# Fixie



## HLaB (1 Oct 2008)

Our company is starting the cycle to work scheme and I'm thinking of adding a new steed to my stable a Spesh Tricross single. What's people's experiences of of fixed geared bikes, particularly with reference to steep hills, i.e (Edinburgh)

Is there any other alternatives I should be considering, as the only spesh dealer in http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/ is 17.2 miles away (as the crow flies), not ideal


----------



## Landslide (1 Oct 2008)

Noticeably lighter, and I find the lack of thought ("what gear should I be in?" etc) very enjoyable.
I ride mine around Sheffield (not known for its flatness), and you get used to it pretty quickly. The flywheel effect seems to help going up hill, the worst bit for me was getting used to my legs going round like one of Fred Dibnah's steam engines! I use a 39:15 ratio which gives me a ear of ~68".


----------



## Twenty Inch (1 Oct 2008)

Hills become easier - paradoxical but true. You either get up them in the one gear you've got, or get off and walk. I haven't had to walk up any of the hills on my way home, although it's come close.

They make you a stronger, more fluid rider all round. Try one out if you can before you buy.


----------



## goo_mason (1 Oct 2008)

HLaB said:


> Our company is starting the cycle to work scheme and I'm thinking of adding a new steed to my stable a Spesh Tricross single. What's people's experiences of of fixed geared bikes, particularly with reference to steep hills, i.e (Edinburgh)
> 
> Is there any other alternatives I should be considering, as the only spesh dealer in http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/ is 17.2 miles away (as the crow flies), not ideal



A fixie up Dundas Street will be fun


----------



## kyuss (1 Oct 2008)

I get on fine around Edinburgh. It's much easier than climbing in a similar gear on a freewheel. There aren't many long hills in Edinburgh really so I've found i can normally power up them without to much trouble, though the slog up to Hillend from the bottom of Morningside Road the other day wasn't much fun.

For what it's worth I'm running a 72" gear, which a few folk have said is a bit big for a hilly city, but what goes up has to come down.


----------



## beancounter (1 Oct 2008)

kyuss said:


> It's much easier than climbing in a similar gear on a freewheel.



How can it be? A 72" gear is a 72" gear...

bc


----------



## beancounter (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Easier, because with a fixed wheel the momentum of the bike pushes you along.



Ok.......

......not that I have a lot of momentum going up hills.

But thanks for the information.

bc


----------



## joebe (1 Oct 2008)

beancounter said:


> How can it be? A 72" gear is a 72" gear...
> 
> bc



Because apparently fixies are better at everything, didn't you know?

I've fallen out of love with mine as the novelty value's worn off, it just knackers my knees, it's not as maneuvable though traffic and finally the fame is a tad small for me. As a result it hasn't been used since last winter and will soon be appearing on Ebay. 

Any one out there want an '06 Bianchi Pista, 81'' gearing, bull horn bars, spd pedals, Bonty Hardcase tyres?


----------



## beancounter (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Sorry Bean let me expand on my original post.
> 
> With a fixed wheel, as the rear wheel goes round the pedals turn as well so there is no coasting on a fixed wheel like you can do with a freewheel.
> 
> ...



Thanks, although I did understand your original post...(I do know what a fixie is, though I've never ridden one, hence my ignorant original question).

bc


----------



## 4F (1 Oct 2008)

joebe said:


> Because apparently fixies are better at everything, didn't you know?
> 
> I've fallen out of love with mine as the novelty value's worn off, it just knackers my knees, it's not as maneuvable though traffic and finally the fame is a tad small for me. As a result it hasn't been used since last winter and will soon be appearing on Ebay.
> 
> Any one out there want an '06 Bianchi Pista, 81'' gearing, bull horn bars, spd pedals, Bonty Hardcase tyres?



What size is the frame ?


----------



## joebe (1 Oct 2008)

51


----------



## Destry (1 Oct 2008)

*Look after your knees!*

If you are either heavy or strong, I would seriously advise against a fixie or singlespeed. Pushing big gears will knacker your knees, and they don't repair easily!

Gears allow you to spin the cranks at a cadence that suits your level of strength and fitness, whatever the road conditions at any given time. This is the key to fast, efficient cycling.

