One in back = 3 in front. Just what I've felt. But many here seem to think I'm not feeling what I feel. So perhaps,

Just perhaps.

There is no spoon.

What my 48 x 15 bike and my 49 x 15 bike?

Or 46 x 16 and 48 x 15.

The difference on 49/48 is marginal to me, if that.

But 46/48 is pretty big. The 15 really brought it up a notch.





























What's funny here is how much people are upset when you challenge the math.

"The MATH IS RIGHT! SCIENCE PREVAILS!!"

Which to an extent is right, but really, often times we bend the number to express what we feel.




























This was a fun thread.

Fairly dumb?

You're an ass clown.

Get off your math crutch and ride a bike. Really.

This thread is confusing.

Not of much value, but larger = more weight of chainring, rear cog, and the longer chain & it's rotational weight. Larger also will equal longer wear time. Both of these are probably not enough to fuss over. Some chainring sizes are easier to come by cheaply, however, and one size cog costs the same as another.

Now we need a mechanical engineer to talk about any torque differences.

Actually, I was trying to be polite there. You have asked a very stupid question, not because you want to know the answer but out of a desire to stir things up and attract attention to yourself. Bikeforums members have taken the time to give you many good answers, which you ignore. You are being willfuly stupid, and wasting everyone's time. This is borderline trolling.

Be a ****tard if you want Karsten, but don't act all hurt and surprised when someone calls you on it.

Actually, you were not trying to be polite. If any thing, you're trying to be forum defender, which is admirable, because this is a cool place, for the most part.

It's funny how you seem to have read my actions here and know so well what I'm attempting to do.

Of all the answers here, San Rensho and Yoshi gave a decent explanation why knowing this seemingly trivial data matters.

But since it we're on the subject of "knowning what someone else is thinking.."

See, here you started the name calling. But anyway, skid patches.. really. More trivial BS. You skid, your tire goes bald. One spot, 3 spots, does it matter?


This was about the only helpful thing I've heard from your post.

Magic gear? Is that something you use with your Jr. Magician bike seat?

No, I prefer numbers of gears that are the square root of the amount of time I spent wasted on puking useless info onto the internet to impress people on how much I know. Are you serious that people want that kind of info? Then, seek help.

That is some trivial BS. Trival. As usefull as seats with holes in them to correct ED.

Mander, honestly, I'm bewildered why you, who seems reasonably intelligent, is someone who has posted 3 times recently "in before the lock", and then turns to claim that this post is trolling and insutling to "BF members". If you're so true to correct posting, tell me why do you act like in such a way on other threads? And honestly, between you and I: who is the one with no fear about posting with his real name?

I find the gear inch thing comical, interesting, but it's use is limited, and is very trivial in most respect. But I did understand The Fixer's comments, so perhaps something was shoved into my apparently narrow mind.

Lots of people clown around on this forum. It's fun and a part of bfssfg. Is it also a part of bfssfg to ask questions that you don't really want to know the answer to, because you want to lecture well-meaning respondents about your disdain for math and science? This isn't productive ssfg-related discussion or particularly fun for anyone but you. You know, there is a Politics and Religion forum here... perhaps this particular agenda of yours would be better served there.

Do someone say "pie"? or, was that "pi"? Gear inches pie....yum!

Mander stated the case very well.

Hmm. How long have I been posting here now and you just tell me this?

Mander: What you're doing with this thread is forum inappropriate.

WK: *You're* forum inappropriate.

mander: Actually, I'm not.

WK: I knew that you stupid noob.

(Exit mander)

im using the internet

lol

will you so craxy!

Really, you're exiting? Come on. It was just getting interesting. Love you, mean it, PM, leave it.

Here's crazy, I was thinking this morning on the ride in:

I wonder if people have come up with a pedal strike degree caculator.

You know, pedal strike is a possible problem on a fixie, and you should know to what degree you can lean before your pedal strikes the ground.

So, it'd need data like BB hieght, crank length, pedal width, pedal thickness..

The thing is, these math experts with a *****load of time on thier hands, they, they could easily figure it out and trump Sheldon Brown by coming up with it first!!

Karsten, this whole thread is irrelevant and should just be closed now, based on the premise of your question. You asked why something matters... What "matters" about bikes is different to every single person who has posted in this thread. It may even be different to same person each time they post in this thread. The information that is useful to me may be archaic or overwhelming for you.

This is no different than talking about the (often shocking) fact that I enjoy riding a gaspipe rocket ring'd conversion EVERY OUNCE AS MUCH as someone on a phil'd/deep v'd/somethin somethin does. Enjoyment, just like the "need" for knowledge, information, acceptance, etc is different for everyone.

No more arguing the inarguable.
/internet

Karsten, are you trolling? If you are, the joke is on us.

If you aren't, can you explain to me how gear ratios are any less arbitrary than gear inches? Pretty much everything you've said against using gear inches can be applied -- more aptly at that -- to gear ratios.

Or do you just not understand that gear inches convey more information with less ambiguity?

I actually did this already.

I would also like to take the time to say that I hate it when people say "he/she has too much time on his/her hands." As if calculating gear inches or coming up with formulas for pedal strike is any more of a waste of time as watching CSI reruns.

I wrote a nice, thought out response to this (which my browser ate), and now after reading the rest of this thread I feel like a dupe cause it was all a joke by someone who I guess has more cred than me here.

Karsten, is your point that if you don't think something is worthwhile, then it must be a waste of time? I'm sure glad all those people building bikes over the years thought like that, and never wasted their time thinking about frame geometry or spoke tension or metal fatigue or anything else that might involve math, and just said **** it and rode their bikes instead.

Really?

That seems like a harder formula.

Yes, and no. Mainly poking fun at the amount of time people spend trying to convey something that is still.. really up to the rider.

And that we seem to spend more time here about "looking like a messenger", "what bag is best" and "what gear inch caculator should I use" than.. You can tell how self embarassed people are by the angry responses that came up when thier idea was called irrelevant. It's bike riding, not religion.

riding?

You're a good man Yoshi... I'm glad you have seen the humour, and hopefully what I said above makes sense.

If gear inches bother you, you should see my homemade gear calculator to cadence conversion spreadsheet. Now there is some ***********y numbers silliness that I used to wait out the cabin fever of a New England winter. I have to spin at 97 rpm to reach 20mph, by the way

Actually, Grant Petersen did it.

See: http://sheldonbrown.com/bbdrop.html

I'm not so hot on spreadsheet programming...

Sheldon "Not A Problem On My Trike" Brown

Is there anything bike related that is not on your website Mr. Brown?