I tried riding fixed for a while but never warmed up. I've been riding single speed for a while and with all due respect to fixed gear riders, I personally don't understand that zen/oneness stuff. I enjoy riding my bike, it's kept me in shape and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Like most ppl here have said, get a flip flop and decide for yourself. Choose what brings you the most joy. At least you are choosing to ride a bike. Good for you.
REMEMBER just ride what makes you happy.

I also have a mark v. 48/17. Works perfectly for everywhere I go.

.....http://www.wranglerforum.com/attachm...1&d=1367655835

I've got a SS and with all due respect to SS riders, I can't understand why you bother. If you want a freewheel, take the advantage of gears ... even though they don't offer the advantages of fg.

Really? No gears = less complicated drivetrain / less stuff to break. Seems obvious why SS is an attractive choice to many.

+1

fixed cog, no brakes (or less brakes, or just as much brakes, depending on the rider) = even less complicated bike / stuff to break, promotes good form, and breaks bad habits like coasting. if fg wasn't a thing i would see why ss would be more attractive, but fg IS a thing and it's actually more practical than ss in 90% of applications. i have one ss bike and it's for big grocery runs / lazy rides to work, all less than 2 miles. ss loses all the benefits of geared bikes and fg, and has no benefits over either one of those. rides under 2 or so miles, and things like bmx are the only places i understand ss being used. do your thing, if you dig it that's rad, i'm just clarifying that by your logic fg is better than ss still. why did we even revive this thread from like five years ago anyway?

I just did and saw this

No idea why it was revived but I was just pointing out what I felt was obvious even if it isn't the "best" choice. I ride ss and fg but funny enough I prefer the opposite; longer/faster rides on the ss so I can coast if necessary. Short trips or lazy rides on FG. I don't ride geared bikes at all - I'm not opposed to them, I just don't care to own one.
Everybody is different and I'm just happy to be on 2 wheels whether it be FG, SS, or geared

Someone who has ridden singlespeed mountain bikes for many many many years and singlespeed road bikes also, I have just switched an old bike to a fixed gear for the first time as my around towner. And here is what I've found in two days.

Fixie:

Pros:
Easier to keep speed
Very little maintenance
Fun

Cons:
Hills are harder to slow down on
Sometimes you just want to coast

Now I will explain on the keeping speed, the bike is helping you keep that speed from the momentum being used that is pushing the tire and the pedals. All I have to do is apply force at certain points to keep the speed I want I do not have to push/pull much. I have taken my feet off the pedals to just coast and that does help. The first day I had no brake, but I know my city well and am not in much danger, I since put a brake up front.

fixie all the way

Wow, I have never been to San Francisco but those streets must be steep, the sidewalks have steps built in to them.

That's one of the really bizarre things about fg, it's easier to just loaf along on a fg than geared or ss and while I haven't bothered to analyse why, I'm pretty sure it comes down to just knowing where in the pedal cycle to do a little bit of work to keep you going.

Coasting however, is over rated. While on the surface it feels nice to just stop pedalling, your legs don't appreciate it. You're better off keeping the legs rolling, even with low effort, because it keeps the blood pumping through your legs and glutes and over time, this is more relaxing.

The only time I tend to coast is when I'm so knackered at the end of a ride that climbing into a car driven by a cute blonde would be a far better option.

I haven't either. It appears that cycling there just has to be some extreme sport though I have seen posts where it's claimed that you can avoid those super steep hills if you want to. I'm old enough and grumpy enough to appreciate broad, smooth and flat bike paths meandering through bush next to a picturesque river ... though if I ever find such a path I'll probably be dead dammit.

In Virginia there is a trail that was converted from a railroad track. It follows the picturesque New River. Rail trails are usually very flat because Locomotives can't pull heavy trains up steep mountains. The figure I have heard is no more than 3% grade. This trail certainly fits that description. It is just over 80 kilometers long. It has tunnels, long trestle bridges and breathtaking views of the river. Lots of shade too.

I know Virginia is a long way from Adelaide, but its almost worth the trip.

I'm trying to decide whether I hate you or not :)

Old railway tracks do make good bike paths. There's one near me that fails dismally on the picturesque quotient and has its fair share of steep bits (because of where it is) but it's a huge improvement over a bike path that's roughly parallel a km or two away and which follows the natural contours.

I always wondered why i kept on hearing why coasting was a bad habit. Thanks

The correct answer is BOTH.

[/end thread]

Amazing that it took that long to reach the "correct" answer

If you mean one of each, I agree.

derailleurs are pretty simple mechanical devices. There is nothing overly complicated going on and I've never had one just brake off a bike so far. And you can easily learn to adjust and tune everything on a geared bike with the help of a couple of youtube videos

Why limit yourself to one​ of each? :)

I say one of each type of bike, including road racing, criterium, track racing, hauler, cyclocross, touring, cargo, ...

Seems a rather narrow spectrum of bikes to me Tom ;)