# Dissapointed...



## Blonde (28 Sep 2007)

..in my geared commuting bike after riding fixed for several weeks. 

I notice not only is it totally uncomfortable (wrong position, too low - head tube not long enough, and made of aluminum which seems unbearably harsh in comparison to the steel Pompino) but I can distinctly feel a loss of power somewhere. It is really noticeable. It makes me want to pedal a much larger gear than I would have used in the past! It seems you get less for your effort with geared bikes - I can feel my legs spinning but don't seem to be getting anywhere and it actually feels better to be in a larger gear. I've no 'pooter' on the geared bike at the moment so I don't know if I am going much quicker than I used to or not on it. I do know though that I am considerably faster on the fixed so I wonder if this wanting to pedal a higher gear that previously on the geared bike is down to developing strength through riding fixed up hill into a head wind on my way home every night, or simply the fact that power is being lost somewhere on a geared bike and so it just feels wrong.


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Sep 2007)

No momentum build up with gears......

And the drive train on a geared bike is less efficent......

Stay fixed!


----------



## Blonde (28 Sep 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> No momentum build up with gears......



I think I do rely somewhat on momentum to get up the hills when on fixed - it seems that once you've started turning the pedals it is easier to keep them turning, even if the gear is a bit large - it just means you go up the hills faster on fixed even though it hurts your legs!


----------



## peejay78 (29 Sep 2007)

absolutely - i'm much more aware of pacing and rhythm when riding fixed up hills. i try and maintain a cadence and smooth pedal motion. it's a lot of effort, but it's good effort.


----------



## rootsrocker (30 Sep 2007)

Don't be dissapointed...it's a good thing.... your legs will be scary strong now.....

My only geared 'roadie' is a 7 speed Jamis Cyclocrosser but I have similar sentiments after riding fixed for a bit. 

I had trouble finding a gear that felt right and the whole set up felt most odd - all wrong,really. 
I only ride the gearie for big days out these days (century rides etc) otherwise it sits folorn in the bedroom,gathering dust.I'm hoping one day I'll get strong enough to do long ones on the fixer but we'll build up to that !

My single gear seems to sing (zing?) along with a joy de vivre that the gearie just doesn't have... ? Anyway,I like the silent 'just pedal' thing as well. 
Your comments about Alu & steel are interesting - I gave my Alu frame road bike away (it was a cheapie Saracen Ventoux - my first road bike - I'm an mtb-er really).
as it beat the **** out of me compared to the steelies.

Keep SS-ing :-) 

Now..... where's that Condor catalogue gone.........


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> No momentum build up with gears......
> 
> And the drive train on a geared bike is less efficent......
> 
> Stay fixed!




You should feel the inefficiency on the long chain run of my 'bent. Really shocking after a fixed. Still, the waaaay better aerodynamics still wins out over my fixed.


----------



## Brock (28 Oct 2007)

I quite fancy trying a fixed, been thinking about it for a while. In fact I had a dream that I was riding a rather aged sit up and beg style fixed bike, it felt good, and it had a sort of rusty lever on the riser bars that I could flick, which swapped the drive over from fixed to single speed freewheel.. I suppose for when my legs wanted a rest. Good eh?


----------



## piedwagtail91 (28 Oct 2007)

i had to go on gears last week for the club hill climb. (couldn't get my gearing right on fixed in time) and found it very frustrating compared to my fixed.
the position is the same and they're both steel frames but gears felt wrong.
the club president likened riding gears to pedaling a soggy sponge after a time on fixed and now i know what he meant


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

This is such a _bollo__cks_ thread. I cannot believe how something can induce apparently normally sensible people's inclination to spout such complete guff.




Blonde said:


> I notice ... [it is] made of aluminum which seems unbearably harsh in comparison to the steel Pompino)


How can aluminium "seem harsh"? The frame of your bike is not a moving part. The only difference it makes to the ride between aluminium and steel is that aluminium's less dense, so for the same volume of tubing aluminium is lighter.
Are you sure you don't just mean you're aware of being acutely less fashionable?



Blonde said:


> but I can distinctly feel a loss of power somewhere. It is really noticeable. It makes me want to pedal a much larger gear than I would have used in the past! It seems you get less for your effort with geared bikes - I can feel my legs spinning but don't seem to be getting anywhere and it actually feels better to be in a larger gear.


I think it's more likely to be that you're simply putting less effort in so you _think_ you're going slower, whereas really it's just that you've got a higher cadence so after being used to a fixed, you think you 'should' be going faster. I don't recall a thread when you switched to a fixed describing how fast you seemed to be whizzing along for such little effort? Was there one - did I just miss it?



Blonde said:


> I've no 'pooter' on the geared bike at the moment so I don't know if I am going much quicker than I used to or not on it. *I do know though that I am considerably faster on the fixed*


_How_ do you know, if you haven't got a computer on the geared bike?




zimzum42 said:


> No momentum build up with gears......
> 
> *And the drive train on a geared bike is less efficent......*
> 
> Stay fixed!


Yes, by about 0.001%.




peejay78 said:


> absolutely - *i'm much more aware of pacing and rhythm when riding fixed *up hills. i try and maintain a cadence and smooth pedal motion. it's a lot of effort, but it's good effort.


Gobbledegook. "Pacing" and "rhythm" are complete mumbo jumbo terms whose place is in fashionable london tea-room/cafe chat, not in technical discussion.



BentMikey said:


> You should feel the inefficiency on the long chain run of my 'bent.


So should you. How is a longer chain less efficient?


----------



## Zoiders (28 Oct 2007)

Errrr... the frame of a bike is indeed a moving part, sorry but it is

You can even see and hear it on some frames, chain rub on the derailuer, highspeed shimy when loaded, its all becuse the parts of a frame move under force


----------



## mickle (28 Oct 2007)

Theres a very good reason that no-one gas ever made a spring out of aluminum. If subject to flex aluminum will suffer from fatigue and fail. The tubes of Alu frames are of a greater diameter than those of steel in order to minimise the possibility of fatigue through flexing (doubling the diameter of a tube quadruples its stiffness). Its widely known that steel and Ti frames are more flexible than Alu or resin composite frames, anyone who has ridden a Reynolds 531st frame loaded with panniers into a fast corner will tell you how sketchy a whippy steel frame can be.

My Rocky Mountain Vertex Scandium suffers from an enormous amount of frame flex, proper visible demonstratable frame flex, but its a characteristic Im prepared to live with because I want a light bike.

Youre talking out of your rectum again Bonj.


----------



## mickle (28 Oct 2007)

There is a very real sense when returning to a geared bike that its less efficient. I spent two years riding fixed exclusively, when I then rode on a freewheel my legs didnt want to go over top dead centre, the bike didnt seem to carry the same momentum and it was impossible to find a comfortable gear ratio. 

This was before Bonj was born BTW.


----------



## mickle (28 Oct 2007)

Long chain=increased rotating mass.
Additional chain guide tubes and chain rollers=increased drag.


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Oct 2007)

mickle said:


> *anyone who has ridden a Reynolds 531st frame loaded with panniers into a fast corner will tell you how sketchy a whippy steel frame can be*.



