Yeah. Thanks. Is this the answer to every question ever asked? Yeah a great source and a timeless legend that will always be the authority but if this is the answer to all questions there wouldn't be a bike forum. To the contrary, xxguitarist, that's good stuff. Thank you.

I don't see why I have to point this out but with a large gear, I can reach a greater speed at the same cadence. Going up and down hills with a 42t chainring might look cute, but for me it is much easier with a bigger gear. Again, not really sure why I have to point this out ... but like I said before, I've ridden at least 6 other ratios (in addition to my actual geared bike) at length and my current ratio is by far my favorite for road riding in my city.

I've not experienced any knee problems thus far (and frankly, it doesn't feel as though I am mashing that much harder up hills). If knee problems were my primary concern for any of us anyhow, would we really be riding fixed gears in the first place?

EDIT: And that having been said, I didn't even recommend my ratio to him. I recommended 46:16 which is reasonable by any standards.

If you're serious about wanting to race on the track you should gear down now. Unless you're fast enough to ride everone off your wheel and solo to victory you'll find 102gi is is too high even for most a's. Since you're so opposed to training the only way your ever going to get comfortable with the leg speed track racing requires is to start commuting on a reasonable gear. Try replacing the 13 with a 17. After a few months you'll be almost as fast if not faster especially somewhere as hilly as atl.

My rear is actually a 13/17 fixed/fixed and I have 3 144 BCD chainrings I swap as I desire (46/49/50).

Not sure if I mentioned this, but only my track bike has the high gearing. My steel bikes are 46:15 and similar.

lmao 49:13. I bet you spin a sweet 30 rpm.

Between your training schedule, your propensity for the need to buy silly wheels instead of a road bike, and now your ridiculous gearing, I think you need to take up a new sport, like badminton or something. Although then you'll be wondering how much lead you should attach to the shuttlecock.

And small cogs reduce efficiency.

My road bike has a 52:18 / 75 gear inches.

It makes for a much smoother and longer wearing drive.

I have a 48:17/19 on my mtb commuter / winter bike which gives it a 65 / 73 GI... it runs 26 inch tyres.

devilshaircut - You must live on a salt flat to run that kind of gearing. :lol:

Hah, I wish. No, I live in Atlanta, where there are only hills and potholes. :(

It's not as hard (or hard on your knees) as you all think. :) I'd understand your criticism if I was completely ignorant of what various ratios feel like, but that is only one of the 4 ratios I run regularly (I like that ratio for group rides and commuting.). I might also add that this ratio is on a relatively light aluminum (carbon fork) build, not my heavy steel rig. I really think 49:13 is perfect for me. And frankly, when I rode my road bike daily, I spent 95% of the time in my big gear ... I don't claim that is efficient - it isn't - but I did get from point A to point B fast.

If I were worried about endurance, I would gear down. But generally (in a group ride situation), I have to wait on other people to rest which lets me recover enough to keep going. My commute to work is only 5 miles each way in heavy traffic so I don't need to rest at all.

Additionally, I actually think my knees take more of a beating going downhill on my 46:16 at ~30mph than they do ever on my bigger gear. Maybe my knees will give out in my old age, but that could be true of anyone who rides a fixed gear regularly.

And anyhow, like I said before, for other people, like the OP, I would recommend something more like 46:16 as I've said about 5 times now.

dh - I generally rock a pretty high gear on my geared bikes and have climbed some insane hills in my 52:14 (100 GI) but would not make a habit out of it or suggest it to anyone either.

When I build up fg and ss bikes at the shop they come with gearing in the 70 GI range and most people are happy to stick with what is a nice all around gearing for our environment.

My happy gear is 75 GI although I rocked 81 gear inches for 1000's of kilometres before switching... I can mash and I can also spin like a gerbil on crack.

Yeah ... the hills here aren't long. It isn't a city like NYC (which is flat anyhow) or SF (mostly grid-like) where there is a general grid pattern. They are very steep and almost every road here is on an incline. But the hills are generally very very short. Like, 100 yards short in many cases. I like my high gearing because I don't lose momentum going into the climb. There are a few long hills we do group rides on though and those are much more difficult. Even then though I am generally quick to the top. In those cases I've found it's all about trying to maintain my cadence as long as I can. As I said before, it's not nearly as bad as it sounds (really) ... in fact with this gear combo I have yet to stand up on my bike to ascend a hill.

that just means you're avoiding the really steep hills. Atlanta is full of hills you(probably) can't get up in the saddle in 102gi. As I said if you want to race flip your wheel around now. You're not even at 100rpm till you're at 30mph. You need to be comfortable cruising at 100rpm.

As I said before, I wouldn't need to flip my wheel, although I could. If I wanted to do a climbing ride, I would just hop on one of my other bikes and keep my track bike as is. Atlanta is full of steep hills, yeah, but like I said before, they are generally short, rolling hills. It's not like rural areas where you could probably start a climb that lasts for 8 miles. You can bet I'd be rocking a granny gear if not a road bike (more likely) for that. There are some long, steep hills on the edges of Downtown/Midtown/Buckhead but they are places you generally have to look for rather than traverse because it is in your way.

I didn't say you should flip your wheel cause you can't get up hills I said you should because you need to learn to be comfortable at moderate and high cadences which you clearly aren't. If you don't you're going to be in for a rude awakening when you get to the track.

How is 46:16 not going to give high cadences? Particularly in a hilly city where 30-35 mph (conservative ... meaning I am *not* trying to spin out) descents equal = my daily ride? Pretty sure I'd be at 100 rpm at 25 mph much less 30 mph although I don't own a computer and I can't be sure. I know my speed though because I ride with people who do have computers. I've ridden those same hills on my polo beater also, which has a 19t cog which is, imo, ridiculous. Frankly, this is half the reason I decided to gear up. It is easier to climb and descend with a high gear ratio for me than to climb and descend with a small gear ratio.