Gears don't really add that much weight and in my experience, once set up, hardly ever go wrong. I don't see the desperate need to get away from them, particularly not when I see single-speeders heaving around as they try to pick up speed after a junction, or spinning like crazy as I cruise past in top gear...

And this stuff in a previous post about the rear wheel on a fixie helping you pedal... With respect, it is not possible for a rear wheel to help you pedal. Momentum, or gravity, or a passing bus can help, but a rear wheel is just an arrangement of inert matter. A fixie is a fantastic training bike because it forces you to pedal the whole time, plus in the specialised conditions of an indoor sprint it gives an experienced rider tremendously precise control and allows you to save precious grams into the bargain. But an everyday commuter bike it is not!

The fixie/singlespeed fad is great because it is bringing lots of beautiful old steel frames back into circulation, but seriously, geared bikes are much more versatile and efficient.


----------



## Nick1979 (1 Oct 2008)

joebe said:


> 51


Too bad it is too small for me (but is it? I ride a 53 Bianchi frame)!! Do you have a picture?


----------



## joebe (1 Oct 2008)

I'll try and sort a picci out, though I may need to take my Fizik World Champ saddle off first. I normally ride a 52 or 54, but find the pista just a tad too small.

Oh, it's also got a Cateye computer (including Cadance sensor)


----------



## fossyant (1 Oct 2008)

I just fancy a fixie - Pearson Touche with Halo track wheels and guards - for work...... the scheme comes in soon, and that discount just has to be used......


----------



## 4F (1 Oct 2008)

Destry said:


> But an everyday commuter bike it is not!



I think you will find there are many on here that would disagree with that statement.


----------



## 4F (1 Oct 2008)

fossyant said:


> I just fancy a fixie - Pearson Touche with Halo track wheels and guards - for work...... the scheme comes in soon, and that discount just has to be used......



I have to agree, the pearson looks a nice bike


----------



## dave r (2 Oct 2008)

I have had my Pearson for a year now and its been great. Been using it to ride to work, for general transport and for some club runs. My experience is that they make a great commuter/run about, the pearson has a 72" gear which is a bit big for the club runs. I had my first fixed in the late 80's early 90's, I converted an old Pollard touring bike and used that for transport for several years until one of the threads in the bottom bracket shell expired and it wasn't worth repairing. In those days the fixed parts weren't as available round here as they are today so I didn't build another one.


----------



## Noodley (2 Oct 2008)

I am also looking at a fixed bike on Bike to Work. I am quite a picky bugger. Condor Tempo is what you need.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Oct 2008)

Destry said:


> If you are either heavy or strong, I would seriously advise against a fixie or singlespeed. Pushing big gears will knacker your knees, and they don't repair easily!
> 
> Gears allow you to spin the cranks at a cadence that suits your level of strength and fitness, whatever the road conditions at any given time. This is the key to fast, efficient cycling.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I take issue with much of this.

We all hear the big gear/bad knwees story, but does anybody have the evidence?
A fixed/Single does not have to be a big gear, mines 73" which is probably higher than many, but it's hardly a big gear. Fixed riding helps you develop a smooth pedal action at a variety of cadence rates.... that's actually a useful capability. So, you can overtake a fixie rider on a geared-bike... well done  I've overtaken many multi-geared road-bikes on a 60 year-old fixed, many up hills, so simple comparisons mean nothing.


Your 4th paragraph is just bollocks IMO. Very few people can pedal smoothly, most people have a dead spot towards the top of the pedal-stroke. When the cranks are directly coupled to the rear-wheel, the momentum of the bike helps carry the legs round this dead-point and produces a more fluid and effective pedalling action. This is apparent especially climbing hills as nearly all fixed riders will testify. This also explains why a fixed wheel is more effective than a single-speed of the same gear size. The precise control of a track bike is even more pertinant on the rtoad than on the track. Fixed-wheelers have the benefit of being able to use the legs to slow progress as well as accelerate/maintain speed. This extra level of control is very useful, in fact I's say highly benificial in heavy traffic. Add-in the fact that you can easily come to a complete standstill and remain on the bike for a smoother get-away compared to gears makes the fixed-wheeler the ideal commuting bike. I recently ran (on my TCR) the route I used to commute fixed 25 years ago, I'd have swapped my 9spd Ultegra for my 73" gear fixed I used in the '80's any day for riding in the traffic.