You'll also realise how tightly a puckered sphincter can grip onto a leather saddle...


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

Zoiders said:


> Errrr... the frame of a bike is indeed a moving part, sorry but it is
> 
> You can even see and hear it on some frames, chain rub on the derailuer, highspeed shimy when loaded, its all becuse the parts of a frame move under force



'chain rub on the derailleur'? explain how that's to do with whether the frame's aluminium or steel.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

Zoiders said:


> Errrr... the frame of a bike is indeed a moving part, sorry but it is



only in the sense that it moves relative to the road along with the rest of the bike when you pedal forwards.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

mickle said:


> Theres a very good reason that no-one gas ever made a spring out of aluminum. If subject to flex aluminum will suffer from fatigue and fail. The tubes of Alu frames are of a greater diameter than those of steel in order to minimise the possibility of fatigue through flexing (doubling the diameter of a tube quadruples its stiffness). Its widely known that steel and Ti frames are more flexible than Alu or resin composite frames, anyone who has ridden a Reynolds 531st frame loaded with panniers into a fast corner will tell you how sketchy a whippy steel frame can be.


But they don't have to increase the diameter by enough to make it heavier than it would be if it was steel.
Steel was what they used to make bikes out of in the sixties. Then improvements in welding techniques and methods of extruding came along, and manufacturers learnt how to build frames out of aluminium. They were lighter, but with no discernible disadvantage*, which is why most bikes today are made of aluminium.

*other than not being able to be made at rock-bottom price, which is why the very cheapest of the halfords apollo/shockwave bikes tend to be steel.

Traditionalists like steel framed bikes because they like traditional things, and they like to wander around saying 'eeeeh, thi' dawnt mek 'em laaahk thi' yoooused ter!'. A certain minority of these traditionalists like to confuse people by pretending there is actually a tangible advantage to steel framed bikes, but a lot of people (not enough, mind) can see through the reasons why they make these claims. I am, unfortunately for your argument, one of those people.

Oh, and I'm sorry, but anybody that claims they "can feel their bike flex" when going round a corner _really is_ talking out of their rectum, I'm afraid.


----------



## mickle (28 Oct 2007)

The concept of materials elasticity is lost on you methinks.

1960s Generic ladies steel frame.
1980s Alan, skinny tubed, lugged aluminum. 
2000s Cannondale, fat tubed, welded aluminum.

You would appear to be suggesting that there would be no measureable differences in the flexibility under load of the aforementioned frame designs.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (28 Oct 2007)

I must disagree with you here bonj, I have a steel frame roadbike and an alu/carbon framed roadbike, I also have a steel fram mtb and had an alu mtb for a while too.

The steel framed roadbike does give a softer, almost spongy ride, and leaning into fast corners on it really makes you aware of the frame flexing underneath the rider. 

My alu/carbon roadbike has carbon forks, alu main triangle, alu chainstays and carbon seatstays. The difference is amazing, immidiately the whole bike feels tighter and more responsive. Cornering fast, leant right over is a totally different feeling, with the bike responding to bumps in the road in a more twitchy, but less destabilizing way.

I did notice the distance between my regular steel mtb and the alu one I had before some to$$er reversed into the bike stands it was parked in The alu framed bike was more twitchy and tight feeling than the steel. On road it was pretty hard to tell the difference between the two, other than I preferred my steel frame. 

If you don't have a roadbike, it is very hard to see what people mean by feeling the frame flex, as mtb's just can't be used in the same way.


----------



## peejay78 (28 Oct 2007)

sorry just revisited this thread, i didn't realise the bonj had been here.

really, some interesting comments - especially the 'flame' response to my 'rhythm and pacing' observation. 


_pj:"absolutely - i'm much more aware of pacing and rhythm when riding fixed up hills. i try and maintain a cadence and smooth pedal motion. it's a lot of effort, but it's good effort.
bonj:
Gobbledegook. "Pacing" and "rhythm" are complete mumbo jumbo terms whose place is in fashionable london tea-room/cafe chat, not in technical discussion."_

normally i wouldn't respond to you, bonj, but in this case you're so far wide of the mark it's almost funny. 

why are you trolling? these are silly comments, ignorant and aggressive. typical male internet forum lurker flaming. i don't mind your opinion, but you're just being rude and obnoxious, and being obnoxious is not, the last time i checked, a nice attribute. feel free to continue in this vein, as per usual, but be aware that you are being unpleasant. 

and for the love of god, please please work out the difference between subjectivity and objectivity before you deploy any more of your 'advice'.


----------



## mickle (28 Oct 2007)

I dont have a problem with people not knowing something, theres certainly a lot that I dont know about all kinds of stuff, but I do find it extraordinary that someone who is so utterly ignorant of the facts can write with such utter conviction and closed-minded arrogance. More to the point, you casually accuse people of invention when their experience of the world exceeds your rather limited world view. 

I hereby abandon this thread in the hope that someone else with more patience picks up the challenge of educating muppet features here about materials technology.


----------



## Zoiders (28 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> only in the sense that it moves relative to the road along with the rest of the bike when you pedal forwards.


Not true

Point map a frame, film it as it is being ridden and you would see those points move into relationship to one another, the frame will flex, it will move

There is no such thing as a 100 percent rigid structure, even steel framed sky scrapers flex, if they did not they would break


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I must disagree with you here bonj, I have a steel frame roadbike and an alu/carbon framed roadbike, I also have a steel fram mtb and had an alu mtb for a while too.
> 
> The steel framed roadbike does give a softer, almost spongy ride, and leaning into fast corners on it really makes you aware of the frame flexing underneath the rider.


so what actual sensation do you get that "makes you aware of the frame flexing underneath you"?
Is it like, when you steer round a corner it 'bends' left to right, and when you exit the corner it bends back 
By how many millimetres does it 'bend'? Can you make it flex by this amount with your hands when you're off the bike and it's stationary?




Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> If you don't have a roadbike, it is very hard to see what people mean by feeling the frame flex, as mtb's just can't be used in the same way.



I have got a road bike, which is aluminium. It doesn't flex. But I also have ridden a steel road bike, but at no point when riding it did I notice any phenomenon that I would have described as it "flexing".


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

mickle said:


> I hereby abandon this thread in the hope that someone else with more patience picks up the challenge of educating muppet features here about materials technology. *knowledge that I am wrong*.



hmmmm... doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Zoiders (28 Oct 2007)

Ever heard your chain set rub your front mech when you are giving it some welly out of the saddle?

