track on hwy 58 at emerald isle, n.c., an arrow straight, ~23 mile long, dead level road. When I first got on, I was clipping along, marveling at my str0ngmo sw0leness, I was flying. Upon turning around for the return leg, I found out quickly that I had ridden too far and crawled back to the cottage...I almost wished for *gasp*... gears.

Yes, the ability to raise or lower gear inches will increase efficiency with or against wind.


(but will it make you STRONGER GRRRRR?!?)



yes, yes it will.

That happened to yesterday, first long ride out this year cause its warm. I was cruising at 25mph for a stretch along the beach for about 8 miles and then I turned around. It was a struggle to maintain 10 mph, I wasn't out of breath, my legs just were wearing out.

If I were commuting, I'd definitely rather have a geared bike, I wouldn't have gone any faster but I'd rather spin a little higher than struggle through that wind,

I've thought about this a lot as I have gone back and forth between my fixed and geared bike this winter.

I've decided one can't make a one against the other comparison.

Generalizations:

On level ground where I can maintain my best cadence, the fixie's natural efficiency wins out.

On relatively short hills (less than a mile), even against the wind, the fixie's natural efficiency prevails.

On long hills, or if the combination of wind and hill force me below my optimum cadence, the geared bike prevails.

Given my seven mile commute, the fixie takes less energy than the geared bike, regardless of wind.

Going up to Mount Bachelor, a long, long climb against the wind, and I just can't do it on the fixie.

I hope this summer or the next to ride my fixie from Bend to Portland, through the Cascade Mountains, a trip of about 165 miles with a dynamic elevation range of about 2000 feet and some long, long hills.
In order to do it, I think I need to gear down from my normal 72" to 69" or even 66".

I think I can do the hills and wind around town because for the most part I can stay within my efficient cadence range and within my anaerobic capabilities.
Once it becomes truly aerobic, over a long enough period, I have to gear down or suffer or both.

Anyway, I think too many variables exist to make a truly valid generalization.

Under 15 miles, though, and given the local dynamic range of about 1000', and my fixie takes a lot less energy than my geared bike.

I see this on hills I share with geared bike riders.
Within a certain range and distance, I seem to have an advantage, and then it suddenly disappears and they go past me.
The threshold between anaerobic and aerobic, and cadence, seems to have something to do with it.

Apples and Oranges.

Apples and oranges are remarkably similar when you examine their characteristics. I guess you could say the same about fixed gears and geared bikes.

i used to really get bothered and worn out by headwinds....

seems the longer i ride singlespeed/fixed the less it bothers me.

with gears i think i used to just pick a comfortable cadence and could just shift regardless of conditions to keep that same cadence.

i have noticed that with only one gear only commuting for the past couple years i think i have become better at riding a slower cadence more efficiently (which is why i don't struggle so much against the wind anymore).

or at least that is how it works in my head, which is good enough for me.

Solution: Turn around and ride back where you came from.

when the headwinds get beefy enough, i'm going to be hurting either way. i've found that i go faster with the same amount of hurting on my fixie when the winds are above 40.

I agree: when I really want to make the distinction most folks make when they say "apples and oranges," I say "potatoes and coal."

But wait!

Potatoes and coal both come out of the ground.

Shucks and fudge!

=====

I worked last night and wrote my earlier post from work.

I have since ridden home seven miles, uphill, against a five to fifteen mile per hour wind.

On my longest and most difficult hill, into the wind, I thought that if on my geared bike I would gear down and go slower; which means, do the same amount of work over a longer period of time.

By stretching the same amount of work over a longer period of time, I can keep up aerobically.

For a given blood sugar situation and level of training, we have a predetermined amount of time in which we can function anaerobically before we need to recover with either rest or food, or both.
However, aerobically, we can function indefinitely if our body can convert our body's reserves into blood sugar fast enough.
Geared bikes buy the body time to convert body mass into blood sugar and then burn it with oxygen.

Fixed gear bikes, on the other hand, involve the same cadence issues as geared bikes, but because the rider cannot gear down on a hill, he has to do the same amount of work in less time, which often puts the fixed gear rider into an anaerobic situation in which his muscles burn the sugar/oxygen stored in the muscle cells themselves.

"Four different types of muscle fibers ... However, only the aerobic slow-twitch fiber and the anaerobic fast-twitch fiber are found in human skeletal muscle."

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/18/07/06.html

Aerobic, meaning with oxygen, involves the slow-twitch muscles; and, anaerobic, meaning without oxygen replacement and using only the energy stored in the muscle cells themselves, involves fast-twitch muscle.

By spreading the work out over a longer time period, geared bikes enable slow-twitch muscle to utilize the replacement oxygen provided by the lungs and cardio-vascular system.

In contrast, by constraining the work into a smaller time period, fixed gear bikes, on some hills and against some winds, force the body into an anaerobic situation which utilizes fast-twitch muscle.

So, on some hills I kick butt and on other hills my fixed-gear butt gets kicked, depending on the length and steepness of the hill.

I usually say apples and 1200 pound anvils

I do good in strong headwind on fixed. I force myself to increase cadence to optimum level.
Al

I did a century on Saturday with the Roadie then a 26 mile "recovery" ride on the fixie on Sunday. 25mph headwind on Sunday made it feel like I was churning in molasses. On the Roadie, I could've downshifted to make spinning easier but I would have been going slower and still stuck in that wind.

Both bikes have a similar geometry and drop bars.


Fixie was the better workout but harder on the knees. Haulin' the six pack of Bass up a hill into that wind was no fun but it wouldn't have been fun on the Roadie, either.

At least for me, it's psychological. If I'm on the FG in a headwind, I'll spend a couple of minutes feeling sorry for myself, cursing the wind, and wishing I had the derailleured bike. Then, since I don't have the option, I'll suck it up, get down in the drops, and grind away. It's faster and in the end it helps improve my fitness, which is one of the reasons I built up the FG in the first place.

Ken Cox has some good points! It's all about how much work gets done in a given time span, or how long it takes to do a given volume of work = power [work/time]. If you're a "power" rider, you won't need the geared bike as much on hills or in a headwind. If it's all LSD, you may do better on the geared bike. Comparing riders is likely more valid than comparing the type of bike they ride.

Unless your gearing on the FG is too high for your current fitness level or local terrain the most imp determinant will be your aero position on each bike (or lack thereof).
If you stretch enough so you can rotate your lower spine forward vis a vis your hips and your bike fit allows you to stretch your torso forward enough to get a flat back, then all you need to do is hold your bars near the stem and keep your knees in and you can punch a cleaner hole through the wind.
Gerry

Yes, but when discussing A vs B, you have to assume all other variables are the same.