An everyday commuter bike it certainly is.

Yep, there's no doubt that fixies are fashionable, but many who've tried-em, like-em... with good reason. There are plenty of old-timers who've taken fixed-bikes pretty-much everywhere without issue. Many do PBP and LEL in decent times.

The only way ypou'll find whether fixed is for you, is to try it. maybe not everybodies cup of tea, but you never know.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> I am also looking at a fixed bike on Bike to Work. I am quite a picky bugger. Condor Tempo is what you need.





But, on a lesser budget, The Pearson and the Ridgeback Cro-Mo with full Guards look great every day commuting Irons... But the Tempo is an object of desire...


----------



## HLaB (3 Oct 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> But, on a lesser budget, The Pearson and the Ridgeback Cro-Mo with full Guards look great every day commuting Irons... But the Tempo is an object of desire...


I don't think there's a condor or pearson dealer near to me in cyclescheme but there is a ridgeback dealer cheers  and they do two bikes I'd be after the Genesis Skyline (single speed) and the Genesis Vapour (cyclocross). I'v just got to decide what avenue I want to go down (fixie/cyclocross)


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

HLaB said:


> I don't think there's a condor or pearson dealer near to me in cyclescheme but there is a ridgeback dealer cheers  and they do two bikes I'd be after the Genesis Skyline (single speed) and the Genesis Vapour (cyclocross). I'v just got to decide what avenue I want to go down (fixie/cyclocross)



I thought cyclescheme allowed you to get any bike from any dealer?


----------



## HLaB (3 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> I thought cyclescheme allowed you to get any bike from any dealer?


Unfortunately it doesn't appear so, the shop have to be a partner in the scheme and you can get any bike they can source for you.


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

HLaB said:


> Unfortunately it doesn't appear so, the shop have to be a partner in the scheme and you can get any bike they can source for you.



That's a bugger. Even my little non-cycling specific shop is signed up for 'any bike from any place'. And one of my clubmates tested this.


----------



## goo_mason (3 Oct 2008)

Just think - back in the early years of the TdF, they all rode fixed-gear (according to a book I read recently). 

To see pictures of them riding up in the mountains when the route was just a rocky track really does make you think about how tough those guys were (or how doped up they were !)


----------



## joebe (3 Oct 2008)

Two simple reasons why I don't like commuting on a fix, both to do with control in traffic when filtering.

constant pedalling upsets low speed balancing and the danger of catching a pedal on a kerb.


----------



## dave r (3 Oct 2008)

Joebe, how does constant peddling upset low speed balancing? I haven't come across that one yet, on fixed or gears. As for the kerbs, if the gap is that narrow that theres danger of catching the kerb its usually best to stay out of it.


----------



## joebe (3 Oct 2008)

dave r said:


> Joebe, how does constant peddling upset low speed balancing? I haven't come across that one yet, on fixed or gears. As for the kerbs, if the gap is that narrow that theres danger of catching the kerb its usually best to stay out of it.



Because your weight is constantly shifting as you pedal, it might not make a huge difference but sometimes it's the difference between a bit of a wobble and smooth change of direction.

Its far easier to shift the bike around (e.g lean it to one side, or shift your hips, to avoid a wingmirror) when you're coasting.


----------



## Madcyclist (3 Oct 2008)

Another vote for the Pearson Touche, an excellent well designed frame for commuting and club runs. Mines kitted out with full guards and rack, hate a sweaty back when commuting, with a 66' gear which i might drop to 63 shortly. As long as you match the gear to your regular rides it is no harder on the knees than a freewheel and the ease of maintence is a real bonus.


----------



## Destry (3 Oct 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> We all hear the big gear/bad knwees story, but does anybody have the evidence?



Not I! You'll just have to take my word for it. But it is obvious that pushing a lot of power/weight through your knees is going to hurt them, isn't it?



Fab Foodie said:


> A fixed/Single does not have to be a big gear, mines 73" which is probably higher than many, but it's hardly a big gear.