Thats the frame flexing under power


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

peejay78 said:


> sorry just revisited this thread, i didn't realise the bonj had been here.
> 
> really, some interesting comments - especially the 'flame' response to my 'rhythm and pacing' observation.
> 
> ...



in other words, you know I'm right.   If you like fixed bikes that much, why do you feel the need to make up imaginary benefits of them? (That you can't explain?) If you think they're tangible benefits, then explain what you actually mean by 'rhythm' and 'pacing'.
I'm not trolling, i'm not trying to be unpleasant and i'm sorry if i've offended you - I didn't mean to. If I have, then please just _politely_ say, 'sorry bonj, i'm offended by this thread, and i'm therefore stepping out of it.' and then _actually do_. But don't go saying 'you're offensive, for starters, _but while i'm at it i'm also going to try and say you're wrong because of x, y and z._' because it's only natural that I should then respond to x, y and z.
Like i say i'm not trolling and i never intend to deliberately cause offence. I just have quite a passionate desire to learn what people _actually_ see in the whole weird/old bike thing but mixed with a certain cynical desire to shatter the myths they put forward as their reasoning for liking them. For instance, i don't understand why people are embarrassed to admit they only like some things purely because they're fashionable? I don't see anything wrong with fashion. A perfect example was recumbents, it took quite a bit of ranting and cynicism from me before people could actually be bothered to explain in layman's terms what the advantage of them was and just _why_ they weren't mainstream, and I had to wade through an awful lot of "but you just haven't seen the light bonj" type responses before I actually got any sense.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

Zoiders said:


> Not true
> 
> Point map a frame, film it as it is being ridden and you would see those points move into relationship to one another, the frame will flex, it will move
> 
> There is no such thing as a 100 percent rigid structure, even steel framed sky scrapers flex, if they did not they would break



yeah but insignificant flex, that you can't feel, isn't what we're talking about. Course everything flexes. But enough to notice?


----------



## Zoiders (28 Oct 2007)

Bonj

You are being a bit of tool, we are only trying to point out that frames do flex and that you can tell the difference between them, we are not gushing about steel being this and that though

We are just pointing out that they do differ


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (28 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> so what actual sensation do you get that "makes you aware of the frame flexing underneath you"?
> Is it like, when you steer round a corner it 'bends' left to right, and when you exit the corner it bends back



Quite a challenge you have set there bonj *scratches head* I'll do my best to describe it.

Ok, here is the situation: Leaning into a LH corner at the bottom of a hill that I use a fair few times a week, entry speed is about 32mph. The road is fairly smooth, and it doesn't require braking, but you do need to lean in with full commitment. Just past the apex there are a couple of small "whoops" or smooth ridges in the tarmac. 

On the steel roadbike - When I hit the ridges it feels as if the front wheel is being forced forward, and backwards lengthening and shortening the wheelbase but without shaking the bars side to side. I am aware of my outside foot, which is weighting the pedal in the 6'o'cock position, wobbling/flexing out and in again at 90 degrees to the direction of travel. 

I guess the best word to describe the feeling is that the bike "wallows" in the corner.

On the alu/carbon roadbike - Hitting the same bumps, but a little faster than on the steeley, I don't experience the same wallowing feeling. This bike shakes its bars more and the frame almost jumps hitting the bumps. Its not actually jumping, but it is more of a shock *bump* that shoots through the frame rather than a more protracted *whump* that shivers through the steel frame.

 So hard to put into words!! Thats my best effort 



> By how many millimetres does it 'bend'? Can you make it flex by this amount with your hands when you're off the bike and it's stationary?



"Quite a lot" would be my answer to this. The only way that I can think of testing this is the old classic to test the ridgidity around the BB. Sit on the bike and apply both brakes. Put power through a pedal at around the 3'o'clock position for maximum power. Look down at the BB as you do this and you will notice it flex, and flex back when you release the pressure on the pedal.

This isn't a very accurate measure by a long shot, but it will give you an idea of relative flex, my steeley flexes significantly more than my alu.



> I have got a road bike, which is aluminium. It doesn't flex. But I also have ridden a steel road bike, but at no point when riding it did I notice any phenomenon that I would have described as it "flexing".



Apologies, I thought you were mtb only 

Your alu framed roadbike will flex, just not as much as a steel frame would. 

I think that I find the difference between the two bikes very noticable because I spend a lot of time in the saddle of both of them, and do cover the same roads close to home on both of them. 

For riding predictably my steele bike wins, the flex of the frame soaks up bumps and imperfections better than my alu bike. But when it comes to which bike is better to make progress on the Alu frame wins, it is so taut and responsive, and I know what the tyres are doing with much more clarity.


----------



## domtyler (28 Oct 2007)

mickle said:


> I dont have a problem with people not knowing something, theres certainly a lot that I dont know about all kinds of stuff, but I do find it extraordinary that someone who is so utterly ignorant of the facts can write with such utter conviction and closed-minded arrogance. More to the point, you casually accuse people of invention when their experience of the world exceeds your rather limited world view.
> 
> I hereby abandon this thread in the hope that someone else with more patience picks up the challenge of educating muppet features here about materials technology.



I think you'll find this is roast beef and yorkshire pudding, with homemade apple crumble and custard afters to our friend bonj, I can see him rubbing his hands with glee!


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Oct 2007)

For what it's worth, after hearing about flex in frames years ago, I tried watching the BB when climbing....

Climb in a high gear o you're really having to push hard, and you can see the frame flex as you grind on the pedals.....

I've never had an alu bike, so can't make any comparisons though......


----------



## peejay78 (28 Oct 2007)

_"imaginary benefits of them" _

eh? importance of rhythm and pacing yourself when climbing on a fixed (or any) bicycle? imaginary? ? have you ever ridden a bike up a hill, or ridden a bike? 

i didn't say offensive. 

_"I just have quite a passionate desire to learn what people actually see in the whole weird/old bike thing but mixed with a certain cynical desire to shatter the myths they put forward as their reasoning for liking them."_ 

really? are you sure? what are you, some kind of Richard Dawkins protesting against the perceived mysticism of cycling? this duality sounds like it might be tearing you apart. 

_"For instance, i don't understand why people are embarrassed to admit they only like some things purely because they're fashionable? I don't see anything wrong with fashion."_

no relevance to the OP at all. or anything else. totally off-topic. i'm out anyway.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Oct 2007)

Ah. Dear old Bonj. If I get time tomorrow I'll be popping back to this thread, it's looking promising.



> "certain cynical desire to shatter the myths they put forward as their reasoning for liking them"


I like my single-speed (it's a conversion and a thing of beauty. If I posted a picture it would burn the eyes of the fixie puristas to a jealous crisp) because it's simpler than having gears. It takes away all of my choices and I like that. Just spouting your standard ignoblather isn't shattering myths, it's just building a new one, the story of the Idiot Who Wouldn't Listen.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Quite a challenge you have set there bonj *scratches head* I'll do my best to describe it.
> 
> Ok, here is the situation: Leaning into a LH corner at the bottom of a hill that I use a fair few times a week, entry speed is about 32mph. The road is fairly smooth, and it doesn't require braking, but you do need to lean in with full commitment. Just past the apex there are a couple of small "whoops" or smooth ridges in the tarmac.
> 
> On the steel roadbike - When I hit the ridges it feels as if the front wheel is being forced forward, and backwards lengthening and shortening the wheelbase but without shaking the bars side to side. I am aware of my outside foot, which is weighting the pedal in the 6'o'cock position, wobbling/flexing out and in again at 90 degrees to the direction of travel.


