What would you guys say the ratio is? How many miles on a geared bike takes the same out of you as a fixed wheel?

I realize this is highly subjective and depends greatly upon the local terrain (hills/mountains etc)

but I'd estimate its about 1:1.5, but I don't have a geared bike to really compare (the geared bikes I have are mountain bikes etc)

what would you guesstimate?

I feel similar amounts of fatigue after 60 miles fixed vs a geared century.

I rode 50 miles over hills (fixed) yesterday and it's a great workout. The thing to understand here is that it's not a simple mileage comparison - fixed gear requires more torque so it's more of a full body workout as well as the whole gamut of slow and fast twitch muscles. It's a great training tool.

Yea, I did 55 miles+ yesterday on a fixed and I feel like I did 100 geared, but I don't really have a frame of reference as I haven't ridden a road bike with gears in years

I definitely feel it a lot more riding fixed compared to doing long rides on my singlespeed that I could coast on. Looking forward to adding many more miles to my fixed experience this year.

Another reason why it's not such a simple mileage comparison is because a fixed gear helps to 'push itself' - while one can stop pedaling and simply coast on a geared bike, a FG helps pull my legs making each revolution easier then from a dead-stop. For instance, given the same gearing on a fixed gear vs. a single speed (or a geared bike in one gear) I'd much rather climb with the fixed.

Very true, it's nice to have that little boost on a long fixed ride.

I've heard this argument before, but it doesn't make any sense. It seems that you would lose more energy this way than with a freewheel, because of the energy loss to the complete drivetrain system as the energy is transferred to the chain and then to the crank arms, verse the rearwheel on a freewheel which would only lose energy to the freewheel itself. I am not going to argue that climbing isnt easier on a fixed gear, but I think this is because you don't lose any energy in your pedal strokes in the gap between your cadence and the momentum of the rearwheel (if you could pace yourself properly going uphill it shouldn't make a difference whether you're geared or fixed). This, however, has nothing to do with the bike pushing itself.

also, I'm not looking for a real number, but more personal accounts like the one MIN gave. I'm not using this number for anything, I'm just curious as to what people think the proportion is

Personally, if I'm climbing in the same gearing on a singlespeed vs. a fixed gear, I believe that the momentum contained in the fixed gear system is more beneficial then if I pedal, coast, pedal, repeat on the singlespeed.

Admittedly, it also depends on your ability to pace yourself. You can go hammer hard, coast, hammer hard on the singlespeed, or just maintain the same level of input into the fixed gear system. In fact, I think you could put LESS energy into the fixed gear system as time elapses during such a climb to, for example, maintain the same mph. The momentum from the previous revolution at timeT1 is still apparent in the system, so that at timeT2 less energy is needed to maintain the same mph vs. coming off dead (or even coasting). I'm not saying it's a perpetual motion machine.

Even if I'm completely incorrect, I think a better comparison for mileage over the same amount of energy input is a single-speed vs. a geared bike, as both allow for coasting.

Fixed is unequivocally more efficient for climbing. It is not so for descending.

Blah blah blah, I'm more hardcore than roadies, blah blah blah, I climb fast, blah blah blah.

why are you trolling? shouldn't you be training for the hour record or something?

I'm procrastinating at work.

everyone please send me money to buy a power tap for my track bike and Ill settle this once and for all. thanks in advance!

Flat terrain its maybe about 1:1, and hilly, 1:2.

But now that I live in a hilly area and my main bike for long distance is geared (set up a little more comfortable) and my fixed gear is more for around town stuff, the ratio is still in favor of the geared bike on flat terrain.

Too many variables to make comparisons.

But on ultra long distance rides such as a double century, doing it on a fixed gear is definitely more strenuous and harder on the butt
than on a geared bike given the exact same route.

Horse hockey.

excellent!

a big advantage of gears is being able to coast and get weight off of your taint. it's nice to be able to
stand up and massage your penis a little after it goes numbs, you know get a little blood moving down there again then move your weight around on your saddle to hopefully keep the numbness away.

oh yeah,
the same gear inches fixed vs. geared is easier fixed.
the benefits of gears come in the form of coasting and gear changes.
flats are easier fixed if you can stay in your comfortable cadence, if not then gears are better.
gears are better on descents and tough climbs.
gears are definately better for urinating to the side while you keep moving.

Fixed gears do not create some sort of magical extra momentum. Its a myth that defies basic physical laws. Many of you need a physics class.

If you can pedal a freewheeled bike, and keep the pawls engaged (virtually anyone who can ride a bike does this), it makes not a bit of difference whether you are climbing a fixed gear or a SS. If your pedalling is so sloppy that you can't smoothly pedal a freewheeled bike, then you need to work on more than just your climbing skills.

Not entirely true. First off there is a significant (ballpark I'd guess between 2 and 5%) gain in efficiency by having a direct drive with no derailler and a good chainline.
Second it's easier to pedal through deadspots in your rotation on a fixed-gear which helps when your climbing at low-cadence/high-gear.

That said a good climber is going to climb well on any bike and a geared bike is going to be better for "real" climbing than a typical fixed-gear.

while ive used my fixed primarily for short distance commuting duties, ive taken it for a few short rides and short-intermediate distances rides

in my perception... no increased effort

same distance / elevation change = same energy... roughly (its just sometimes some fo that energy is spent walkign the bike up extemely high elevation change)

Note that I was comparing a fixed gear and SS so chainline and derailleur are irrelevant. They are of extremely minor overall significance anyway.

Second of all, a fg does not help you pedal through deadspots unless you are being extremely sloppy. When you pedal a freewheel bike, does the freewheel click everytime your pedal hits 12 o'clock. It shouldn't. The pawls should be engaged the whole time, unless you are deliberately coasting. For a normal pedaling stroke, there is no complete dead spot. If you are pedaling properly (i.e. your legs are spinning the cranks through the full rotation), it makes no difference if you are pedaling a fg or freewheel.
If you truly do have a dead spot when you are pedaling uphill (unlikely unless you are seriously lazy), your are loosing momentum and basically making things worse. If thats the case, switching to a freewheel to help you learn to pedal through the dead spot will actually make you climb more efficiently.

I dunno.. everyones got a different pedalling style. I find it easier to climb on fixed vs a geared bike as the same ratio.

There's a mental component to it as well. With a fixed you don't have an option, but the temptation to downshift the geared bike is always there. I used to feel like I could climb better fixed, until I realized that the fixed was just forcing me to climb harder. Once I learned how to climb the geared bike is faster going up.