Yes, you can have any gear you like - but just the one, mind! 63 is the classic, but you have to be fit to ride fast with that gear.



Fab Foodie said:


> Fixed riding helps you develop a smooth pedal action at a variety of cadence rates.... that's actually a useful capability..



Like I said, it's a good training bike.



Fab Foodie said:


> So, you can overtake a fixie rider on a geared-bike... well done  I've overtaken many multi-geared road-bikes on a 60 year-old fixed, many up hills, so simple comparisons mean nothing...



Is that a sarcastic emoticon, by any chance? Gross! I thought I'd demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that geared bikes are faster than fixies, and now this. Oh, the frustrations!



Fab Foodie said:


> Your 4th paragraph is just bollocks IMO. Very few people can pedal smoothly, most people have a dead spot towards the top of the pedal-stroke. When the cranks are directly coupled to the rear-wheel, the momentum of the bike helps carry the legs round this dead-point and produces a more fluid and effective pedalling action. This is apparent especially climbing hills as nearly all fixed riders will testify....



Eh? The only momentum you have going uphill is derived from the action of your legs pushing the cranks -- the bike doesn't have any innate momentum of its own, and any force that goes into helping you with your dead spots gets deducted from the force available to propel the bike forwards. It is in fact that other leg of yours that is helping you out here. Riding a fixie uphill is exactly like riding a freewheled bike uphill -- until you take some action that would engage the freewheel, if you had one, and allow the bike to coast. It has to be, because the freewheel is the only difference between the two bikes. Anyone here coast uphill? Even the great Sheldon Brown, an enthusiast for fixies if ever there was one, doesn't make outlandish claims like this one.



Fab Foodie said:


> The precise control of a track bike is even more pertinant on the rtoad than on the track. Fixed-wheelers have the benefit of being able to use the legs to slow progress as well as accelerate/maintain speed. This extra level of control is very useful, in fact I's say highly benificial in heavy traffic.



Well, freewheelers have the benefit of being able to freewheel and geared riders have the benefit of being able to change gears -- also useful in traffic. Sort of obvious, but there you go.



Fab Foodie said:


> Add-in the fact that you can easily come to a complete standstill and remain on the bike for a smoother get-away compared to gears makes the fixed-wheeler the ideal commuting bike.



I can hear those ligaments snapping from here!



Fab Foodie said:


> I recently ran (on my TCR) the route I used to commute fixed 25 years ago, I'd have swapped my 9spd Ultegra for my 73" gear fixed I used in the '80's any day for riding in the traffic.



And here was me thinking simple comparisons meant nothing. Doh!



Fab Foodie said:


> Many do PBP and LEL in decent times.....



Really? I see, yes. I think we may be lapsing into tech-speak now. But it brings me to the point. You are a super-fit, super-experienced, super-skilled cycling enthusiast -- an Executive Member no less! -- who likes riding fixed for various reasons, part technical and part mystical. But most commuters aren't any of these things and probably don't want to be, either. They're just people who like riding a bike to work. They may also have read the great Sheldon's warnings here

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html#danger

and decided they'd rather put up a with a couple of dead spots...


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Oct 2008)

OK Destry, we'll probably never agree, but debate is good! Cest' la vie 

Firstly, just 'cos it seems obvious that pushing a single gear around might hurt the knees, that's not evidence, I've never seen any evidence either way. My own experience of being a high gear "grinder" for over 30 years of which 25 were on fixed has not damaged my knees. Recently there was a report from the USA about elderly long-term joggers, it's often said that jogging is bad for the joints and knees, the evidence from this study said the exact opposite was true when compared to a control group. Just 'cos something seems obvious doesn't mean it's necessarily the case.

I don't know where the 63" classic gear comes from, and you don't need to be super fit to ride around on a 73 either. Until a few years ago I was a 20 Old-Holborn a day person and I managed OK even climbing Ditchling Beacon.

I'm glad you like the touch of sarcasm. (smilies not working tonight). I've read and heard many times from commuters ( a few are on here) and TT'ers that ride both fixed and geared bikes tell you that the differences between their commute/TT times are minimal, yes gears are faster, but not hugely so.