But I'm just trying to imagine what actual distortion the bike's experiencing.
Imagine you were really strong, and you had to produce the same shape change in the bike when it was still to what it does when you go over the ridges on that corner. Would it be standing to the side of it, putting one knee on the top tube and one on the down tube and pulling the headtube and rear dropout towards you, i.e. as if the bike's curving with the corner? Would it be to hold the rear dropout and have an accomplice holding the headtube and both pull tug-of-war-style, i.e. as if the bike's 'stretching'? Would it be as if you're getting it underneath you with your knee on the top tube and pulling it up from front and back, making the whole thing more 'U' shaped? Or what?
And also, what shape are the 'ridges' that cause this? Are they dips in the road i.e. concave, or rise above the surface i.e. convex? How long and tall/deep, and how far apart, are they?



Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> On the alu/carbon roadbike - Hitting the same bumps, but a little faster than on the steeley, I don't experience the same wallowing feeling. This bike shakes its bars more and the frame almost jumps hitting the bumps. Its not actually jumping, but it is more of a shock *bump* that shoots through the frame rather than a more protracted *whump* that shivers through the steel frame.


And you're sure it's not just that the ridges are producing vibration and the steel's better at absorbing them than the carbon/alu bike?
Although to be honest it's a LOT more believable when you describe it as something that's like different shock absorption characteristics than 'the bike bends whenver I go round a corner'.



peejay78 said:


> _"imaginary benefits of them" _
> 
> eh? importance of rhythm and pacing yourself when climbing on a fixed (or any) bicycle? imaginary? ? have you ever ridden a bike up a hill, or ridden a bike?


Whether or not you respect the qualifications which i assume in order to comment on your original assertion, the only comment I made was to put it to you that your proposed advantages of fixed were not something you are able to qualify as tangible, therefore not something that requires the backup of such qualification. That you merely seek to question the qualification I assume (have I ridden a bike ), which isn't even necessary, confirms the validity of my comment.



peejay78 said:


> _"I just have quite a passionate desire to learn what people actually see in the whole weird/old bike thing but mixed with a certain cynical desire to shatter the myths they put forward as their reasoning for liking them."_
> 
> really? are you sure? what are you, some kind of Richard Dawkins protesting against the perceived mysticism of cycling? this duality sounds like it might be tearing you apart.


I'm trying to debate in real/literal/measurable/quantitative/tangible terms, but the above isn't possible to formulate a reasoned response to as it talks purely in fantasy/metaphorical terms.



peejay78 said:


> _"For instance, i don't understand why people are embarrassed to admit they only like some things purely because they're fashionable? I don't see anything wrong with fashion."_
> 
> no relevance to the OP at all. or anything else. totally off-topic. *i'm out anyway.*


That's two down...



Chuffy said:


> I like my single-speed (it's a conversion and a thing of beauty. If I posted a picture it would burn the eyes of the fixie puristas to a jealous crisp)


Ah, now single speed. You see that confuses me. Because I don't know whether I have more or less of a problem with it than with fixed.
The arguments for more, are......... erm.......I don't know. I don't think there are any.
So therefore I have much less of a problem with single speed than with fixed, simply because by introducing a freehub you remove the element of danger, which is presumably what all the fixie brigade think makes them 'cool' - ("ooooh, he must be skilled, he's riding a fixed!, he must be able to 'tame the beast'! " )
But understand Chuffy that your single speed isn't a bike that just _hasn't_ had gears put on. It's a bike that has had the gears deliberately _taken off_. That would be true even if it was a bike that just hasn't ever had gears put on. Bikes are _supposed_ to have gears.

Why don't you go one further, and completely remove the cranks, pedals, chainrings and chain? And just scoot it along, with your feet? You wouldn't go as fast, but then again you can't go as fast with a single speed as you can with gearing, so it's only relative. And you then _really would_ be able to 'ride' it in pedestrian areas and on pavements, as you'd be walking by putting one foot in front of the other (and despite Arch's many attempts to define 'cycling', you would completely fit the definition of being a pedestrian, as you would have no method of propelling yourself plus bike other than the same as what a pedestrian does. Don't try and enter an argument with me about this because I _will_ win.).



Chuffy said:


> it's simpler than having gears. It takes away all of my choices and I like that.


Well why did you bother to convert it, why didn't you just sellotape the shifters up, if you don't like having to put up with the stress of the agonising decision of what gear to be in. That would remove your choices just as effectively. But you've still got the choice of which way to go at a junction, or even whether to ride your bike in the first place. In fact, better still, why didn't you just sellotape yourself to your bed then you wouldn't even have the choice of whether to get up. That really _would_ remove all your choices, and then you'd have a _really_ simple life as you wouldn't ever have to bother deciding anything.
And the pure fact that it is simply the _removal_ of choices is the reason I thought I might have more of a problem with it than fixed, as it's purely subtractive, it 'adds' nothing to the experience. But then I realise that the only thing that having it fixed adds is danger.




Chuffy said:


> Just spouting your standard ignoblather isn't shattering myths, it's just building a new one, the story of the Idiot Who Wouldn't Listen.



Is that a new word, 'ignoblather'? 


Just another point, out of interest: would it be possible to have a fixed bike but with gears? i.e. with a rear mech, shifters and cassette, but no freehub? i.e. why are fixed bikes _always_ also single speed bikes?


----------



## Chuffy (28 Oct 2007)

Less is more.


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Oct 2007)

Chuffy said:


> Less is more.



Yes.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> But understand Chuffy that your single speed isn't a bike that just _hasn't_ had gears put on. It's a bike that has had the gears deliberately _taken off_. That would be true even if it was a bike that just hasn't ever had gears put on. Bikes are _supposed_ to have gears.


Ah. Thank you for the explanation. Otherwise I might have completely forgotten that it was me who took the gears off. 
Where is it written that bikes are supposed to have gears? Eh? Go on, show me where.
KAPOW! <blows smoke from imaginary pistol>
One down....



> Why don't you go one further, and completely remove the cranks,...blahblahetc...Don't try and enter an argument with me about this because I _will_ win.).


No, you lost the last time and there's no point resurrecting the corpse of that argument.
KAPOW!
Another one....




> Well why did you bother to convert it, why didn't you just sellotape the shifters up, if you don't like having to put up with the stress of the agonising decision of what gear to be in.


Because that would be very, very ugly and impractical. Besides, I converted him because the shifter (old, second hand) and rear mech were shot. The conversion was cheaper than buying new shifters and mech. 




> Is that a new word, 'ignoblather'?


It is now, and all because of you. 




> Just another point, out of interest: would it be possible to have a fixed bike but with gears? i.e. with a rear mech, shifters and cassette, but no freehub? i.e. why are fixed bikes _always_ also single speed bikes?


Simplicity. You could make one as described, but why would you?


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Oct 2007)

You can't make a fixed bike with gears.

No gear system can cope with the pressure when you're leg braking, especially not derraileurs....

But I wouldn't expect bonj to know this, cos he doesn't seem to know much about bikes

Still, there's some good haters battiling it out in this thread, I'll let him get on with the hating!


----------



## bonj2 (28 Oct 2007)

Chuffy said:


> Ah. Thank you for the explanation. Otherwise I might have completely forgotten that it was me who took the gears off.
> Where is it written that bikes are supposed to have gears? Eh? Go on, show me where.


