Soon to be SS commuter
 

http://colin.bloodyflapper.com//images/random/bike2.jpg

set up with drops and about 1.5" of drop between the saddle and bars. 52x16. Sprinter4sure.

Neato. I like it. That's quite a nice frame. Know how old it is?
Post pics when it's done, pleeeeeeeeeease.

Looks uncomfortable. At least put some tires on it before you try to ride it...

52x16? you must have legs. nice frame though, i'm jealous.

I do have legs, yes. They assist me in things. 52x16 really isn't bad for the kind of riding I do commuting. It's almost always less than 4 miles so I just sprint, hence the aggressive setup. I may drop it down to 42x16 or something similarly weaksauce once the wind picks up. Going uphill against a sustained 30mph wind with a 3:1 ratio is usually less rewarding than walking.

You're nuts. I commute on a 44x17. Sayin'.

yeah.. I've been riding 47x16 with 165mm cranks daily for a couple weeks. I've yet to get spinning so fast that I couldn't keep up.. I wish I had gotten a 45 or even 43 chainring

-chry

The higher ratios give you the option to always go faster and accelerate QUICKLY. Only takes a couple weeks to get used to. Plus I like always pedaling against resistance instead of just idly spinning away.

"abortionpunch" - that sounds violent.

Uh, no. Have you ever driven a car with a manual transmission?

You wanna go faster, spin faster.

My commuter's a 45x18. One day I'll progress but winter's on its way....

truth

It's ok that your weak thighs disagree with me. You'll be spinning your merry little ass like a top while I still have gear to bite into. I'm not saying the smaller gear ratios aren't without their benefits. They don't make you work as hard. But, like I said, I sprint everywhere. Speed is king.

Get as snippy as you want. I'm just trying to help you out here and you're making yourself sound like a ******.

If you want to run that ratio, go ahead. Nothing's stopping you. I'm just saying that unless you're some olympiad dude you'll be more comfortable with a smaller gear.

Maybe it's the whole illusion of speed thing.

Tadashi moved to Arizona?

You're trying to help by imposing your view of how my bike should be set up, not knowing me at all, and becoming self-righteous when I explain to you that your ideal setup is not mine? Believe me, I don't need your help here.

This is not my first bike. I've been riding this ratio for years. I've tried other ratios. This is the one I like and ride well with.


So yea, I am a ******. What do you expect from someone with a handle like abortionpunch? Hearts made out of coathangers? And like I mentioned, It's not about comfort for me. Our priorities differ. You can either leave it at that or you can pursue this into another ratio argument where it just turns out people have different riding styles, strengths, and weaknesses.

Oh, and It's worth noting that the "manual transmission" analogy is fundamentally flawed when considering single speed bikes. It's much more akin to putting more current through an electric motor.

Really making some friends around here. Nice work. I always love to see self-righteous idiots who make a lot of noise about having sh*t for brains.

Folks were trying to be helpful and you and shat on them. How brilliant of you. Why don't you sprint that ratio into a cholla cactus, wingnut?

Yup, I did **** on them (mainly crushkill as the others seemed to respect my ability to determine my own needs) and their ignorance of my riding style, experience, and needs. Someone telling a stranger what they need to be comfortable isn't exactly the most civil approach.

So entertaining that any talk of ratios and comfort always ends up with a bunch of hurt feelings.

Go try and start a car in 1st gear. Then try and start it in 3rd. Then come back and talk to me.

You seem to be tilting at windmills here. We're trying to help you (a rarity around here, by the way) and you're just barking out of your ass.

actually it is 3.25 at 52x16...

I'm not denying that more energy is needed in higher geared system. Provided the energy is available however, the higher geared system will be more efficient at its top end while the top end of the lower geared system will reach a point of diminishing returns, hence the spinning your legs around like a top comment. The electric motor analogy is considerably more sound.

You seem to be having trouble with physics.

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.

3.25, thanks.

Didn't feel like doing the division at the time.

By energy, you mean torque.

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."