On the momentum question. A bike static alone has no momentum, but with my 85kgs pedalling plus 10kg of bike attached to a fixed-wheel at say 17mph, thats a shed-load of momentum, I can tell you that it really shifts your legs over the dead-spot easily and smoothly. Take your feet of the pedals, they go round on their own... 
Try a fixed-wheel and a single-speed bike of the same gear on a pair of resistance rollers and tell me which is easier to pedal against a fixed resistance at a fixed cadence... and that's without the 95kgs of momentum at 17 mph on a real road. Weird, but strangely true.


On the subject of control in traffic, we'll have to agree to disagree. My own experience of riding in heavy city traffic is that a fixed-wheeler is preferable. It's an alternative view, but salient none the less. 

Regarding using the legs to slow, track-stand and pull away again, there is no body of evidence of ligament damage doing this. 

My preference for riding a fixed in London vs my triple is simply a personal preference.

Ha, me a super-fit rider, LOL! FYI, PBP is Paris-Brest-Paris and LEL is London-Edinburgh-London, the 2 longest Audax rides (1200 and 1400kms). Many people ride these gruelling events on fixed wheelers and manage them just as easily (or with the same difficulty) as their multi-geared companions. They're no more gods than the other participants. What this says to me is that a fixed-wheel bike is a perfectly suitable bike to cover long distances with some load and variable terrain.
My own history was that having restored an old 10speed bike as a student in the early '80s and commuting in London, I read about fixed-wheels in "Richards book of the bicycle". One bored weekend I bought a fixed sprocket and converted the 10 speed to the single gear that I used 90% of the time when riding. After a few laps of Clapham common I hit the road and really liked the whole experience. I converted the bike back to gears for a couple of camping tours, but always re-placed the fixed gear on return. It worked so well that I never felt the need to change. Back then I did well to encounter 1 other fixed-wheel bike a year in London, there was certainly no "trend". I was never super-fit, I kept it because it worked so well, nothing mystical, I could easily have kept the 10 gears. I'm just saying as many others have found as Fixed becomes more popular, that it IS a very suitable way to commute. 

BTW, being an Executive member here conveys no more knowledge than being a newbie... it just means I should get out more often!

If you've never tried a fixed, you should. Many have succumbed to their charms, I can't believe it's all just fashion.


----------



## dave r (3 Oct 2008)

joebe said:


> Because your weight is constantly shifting as you pedal, it might not make a huge difference but sometimes it's the difference between a bit of a wobble and smooth change of direction.
> 
> Its far easier to shift the bike around (e.g lean it to one side, or shift your hips, to avoid a wingmirror) when you're coasting.



I have never had that as a problem and I am not normally aware of my weight shifting, round unless I am stood on the peddles and going very hard, I am usually still and smooth on the bike


----------



## GrahamG (6 Oct 2008)

I just can't stand cleaning/lubing derailleurs etc. when I cycle 6 or 7 days a week in all weathers - 3 years of maintenance translates to wet-lube every few weeks depending on weather, one new chainring (it was a cheapy so wore out quick), and two new chains. 

Yes, I am lazy - thorough bike cleaning is reserved for the posh weekend bike.


----------



## thebrowncup (22 Dec 2008)

39:16 here


----------



## thebrowncup (22 Dec 2008)

riding year round here in Wisconsin. serious issues with rusty chain. the roads are salted and slushy so it doesn't take long, like a couple weeks for things to start rusting. anyone know of a bombproof, rustproof chain?


----------



## andygates (22 Dec 2008)

RB gets around Edinburgh nicely on her fixies and when I visited, I got around nicely too.

All that knee-doom - pfft. Never noticed it and I'm a hefty great pie-devouring gear masher. Fixed makes you strong. Hulk mash!

Browncup... the bright nickel BMX chains are pretty tough, but you need moar oyl.


----------



## HeartAttack (22 Dec 2008)

Well its nice to see that we have a book reader who thinks they know everything... Destry, tell us your credentials, I mean if you want to start sprouting your word and say things like we'll have to take your word for it then prove your word is worthy or are you just full of it and think everyone should bow to what you spew over the forum??