Because they _all_ do. Apart from the ones that have had them deliberately taken off, obviously.

Don't you know anything, Chuffy?   About a couple of years ago in a past job I was having to write test scripts for a piece of software. This is so that tests can be carried out to make sure the software does what it's supposed to do. How do I, as a mere author of the software, even _know_ what it's supposed to do? Well, that's obvious. Just see what it currently _does_ do, and whatever that is, that's what it's obviously _supposed_ to do.

There's a rule somewhere that states that "in the absence of a strict and formally defined rule, then what something is _supposed_ to do, exhibit, or have, is basically the same as what it _currently does_ do, exhibit, or have."

I'm not going to tell you what that software was for.




Chuffy said:


> KAPOW! <blows smoke from imaginary pistol>
> One down....
> 
> 
> ...


er... no. By removing the cranks and pedals, you would probably go just as fast (you wouldn't have the benefit of cranks, but you'd be lighter) but also would be legally classed as a pedestrian.
<Neil Fox's voice> That's scientific fact. There's no actual evidence for it, but it _is_ scientific fact. </Neil Fox's voice> 




Chuffy said:


> Simplicity. You could make one as described, but why would you?


Well, for the same reason you'd make a fixie _without_ gears. What if I want the benefit fashionableness of riding fixed but want to be able to go up and down hils aswell?



zimzum42 said:


> You can't make a fixed bike with gears.
> 
> No gear system can cope with the pressure when you're leg braking, especially not derraileurs....


Well it can cope with the pressure of the chain going forward, so why can't it cope with _less_ pressure going backwards?
Anyhow, you wouldn't even need to bother with leg braking, you could just, heaven forbid - novel idea here, use normal brakes?
Has anyone ever tried it? Or would that mean that it wouldn't look like a traditional fixie, therefore wouldn't achieve the main only benefit of being a fixie, i.e. fashion?


----------



## peejay78 (29 Oct 2007)

"I'm trying to debate in real/literal/measurable/quantitative/tangible terms, but the above isn't possible to formulate a reasoned response to as it talks purely in fantasy/metaphorical terms."

you're the only person who believes this. that either makes you a misunderstood genius or an idiot-savant, without the savant. i'm leaning towards the latter. 

the reason you espouse your views so very forcefully is not because you have brain, but because you have a tiny evolutionary remnant of a brain that tells you that you have a brain. this is what makes you dangerous, typically male, and rather horrid. 

can you go back to commuting now where you belong.


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

peejay78 said:


> "I'm trying to debate in real/literal/measurable/quantitative/tangible terms, but the above isn't possible to formulate a reasoned response to as it talks purely in fantasy/metaphorical terms."
> 
> you're the only person who believes this. that either makes you a misunderstood genius or an idiot-savant, without the savant. i'm leaning towards the latter.
> 
> the reason you espouse your views so very forcefully is not because you have brain, but because you have a tiny evolutionary remnant of a brain that tells you that you have a brain. this is what makes you dangerous, typically male, and rather horrid.


'dangerous' and 'rather horrid', oh _do_ get over yourself! It's only a bit of fun!
Do YOU enjoy riding your fixie peejay?
Yes?
Then you shouldn't have a problem with it then should you. It should be water off a duck's back, because _you_ know you're right.
You can diss my big bouncy heavy MTB with its tractor tyres and my constant obsession with fiddling with the umpteen unnecessary gears and the unnecessary suspension, or my sub-£500 road bike with its girly flat handlebars and its MTB pedals, all you want - and it won't bother me one bit because I _enjoy riding them_.


thought you were giving up on this thread:


peejay78 said:


> i'm out anyway.


can't resist sticking your oar in again...?
Honestly mate, if I _really have_ hurt your feelings then I genuinely am sorry. But I just don't see how that should be possible if you've got any sort of conviction in what you do/say/ride? Perhaps you can give me a list of words that I'm not allowed to mention when talking about fixed bikes?



peejay78 said:


> can you go back to commuting now where you belong.



Ah, but you see the problem is that I've discovered this wonderful little thing called the 'new posts' link, which brings in posts from all the sections.


----------



## peejay78 (29 Oct 2007)

it's clever the new posts thing.


----------



## BringMeMyFix (29 Oct 2007)

peejay78 said:


> it's clever the new posts thing.



Unlike Bonj.


----------



## hichakhok (1 Nov 2007)

I must say sometimes it is alarming (though in reality perfectly safe)to see frames flex on steel fixed gear bikes. On an average london road you can really see the chain slacking and jumping around even on bikes with a tight chain. Gives me the willies.When i was fitter and rode 50 16 i used to feel the bike really bend when i pulled away from the lights. 

(I remember this Bonj character from another forum. He had no idea that fixed gear bikes are used on the track and thought they were a Victorian fashion throwback. Has he got round to boasting about being a computer software genius yet?)


----------



## bonj2 (2 Nov 2007)

hichakhok said:


> I must say sometimes it is alarming (though in reality perfectly safe)to see frames flex on steel fixed gear bikes. On an average london road you can really see the chain slacking and jumping around even on bikes with a tight chain. Gives me the willies.When i was fitter and rode 50 16 i used to feel the bike really bend when i pulled away from the lights.


absolute guff, every word of it. sorry. go back to acf.


----------



## mickle (2 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> absolute guff, every word of it. sorry. go back to acf.



Absolute guff?? Thats a bit rich.

And please dont be rude to our guests, its not nice.


----------



## dan_bo (2 Nov 2007)

can't wait 'till bonj gets a fixie.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Nov 2007)

mickle said:


> Absolute guff?? Thats a bit rich.
> 
> And please dont be rude to our guests, its not nice.



'tis. "bends as I accelerate away from the lights", you honestly expect me to believe that??! come off it. And he was rude to me.


----------



## mickle (2 Nov 2007)

But it _does_ bend when he peddles away from the lights. Mine does too. Frame flex is a widely accepted phenomenon, particularly with skinny tubed bikes. How many people have to tell you before you believe it. At some point you will have to accept that all of these nice people are telling the truth. They arent deluded, they arent lying and they arent taking the piss. When you do come to accept the truth about materials elasticity and structural dynamics in cycle frames I hope youll have the good grace to;
(1) apologise for your scandalous slanderous slurs on our collective integrity,
(2) hang your head in shame for your arrogant ignorant attitude and
(3) away and boil yer heed.


----------



## spandex (2 Nov 2007)

Dear Bonj

This is just a note to you to help you find out how to get your bike to flex. 1) You must be going over 3mph. 2) Turn hard into a corner. 3) Have your shopping on the back of the bike. 4) Get a bike over a £100 and not from Halfords. 5) Not ride on the pavement (as you cant get over 3mph to get round the corner). 6) Get out of the gutter when you do make it onto the road.

Thats it mate 



Ar yer GET THE STABLIZERS OFF YOUR BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


with love 
spandex


----------



## bonj2 (2 Nov 2007)

mickle said:


> But it _does_ bend when he peddles away from the lights. Mine does too. Frame flex is a widely accepted phenomenon, particularly with skinny tubed bikes. How many people have to tell you before you believe it. At some point you will have to accept that all of these nice people are telling the truth. They arent deluded, they arent lying and they arent taking the piss. When you do come to accept the truth about materials elasticity and structural dynamics in cycle frames I hope youll have the good grace to;
> (1) apologise for your scandalous slanderous slurs on our collective integrity,
> (2) hang your head in shame for your arrogant ignorant attitude and
> (3) away and boil yer heed.



