|
Originally Posted by abortionpunch
(Post 5116154)
The higher ratios give you the option to always go faster and accelerate QUICKLY.
If he's referring to accelerating while already moving (in a gear that puts his cadence in his powerband) then he has a point. (manual transmission analogy: passing a car in 4th, vs. passing in 1st). It is pretty hard to accelerate more if you're already spinning your gear out. If he actually did mean accelerating faster from stoplights in a high gear, then he is a ******** ******. |
Originally Posted by baxtefer
(Post 5117268)
Now abortionpunch is being a ******, but note how he didn't say that he was accelerating from a standstill.
If he's referring to accelerating while already moving (in a gear that puts his cadence in his powerband) then he has a point. (manual transmission analogy: passing a car in 4th, vs. passing in 1st). It is pretty hard to accelerate more if you're already spinning your gear out. If he actually did mean accelerating faster from stoplights in a high gear, then he is a ******** ******. |
Originally Posted by lbthomps
(Post 5117257)
Hey abortionpunch go read this paper and then come back and tell us what gear ratios and gearings are most efficient
Effects of Frictional Loss on Bicycle Chain Drive Efficiency Journal of Mechanical Design -- December 2001 -- Volume 123, Issue 4, pp. 598-605 ABSTRACT: "Chain drive efficiency has been studied to understand energy loss mechanisms in bicycle drive trains, primarily for derailleur-type systems. An analytical study of frictional energy loss mechanisms for chain drives is given along with a series of experimental measurements of chain drive efficiency under a range of power, speed and lubrication conditions. Measurements of mechanical efficiency are compared to infrared measurements indicating that frictional losses cannot account for the observed variations in efficiency. The results of this study indicate that chain tension and sprocket size primarily affect efficiency and that non-thermal loss mechanisms dominate overall chain drive efficiency." |
Originally Posted by MIN
(Post 5117341)
That's not really relevant. Drivetrain resistnace is miniscule when compared to aero and rolling resistance.
|
Originally Posted by lbthomps
(Post 5117354)
It is relevant when he is claiming that 52x16 is more efficient than 42x16 or some other lower gear
bigger chainring/cog = less bend in chain = less friction = higher efficiency. |
Originally Posted by baxtefer
(Post 5117376)
in terms of just drivetrain efficiency, it actually is.
bigger chainring/cog = less bend in chain = less friction = higher efficiency. The issue at hand is a discussion of torque.* Homeboy is claiming that he has torque enough to be a masher. It's not a baseless claim - people have different styles. Compare and contrast Jan Ulrich (masher who spins against a big gear) and Lance Armstrong (spins above 90 rpm all the time). Physiologically, the spinner is more efficient because mashing causes early muscle fatigue. However, both can put out the same power** at different RPMs. * Torque is essentially the result of how hard (not how fast) you can press on the pedals. **Power is the rate you can do that. To most cyclists, having low enough gears, power is the primary concern. If it starts to become too difficult to push on the pedals as the slope increases, you gear down and spin faster. |
this thread is stupid
|
Originally Posted by baxtefer
(Post 5117376)
in terms of just drivetrain efficiency, it actually is.
bigger chainring/cog = less bend in chain = less friction = higher efficiency. |
It was cool when it was just pictures of my sick new frame.
|
Originally Posted by abortionpunch
(Post 5117207)
And gordiep, it's always nice to see someone criticize another for things said that weren't in the kindest tone while simultaneously wishing them harm.
|
No harm done, just an observation.
Admittedly this thread has delved into a more specific realm than I'm knowledgeable of. I'm working off of experience and trial and error. Time to read up. |
Originally Posted by abortionpunch
(Post 5117517)
It was cool when it was just pictures of my sick new frame.
|
Originally Posted by abortionpunch
(Post 5117517)
It was cool when it was just pictures of my sick new frame.
I would have responded earlier, but I'm stuck over on scrabulous.com talking to trailer park ladies about their cats and whooping their asses by hundreds of points. |
Originally Posted by crushkilldstroy
(Post 5115987)
You're nuts. I commute on a 44x17. Sayin'.
+1 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:14 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.