LOL on doing your knees in, a guy in my club is 74, rides a 48x16 fixed, has done since 1952 and takes it on tours etc, his knees are not shot and he can out ride and climb almost everyone I know, oh and on the down hill he can spin out at a little over 200rpm so no worries on being left behind for him.

Gears faster than fixed, crap if x gear on a geared bike is the same as y gear on a fixed and the cadence is the same then they are both as fast as each other. HJowever on a geared bike you can go higher, but conversly you will find many seasoned and well trained fixed riders will have a higher cadence ability so its back to a level playing field.


----------



## andygates (23 Dec 2008)

I'm a lot slower on fixed: I can't spin anything like as fast as I can freewheel, and my top speed is limited. But it's more fun, and I'm a beast uphill. It's just dif'rent innit.


----------



## MajorMantra (23 Dec 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> On the momentum question. A bike static alone has no momentum, but with my 85kgs pedalling plus 10kg of bike attached to a fixed-wheel at say 17mph, thats a shed-load of momentum, I can tell you that it really shifts your legs over the dead-spot easily and smoothly. Take your feet of the pedals, they go round on their own...



+1 - this effect is very noticeable and is absolutely not a myth. Riding fixed lets you put the power down efficiently in the 'easy' part of the pedal revolution and the momentum you create pulls your feet through the less easy portion - when the cranks are at TDC and BDC. Going uphill feels easier than on my geared bike except on the much steeper climbs where my cadence drops too much and I have to stand up and grind.

For the record, I'm riding a 76" gear (that's 48:17, based on nominal 27" wheel size) in Edinburgh. A few of the hills can be a struggle but most of the routes I take are no problem and I enjoy the extra workout for a given distance.

Matthew


----------



## Destry (23 Feb 2009)

Damn! I leave cyclechat for a few months and return to find myself accused of the forum equivalent of projectile vomiting. My opinions are "spew" and I am "full of it". Worse, I may be a "book reader"! Run for your lives!

No, seriously, remarking that "you'll just have to take my word for it" that pushing big gears can damage your knees was my flippant way of pointing out that this is not the proceedings of a conference on biomechanics but a forum full of opinions which you can take or leave as you see fit. I could tell a few knackered-knee anecdotes, but a stern judge such as HeartAttack is going to say, So what? I don't have "credentials" that allow me to make this claim and call it anything other than an opinion. But then, neither does HeartAttack. Just because his whirly-legged club colleague has knees like steel pistons, doesn't prove that you are not taking a risk if you choose to push a big gear on your fixie. Most people will be fine, but some will not - and they may not get much warning before the calamitous ping. (By the way, it is not riding fixed that its the problem, it is using too big a gear.)

Anyway, we can at least agree that if you ride two bikes with identical gearing at identical cadence they will go the same speed... Phew! And that if your geared rider changes up, he will go faster. Perhaps even that if your fixed rider with the blurry legs doing his maximum cadence switches to a bike with gears, he too can change up and go faster... The point is that the bike with higher gears has the potential to go faster, not that it always or inevitably will. Well, this is dull.

This momentum business seems more contentious. Any forward momentum which is used to help push your legs through the dead zone is momentum which is no longer available to make the bike go faster. If the weight of the bike is pushing against resistance at the pedal, that is in fact a braking effect. However, it feels smoother and is obviously good for the soul... Not good enough, in my bookish and vomity opinion, to compensate for having to keep the bike upright when cornering, let alone for denying yourself the great pleasure of coasting majestically down a long hill. But each to his own. My original point was merely that for most people a fixie is not a good commuter bike, and I stand by it resolutely.

However, I have now spewed on far too long and HeartAttack will be having one.


----------



## MajorMantra (23 Feb 2009)

Destry said:


> Not good enough, in my bookish and vomity opinion, to compensate for having to keep the bike upright when cornering



Unless you have ridiculously long cranks, you most certainly don't have to corner upright, not even close. I've leaned over quite far on my Flyer with no problems.

Matthew


----------



## Destry (24 Feb 2009)

You're right, should have said "more upright"... What I missed in my fixie days was that feeling of heeling over really hard with all my weight on the outer crank at six o'clock... Ecstasy.