Well I once had a steel framed bike and it never bent one bit when I rode it.
I just think it may be possible that people are misinterpreting little imperfections in the road as 'bike flex' because they've read about 'bike flex' in pro racing articles and have decided that since they think they ride their bike quite fast that they think that's something they should suffer from aswell. It's not malicious lying I'm accusing people of, it's just that people subconciously see what they want to see in things.
Another minor point if I may, no-one's yet answered my question on which _way_ it flexes, (what you would have to do to the bike to reproduce that same effect when still etc.)
If you think you do get flex, and you know you're right, then just leave it at that. Your persistence in insisting on getting me to accept it isn't doing much to convince anyone of your point.


----------



## Brock (2 Nov 2007)

An interesting paragraph from Sheldon Brown's article on frame materials:


> Torsional/lateral stiffness
> 
> This is mainly related to the stresses generated by the forces you create from pedaling. Any frame will flex around the bottom bracket a bit in response to pedaling loads. This flex can be felt, and many riders assume that it is consuming (wasting) pedaling effort. Actually, that's not the case, because the metals used in bicycle frames are very efficient springs, and the energy gets returned at the end of the power stroke, so little or nothing is actually lost. While there is no actual loss of efficiency from a "flexy" frame, most cyclists find the sensation unpleasant, and prefer a frame that is fairly stiff in the drive-train area. This is more of a concern for larger, heavier riders, and for those who make a habit of standing up to pedal.



I experience flex in my 531 tourer, being a heavy rider of immense power, I had always assumed it was having a negative effect on my efficiency, but apparently not


----------



## MrGrumpy (2 Nov 2007)

can`t say I`ve noticed flex in my carbon framed race bike but I`m sure its there  however the cheapy cromoly mtb i use for commuting well it bends like a banana


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2007)

Sorry I admit to not having read all of this thread.....

they bend....

_"Elastic flex is like a spring, it gives back all of the energy that goes into it. There's been studies ad nauseum that proves flame-flex does nothing to affect the efficiency of a bike of it's speed. Check out Chester Kyle's "Bike Tech" series of newsletters or Ed Burke's "Cycling Science". Flex is more a control and comfort issue for the rider._

_In my middle years of racing I weighed a slim 145lbs with 4% body-fat and rode the fat-tube Cannondale frames (before they came out with the slimmed down more-flexible 3.0 version). It was by far the stiffest frame ever made with less than a 1/8" lateral defection at the BB with a 200lb sideways load on the pedal (all other bikes I've ever tried had 1/2" of lateral deflection)."_
Source: http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-138330.html

And .... you can't always tell - Scroll about a bit and read it (bottom of 368)

So! You're all right. - though I'm not sure Bonj is interested in reasoned debate?


----------



## bonj2 (2 Nov 2007)

Crackle said:


> So! You're all right. - though I'm not sure Bonj is interested in reasoned debate?



i'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying you can't feel it that's all.


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2007)

so read the last link I put in. It justifies your view {within certain limits of the test}


----------



## Brock (2 Nov 2007)

I detect flex in my frame probably just by the chain rubbing the front mech when I'm honking heavily, although I'm sure I can feel it physically, I'd accept that is probably just my imagination. I know it flexes, so I _feel_ it.
That's why I used the phrase 'experience flex', the experience being actually a slight chain rattle.


----------



## mickle (2 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> i'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying you can't feel it that's all.



You're getting there. 

Can you just accept that I can make my £1000 Rocky Mountain Vertex Scandium frame _visibly_ flex whilst sitting on it.


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2007)

Brock said:


> I detect flex in my frame probably just by the chain rubbing the front mech when I'm honking heavily, although I'm sure I can feel it physically, I'd accept that is probably just my imagination. I know it flexes, so I _feel_ it.
> That's why I used the phrase 'experience flex', the experience being actually a slight chain rattle.



read that last link: It says somewhere that most percieved flex is in the crank and handlebars. So your front mech rub could just be your crank flexing.

In one of those links it also talks about ride harshness being dictated by frame material which is not the same as frame flex, though the two are intertwined.


----------



## Brock (2 Nov 2007)

Crackle said:


> read that last link: It says somewhere that most percieved flex is in the crank and handlebars. So your front mech rub could just be your crank flexing.
> 
> In one of those links it also talks about ride harshness being dictated by frame material which is not the same as frame flex, though the two are intertwined.



My cranks flexing wouldn't effect the chain line would it?


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2007)

Brock said:


> My cranks flexing wouldn't effect the chain line would it?



If it flexed on the chainwheel side and you are a heavy rider, it might be enough, in the right gear, to make the chain rub. I know I had a BB on the way out which did this. Replaced BB and rub stopped. I would say it's more likely to be that area than your frame flexing.

Try it! Stick your foot on the pedal and shove the bike sideways, see what moves. On mine everything flexes and the rear tyre deforms so it's hard to tell what's frame flex, what's wheel flex and what's tyre flex (jig required). But, if you look carefully at the crank, it 'seems' to bend as well.


----------



## Brock (2 Nov 2007)

Interesting... I'll investigate.


----------



## Graham O (2 Nov 2007)

Brock said:


> My cranks flexing wouldn't effect the chain line would it?



I find that when I put pressure on the pedals to slow down, the chain noise increases as the chain line is changed slightly.


----------



## starseven (2 Nov 2007)

This debate is only still active because its been bonj'd.

I think we all know frames flex , you adjust your front der when it rubs on the chain on each down stroke, its only a few inches from BB but there is enough flex to cause the rub, There are pages all over the web about deflection of different frames, cannondale have even designed there own BB to reduce the flex. On steel frames you can lean the bike to one side apply weight to the BB and flex it enough to see it visualy.Steel is also by nature such a different product from Alu that it rides with less jarring or the zing that can come through a aluminuim frame.

Der gears can loose about 5% efficiency when they are tip top condition and more when not, you can tell yourself when you are just in that sweet gear that is . Get rid of the der and you are always in that "sweet" gear.

Anyone reading who hasn't tried a single or fixed (including you bonj) should try it , do like you had to as a kid when that devils devise the "deraileur" gets out of shape, you take it off, take some links out of the chain and let it fall in the best gear. Pedalling becomes more efficient and best of all you dont have to constantly think "shall I change gear", just pedal.

The down side is , if your fittest years are behind you(like me), it may put a strain on the knees so gears may be more practical but without a doubt the nicest bikes I have ever ridden are steel frames with one gear.


----------



## bonj2 (4 Nov 2007)

mickle said:


> You're getting there.
> 
> Can you just accept that I can make my £1000 Rocky Mountain Vertex Scandium frame _visibly_ flex whilst sitting on it.



I don't know whether I can or not.

You _can_ make it flex voluntarily when sitting on it, or it _does_ flex whether you like it or not when you sit on it?