Anyhow, roadies are laughing at us all right now for having this conversation in the first place.

Oh you don't generally ride the track bike? 46/16 isn't as bad but the fact that you feel more comfortable with the 49/13 is evidence of a problem. Spinning on downhills isn't as useful as spinning on the flats either. You not only need to be able to let your feet be pulled around you need to be comfortable cruising at 100 and sprinting at 120+.

The track bike is new. I've been riding it about 3-4 weeks now. I am pretty sure I am not going to get a proper cadence training on the roads as it is so much stop-and-go in traffic. Spinning at 100 rpm isn't a problem. If I had to guess, I probably already regularly spin at 100 rpm even with my 90 gear inches or whatever it is. I probably don't get up to 120 though, unless I am on my steel 46:16 setup.

EDIT: ONE of the track bikes is new (i.e. my Cervelo). The others have been lingering a while. It's hard to get back on my old heavy Schwinn after riding around this aluminum frame.

Then you should be geared lower. The very fact that you would think 102gi is a good idea is evidence that you cannot move your feet the way track racing requires. Do what you want but unless you are substantially stronger than your competition you won't be able to win in that gear and you don't seem to have the skills for a more reasonable one.

Bleh how many times do I have to say 49:13 is only one of several ratios I run? It's just I've been running it lately (and liking it) because it gives me less trouble with climbs/descents.

Bleh how many times do I have to say if you like 49:13 you have a problem and need to work extra hard on spinning if you want to race on the track. Do what you want you'll learn your lesson soon enough if you actually do go end up going to the track.

I'm just saying I like it for commuting and social rides. I like my 46:16/15 too ... it's just I've found for the purposes of getting around I like the bigger gear better. Yeah, I wanna be good (Well, decent; I doubt I have the time to get good.) at the track but I also feel there is a time and place for everything. Not sure what else I can tell you short of video taping my cadence at 120 rpm on rollers.

To put it in perspective:

Chris Hoy rides 51:14, which is about 98 gear inches.

That's still smaller than what you ride.

i run a 42x17. its low. but i live in an area that has its flat spots, but most of it is quite hilly. we are talking grades up to 15%. i know people that run 46x16, but they spend most of their time on the flats. going down hill involves quite a bit of skidding to avoid overspinning. in a sprint, i can maintain about 140ish rpm, or reach just over 27 mph. as i primarily ride road, this is more sufficient- i can ride at 100 to 110 rpm comfortably for miles.

if i got a new chainring, i would be getting either a 43 or 47 tooth chainring. they are both prime numbers, which will give you the same number of skid spots as teeth on your rear cog (18 skid spots for an 18 tooth cog, etc.). it just makes more sense to me, as cogs are cheaper. however, these sizes aren't easy to come by, but people do make them.

since moving to baton rouge, i have started running cyclocross, which my 42/18 SS setup is ok for my average riding. if i go back to riding road with narrow tires, i will be ordering a 47 tooth chainring.

120? On rollers? Damn I didn't think that was possible. I'll definitely need video evidence of that post the link.

I was done arguing with you but this is just too hilarious to pass up.

I apologize if that was dyslexia. 210 isn't amazing or anything but it's not a bad start.

About the rollers, that is called hyperbole. I don't even own rollers.

42/17 sounds extremely low.

EDIT: About Chris Hoy ... he is obviously riding that ratio for other reasons. I don't think you do much climbing on the track, correct me if I am wrong. :P Seriously though I do stand by this ratio for the short, steep climbs I regularly do. I'll ride it on my other bikes too and not complain, but I know I am faster ascending with the higher gearing. And descending is less of a nuisance (and faster).

You either don't know the meaning of hyperbole or you don't understand reasonable track cadences. How fast you can go is a result of the power you can produce. That is a product of the force you can put on the pedals and pedal speed. As cadence increases the force you can apply decreases eventually to 0. There is therefore an optimum cadence for putting out the most power. For a trackie over short distances it should be well over 100rpms. The fact that you think you can climb short hills better at 50 or 60 rpms(which you probably can't in objective terms anyway) means you are going to have problems on the track when you need to be pproducing as much power as you can at 120+ rpms.

I was exaggerating to make a point. But anyhow I am not talking about the track. I am, as you seem to realize, talking about riding hills. It is much easier for me to ride into a hill at ~25 mph and try to maintain that cadence for a quarter of a mile than it is for me to ride into the same hill at the same cadence at a lower speed (with a lower ratio) and try to maintain that for a greater amount of time. EDIT: In other words, I don't have as much confidence in my endurance as I do my power.

Again, speaking from personal experience, as I have many times ridden the same ride (our Wednesday ride through Atlanta) both on my 46:16 and current. I just noticed that when I geared up, there was a *distinct* increase in my climbing ability.

EDIT: If it wasn't clear already I am not promoting this ride or routine as training for track riding. I really think that if someone wants to ride track, they should practice at the track. If someone wants to be good at touring, then they should take to the road and tour. If someone wants to do CX then they need to shoulder that bike and go go go.

EDIT 2: I went to SB just to check my guess and I am definitely doing more than 50-60 rpm up hills.

EDIT 3: Here's an idea. Why don't you get on your road bike tonight and match my ratios (46:16 and 49:13) ... then time yourself going up a short, steep hill ... maybe between an eighth and a quarter of a mile. Ride into the hill at the minimum of ~20 mph and begin your ascent. If you are a regular cyclist (I assume you are.) I wouldn't be surprised if you were able to get up the hill significantly faster in the larger gear. I could be wrong if your riding style radically differs from mine. But like I said before, I wouldn't be surprised.