----------



## skwerl (24 Feb 2009)

Destry said:


> the bike doesn't have any innate momentum of its own



eh? Any moving object has momentum.

I think I can see what you're getting at though. A fixed has no more momentum than any other bike.
I personally believe the whole uphill momentum, easier on fixed, etc. thing doesn't exist. You reach the start of a climb and have no choice but to go up in the gear you're in. Most people will find grinding up it slowly too hard so will end up attacking and going hell for leather. They then end up thinking they've improved their hill-climbing skills.

I do think that a fixed is easier to control at slow speeds around traffic though. Though the pedal strike issue can occasionally rear it's head it's not a big problem.

And they make good commuters in flat territory. My commute is almost void of anything hill-like, save for a couple of 2 minute sprints


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Feb 2009)

skwerl said:


> eh? Any moving object has momentum.
> 
> I think I can see what you're getting at though. A fixed has no more momentum than any other bike.
> I personally believe the whole uphill momentum, easier on fixed, etc. thing doesn't exist. You reach the start of a climb and have no choice but to go up in the gear you're in. Most people will find grinding up it slowly too hard so will end up attacking and going hell for leather. They then end up thinking they've improved their hill-climbing skills.
> ...


A fixed gear is easier uphill than a freewheel because the rear wheel is pushing the cranks through the dead spot on the pedalling circle. 

Big gears do not damage your knees, that is one of those internet myths with no evidence to back it up. I rode for years with a bottom gear of 42*21, as did most cyclists when you could only get five speed blocks and we are all still able to stand, walk and cycle.


----------



## Destry (24 Feb 2009)

Not wishing to flog a dead horse, but how can the rear wheel push anything without using energy generated by your legs? You pedal, the chainset turns that rotational energy into forward momentum. If forward momentum is then diverted back through the chainset to push your pedal through its dead spot, then that momentum is turned back into rotational energy and is not available to make you go faster. In fact, if the pedal is pushing against resistance at your foot (i.e. would go faster if your foot wasn't there), then you are braking.

The effect of all this over time is to smooth out the energy transfer, which should make you a more efficient cyclist.

Richard Ballantine's Richard's 21st Century Bicycle Book has a long, regretful section on the knee damage he suffered. There may be no scientific evidence, but equally that may be because no one has looked for it. For decades there was no evidence of a link between smoking and lung cancer, but that didn't stop smokers dying of it. 

If anyone does start looking, obviously the first thing they would find is a wide variation in what knees can handle: big for one person may be easy for another. 42*21 is about 54 inches - not a big gear at all. Imagine doing the hills you did using 42*21 with a 70-inch ratio instead, say 42*16 - with no option to change down when you find you're not spinning well any more. The temptation with a fixie is to fit a ratio that won't slow you down when going downhill, but that can lead you into pushing your knees too hard on an uphill.

None of us has any evidence - we are just exchanging opnions. There is stuff on the web if you look for it - e.g. http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/1044-cyclists-knee-injuries.htm "Training factors linked with patellofemoral pain include hill training, cycling with high gears at a low cadence, and a sudden increase in training volume." But this technical stuff needs expert interpretation and I'm no expert.

This is something to think about when going fixed, that's all - especially in the stop-start environment of an urban commute.


----------



## HeartAttack (24 Feb 2009)

And the reason that the National 2008 hill climb was won by a fixed is because??



Oh yes its better to climb with, when the bike is rolling the pedals are turning and so you travel forward and upward. Still I guess you'll soon be telling us all that had the champ ridden a free wheel he would have been quicker?? Tell you what race the hill climb next year and prove your point, al la put up or shut up. Anyone can read a book, but rather than read try doing it


----------



## Randochap (24 Feb 2009)

HeartAttack said:


> And the reason that the National 2008 hill climb was won by a fixed is because??



The _rider_ of the fixed was a good hill climber?

Or perhaps, as you claim, fixed drivetrains do have some inate ability to defy gravity.


----------



## HeartAttack (24 Feb 2009)

Randochap said:


> The _rider_ of the fixed was a good hill climber?
> 
> Or perhaps, as you claim, fixed drivetrains do have some inate ability to defy gravity.