In what way does it flex, i.e. how is the shape that the diamond frame (I _assume_ it is diamond frame:?:) deforms to different from the shape it is normally?

Is it made purely of the pure _element_ scandium, or of some alloy of scandium? Why scandium, and not titanium?



starseven said:


> This debate is only still active because its been bonj'd.
> 
> I think we all know frames flex , you adjust your front der when it rubs on the chain on each down stroke, its only a few inches from BB but there is enough flex to cause the rub, There are pages all over the web about deflection of different frames, cannondale have even designed there own BB to reduce the flex. On steel frames you can lean the bike to one side apply weight to the BB and flex it enough to see it visualy.Steel is also by nature such a different product from Alu that it rides with less jarring or the zing that can come through a aluminuim frame.
> 
> Der gears can loose about 5% efficiency when they are tip top condition and more when not, you can tell yourself when you are just in that sweet gear that is . Get rid of the der and you are always in that "sweet" gear.


pah!  tosh. Don't you mean 0.5%? 
Another myth the fixie brigade feel the need to propogate in order to convince themselves their machines are better.
If it's bent, 5% maybe. But when set up correctly on a non-bent hanger, not 5%. Sorry.




starseven said:


> *Anyone reading who hasn't tried a single or fixed (including you bonj) should try it* , do like you had to as a kid when that devils devise the "deraileur" gets out of shape, you take it off, take some links out of the chain and let it fall in the best gear. Pedalling becomes more efficient and best of all you dont have to constantly think "shall I change gear", just pedal.
> 
> The down side is , if your fittest years are behind you(like me), it may put a strain on the knees so gears may be more practical but without a doubt the nicest bikes I have ever ridden are steel frames with one gear.



If I lived in holland, or lincolnshire, or even london, then maybe I would. But to try one, I'd have to either buy or build one. That would cost money. To spend all that money just to try it would be a waste, when it's not going to be any use to me - a bike without gears just isn't going to cut it round here.


----------



## Graham O (5 Nov 2007)

I can't be bothered to re-read all of this thread, but for those who doubt frame flex happens. Saturday was a wet ride on muddy roads in Cheshire. On the flat, tyre clearance was about 3mm from the chain stays on both sides. Honking up a hill, there was a rubbing sound as pressure was put on the right crank. On inspection, there was mud gathering on the left chainstay where it had been rubbed off the tyre. Could it be the tyre changing shape? I tried to reproduce it on the right chainstay, but couldn't. 

Proof enough?


----------



## bonj2 (5 Nov 2007)

Why would it only flex in one direction due to honking up a hill?


----------



## rustychisel (5 Nov 2007)

It wouldn't, but as usual, you're only seeing half the picture, and I don't have time to explain it to you right now. To put it bluntly, greater torrque comes from the drive side - flexing the wheel and frame and distoring the tyre to its left. Hence mud on inside of chainstay. They make left and right chainstays on some bikes for just such a disparity: freaky coincidence I know, but true.


----------



## Graham O (5 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> Why would it only flex in one direction due to honking up a hill?




No idea. But since I am stronger on my right side than my left side, it could be that I'm just a uneven cyclist. With this thread in mind, I did try to get it to flex the other way, but couldn't. Which probably rules out the weak left side arguement, i.e. I was deliberately trying to make it happen and it didn't.

But if it is only flexing in one direction, what explanation can you give for the wheel rubbing?

PS Wheels are good quality, handmade and very true. Tyres were pumped up to 90psi (Ultra Gatorskins, 700*28)


----------



## peejay78 (5 Nov 2007)

maybe graham only has one leg.


----------



## smiorgan (5 Nov 2007)

Graham O said:


> But if it is only flexing in one direction, what explanation can you give for the wheel rubbing?
> 
> 
> > I can't find the link to the lateral stiffness trials done at a university somewhere, but I did find Jobst Brandt lambasting others on axle and dropout breakage:
> ...


----------



## Graham O (5 Nov 2007)

Thanks Smiorgan, I wasn't doubting that it does flex, just that if as some people claim that it doesn't flex, what is their explanation for wheel rub.

I'll have a look at those links.


----------



## skwerl (5 Nov 2007)

Crackle said:


> If it flexed on the chainwheel side and you are a heavy rider, it might be enough, in the right gear, to make the chain rub. I know I had a BB on the way out which did this. Replaced BB and rub stopped. I would say it's more likely to be that area than your frame flexing.
> 
> Try it! Stick your foot on the pedal and shove the bike sideways, see what moves. On mine everything flexes and the rear tyre deforms so it's hard to tell what's frame flex, what's wheel flex and what's tyre flex (jig required). But, if you look carefully at the crank, it 'seems' to bend as well.



I used to get flex on my IRO frame. I spent ages looking for a clicking sound that I only got, honking up hills, on the right hand downstroke. I checked and greased everything to no avail until, one day, I noticed a small nick in the right chain stay. Every time I hit the bottom on the right-hand crank the chain-ring clipped the stay.

Now, you could say that was crank flex but I have the same crank/BB combo on my current frame and this contact no longer happens. Only difference between the two is the frame. Chain-ring:stay gap is the same. Only thing I can attribute this to is there's less twisting under load in the BB area.
IRO was a cheap no-name steel frame. Current frame is Dedacciai Zero replica.


----------



## Crackle (5 Nov 2007)

Skwerl, I must admit if the flame flexed that much I'd be surprised. I've just been across to my bike to shove it and push it and see again what happens. On mine it would take a fair amount of flex to get the inner chainwheel to touch, and down in the BB area, the whole bike seems to move equally including the rear chain stay.

Could it have been your chainwheel wasn't true due to the crank being badly fitted on the taper or wrong chainweel/BB combination?


----------



## starseven (5 Nov 2007)

Bonj if I had a spare, I'd lend you it.




A little reading for you here, its a wiki but theres loads on the web and although more efficient I find the enjoyment comes from not constantly thinking about which gear you are in and just riding

Go on you really owe to yourself to find one and give it a go before your knees make it difficult.

 Derailleur gears
External gearing utilizes derailleurs, which can be placed on both the front chainring and on the rear cluster or cassette, to push the chain to either side, derailing it from one sprocket to a neighboring sprocket. The sides of the sprockets may be sculpted to help catch the chain, pulling it up onto their teeth to change gears. There may be 1 to 3 chainrings, and 5 to 10 sprockets on the cassette or freewheel. Derailleur type mechanisms of a typical mid-range product (of the sort used by serious amateurs) achieve between 88% and 99% mechanical efficiency at 100W. In derailleur mechanisms the highest efficiency is achieved by the larger cogs. Efficiency generally decreases with smaller cog and chainwheel sizes.[1] Derailleur efficiency is also compromised with cross-chaining, or running large-ring to large-cog or small-ring to small-cog. This also results in increased wear because of the lateral deflection of the chain.