No my point is that if someone capable to win the National Hill Climb chooses to ride a fixed rather than a free wheel then there must be a reason behind this, especially given that someone is trying to tell us that a free wheel is faster and better than a fixed


----------



## Randochap (24 Feb 2009)

HeartAttack said:


> No my point is that if someone capable to win the National Hill Climb chooses to ride a fixed rather than a free wheel then there must be a reason behind this, especially given that someone is trying to tell us that a free wheel is faster and better than a fixed



Let me get this straight. Are you saying the reason the NHC champ chose fixed is because he considers it superior to other drivetrains? You spoke to him and acertained that was his reasoning? Or are you filling in the "reason" to bolster your argument here?

And I missed the part where Destry told us that a free wheel is "faster and better" than fixed -- I gathered he was just challenging the anti-gravity argument. I rather thought that was your bailiwick -- assigning magical properties to inanimate mechanisms.


----------



## HeartAttack (24 Feb 2009)

Well as you are so clever tell me why else the NHC Champ choose a fixed then ?? No I don't know him or have met him but given that nowadays having several different bikes is no out of order and selecting the bike that gives you the best possible result means that this was the right choice for him, which by the way wasn't the first time he rode well up hill on a fixed. Maybe I suggest you have a look back at some UK hill climb results and write ups to see what type of bike is fairly prevalent amongst the faster hill riders.


----------



## Randochap (24 Feb 2009)

HeartAttack said:


> Well as you are so clever tell me why else the NHC Champ choose a fixed then ??



I'm neither that clever or clairvoyant; so I have no idea why they chose fixed. I'll leave that to you.

Likewise, I have no idea why people like Emily O'Brien would choose to ride PBP fixed either. Probably because they can, or believe they can and go ahead and do so. And why not? Impressive! I'm certainly not going to argue with their choice ... unless they try to tell me it's the "best" way to accomplish the goal. 

The argument for fixed over geared bikes on the road -- exemplified by the newspaper flame war between Henri Desgrange and Paul de Vivie (AKA Velocio) -- was put to rest in the early 1900s., when Tour de France riders abandoned their fixed wheel bikes in favour of Velocio's derailleur.

On edit: BTW, I built my first fixed wheel bike in 1960, at the age of 8.


----------



## fossyant (24 Feb 2009)

Hill Climb TT's - you don't have time to change gear, so picking the right ratio is where it is at. Only some of the longer climbs will someone use gears. 

I did hill climbs every season, my clubmate always rode fixed, and most of the winners rode fixed. Getting the ratio right was the key.

Fixed in a hill climb, provided it is a fairly constant gradient can be better (with that extra push) - if it's got sections that are flatish, then you'll lose out.


----------



## Destry (25 Feb 2009)

Well put, Fossyant. For a few specialist rides - time trials, hill races, track racing - a fixie _may_ be the best bet; and they make great training bikes by forcing you to pedal smoothly. But as an all-round ride for most people, a geared bike wins hands down. 

Which is not to say that a good fixie rider can't go fast, corner effectively and have a lot of fun without damaging their knees... It's not for me, but hey, it's a freewheelin' world!


----------



## MajorMantra (25 Feb 2009)

Destry said:


> Well put, Fossyant. For a few specialist rides - time trials, hill races, track racing - a fixie _may_ be the best bet; and they make great training bikes by forcing you to pedal smoothly. But as an all-round ride for most people, a geared bike wins hands down.
> 
> Which is not to say that a good fixie rider can't go fast, corner effectively and have a lot of fun without damaging their knees... It's not for me, but hey, it's a freewheelin' world!



Group hug then?

Matthew


----------



## skwerl (27 Feb 2009)

Smokin Joe said:


> A fixed gear is easier uphill than a freewheel because the rear wheel is pushing the cranks through the dead spot on the pedalling circle.
> 
> Big gears do not damage your knees, that is one of those internet myths with no evidence to back it up. I rode for years with a bottom gear of 42*21, as did most cyclists when you could only get five speed blocks and we are all still able to stand, walk and cycle.



Having ridden both for many years I disagree.
And where did I say big gears damage your knees?
BTW - 42*21 is not a big gear. You need to get over 70" before you can consider using the word "big"


----------