Hub gear
Internal hub gearing works by planetary, or epicyclic, gearing, in which the outer case of the hub gear unit turns at a different speed relative to the rear axle depending on which gear is selected. Rear hub gears may offer 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, or 14 speeds. Bottom bracket fittings offer a choice of 2 speeds, and are generally foot-operated. Internal hub gears are immune to adverse weather conditions that affect derailleurs, and often last longer and require less maintenance. However, they may be heavier and/or more expensive, and often do not offer the same range or number of gears. Internal hub gearing still predominates in some regions, particularly on utility bikes, whereas in other regions, such as the USA, external derailleur systems predominate. In a typical hub gear mechanism the mechanical efficiency will be between 82% and 92% depending on the ratio selected. Which ratios are best and worst depends on the specific model of hub gear.



Fixed-gear track racing bikes can achieve transmission efficiencies of over 99% (nearly all the energy put in at the pedals ends up at the wheel). Biomechanical factors however determine that a human can deliver maximum power only over a narrow range of crank rotational speed or cadence. To match the power source with the load under varying conditions, a variable gear ratio is needed, and they work very well, though at the expense of mechanical efficiency. The efficiency varies considerably with the gear ratio being used.


----------



## skwerl (6 Nov 2007)

Crackle said:


> Skwerl, I must admit if the flame flexed that much I'd be surprised. I've just been across to my bike to shove it and push it and see again what happens. On mine it would take a fair amount of flex to get the inner chainwheel to touch, and down in the BB area, the whole bike seems to move equally including the rear chain stay.
> 
> Could it have been your chainwheel wasn't true due to the crank being badly fitted on the taper or wrong chainweel/BB combination?




No.

If it was badly fitted you'd see it rotate badly when turned by hand.
If it was the wrong combination (which is wasn't) then flex would be irrelevant, it would contact the stay as soon as it was fitted. As I said. the clearance is the same on both frames so how can you explain contact on the IRO but not on the Condor?

Pushing and pulling your frame is not the same as having 90kg stamped down on it under a power stroke.
When you hid BDC there's is going to be a desire for the foot/pedal to try and head towards the centre-line of the frame, as that's where the natural pivot point is. Therefore, you'd expect some sort of movement in the frame as that happens. How much is going to be down to the stiffness of the tubes.

BTW it is isn't the inner. I only have one chain-ring and I imagine it runs closer to the c/s than a road double or triple. There's approx 5mm clearance IIRC


----------



## smiorgan (6 Nov 2007)

Had the similar experience as skwerl - moved bits from raleigh fix to pompino frame (same wheels and drivetrain), there had been a visible deflection with the raleigh (18-23 gas pipe steel, longer wheelbase) that I couldn't detect with the pomp.


----------



## Crackle (6 Nov 2007)

skwerl said:


> No.
> 
> If it was badly fitted you'd see it rotate badly when turned by hand.
> If it was the wrong combination (which is wasn't) then flex would be irrelevant, it would contact the stay as soon as it was fitted. As I said. the clearance is the same on both frames so how can you explain contact on the IRO but not on the Condor?
> ...



Oh Ok! I didn't think about the fact it was a singlespeed and 5mm is far closer than any double/triple combination I've ever had. Still, I am surprised because I would've thought that the BB area would be the stiffest area to resist a twisting force, which is not even directly applied, instead the greater force is acting sideways. Though I can't think of an alternative explanation to the rubbing if all things are equal on the condor to the old bike. I'm going to have to wait now until I see my mate with his fixie and 'experiment' on it!


----------



## bonj2 (10 Nov 2007)

starseven said:


> Bonj if I had a spare, I'd lend you it.
> 
> A little reading for you here, its a wiki but theres loads on the web and although more efficient I find the enjoyment comes from not constantly thinking about which gear you are in and just riding


But i don't constantly think about what gear to be in any more than you "constantly think about" what to have for breakfast, or what clothes to wear. Or do you only eve wear identical all in one body suits and eat gruel for every meal. eh?



starseven said:


> Go on you really owe to yourself to find one and give it a go before your knees make it difficult.


Oh purr-lease.
Point 1. But where would I ride it? I sometimes drive out with my MTB to ride it in order to get to the really good terrain, as I live in a city centre. I shouldn't have to do the same with a road bike, as the city centre is surrounded by roads. 
Point 2. A challenge for you, which _might_ make you understand why fixies are generally only for ponces and why I don't ride one. Admittedly I'm not up to doing it every day yet, but I cycle my commute to/back from my current job in 1hr 40mins. The challenge to you, therefore, is this - simply do my commute back from work with me on a fixie. Me on my geared bike, you on a fixie. But you don't have to beat me on it. You don't EVEN have to do it in less than 2hrs. You _just_ have to DO IT. That's all. JUST complete the route. Only rule is there must be no pushing - all distance covered must be ridden. If you rise to that challenge then I will get a fixie, honestly.
If I start getting ahead, I'll slow down to match your pace. If you start getting ahead, then you'll just have to wait for me when there's a choice of road. 
OK? That sound like a reasonable challenge?


----------



## mickle (10 Nov 2007)

Ooooooh a duel!


----------



## zimzum42 (10 Nov 2007)

I'll come and do it on a fixed if you really want......

Where is this route? Hope it's near London, otherwise I might not bother.......


----------



## bonj2 (10 Nov 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> I'll come and do it on a fixed if you really want......
> 
> Where is this route? Hope it's near London, otherwise I might not bother *be able to manage it*.......



starts in nottinghamshire, through derbyshire, finishes in south yorkshire.


----------



## bonj2 (10 Nov 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> I'll come and do it on a fixed if you really want......
> 
> Where is this route? Hope it's near London, otherwise I might not bother.......



although, saying that, if you really want zim you can just start at renishaw/mastin moor and finish at frecheville spar petrol station, that might give us the result we're looking for without bothering to slog all the way through bolsover etc.

oh and by the way another rule is that you can't stop unless you have a mecahnical problem etc., no rests just because your legs are tired.


----------



## bonj2 (10 Nov 2007)

tell you what zim, if you can BEAT me on the entire route, i'll give you your train fare home.*



* must be pre-booked day saver, 'cos i'm tight


----------



## bianco (11 Nov 2007)

I think bonj might actually enjoy riding fixed when he buys his new bike.


----------



## bonj2 (11 Nov 2007)

still no takers...


----------



## zimzum42 (12 Nov 2007)

Oooh, just spotted this.


Right, still up for it, but it needs to be warm!

Don't worry, i'm up for this challenge, just don't expect it to be this week!

And I'm prepared to lose, sounds like it's not the flattest.

Still, I'll perhaps enjoy the fleeting glory of burning away from you at the start and then just quit, a kind of one stage Cipollini


----------



## mickle (12 Nov 2007)

Track Irons at dawn! (well one Track Iron and one Hybrid/City-bike)


----------



## bonj2 (12 Nov 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> Oooh, just spotted this.
> 
> 
> Right, still up for it, but it needs to be warm!
> ...


fair enough. I've not set the challenge 'cos I'm sure I can definitely beat you, I'm not (though it'd probably be a good idea to drive the route first so you know the way - wouldn't want you ending up in shirebrook, say, or worse - woodhouse ).
It's just that some 'stages' of the route, I'd _really_ like to see ridden on a fixed. Not that I don't think it can be done, just that if it can, I'd really like to see it. What gear ratio do you run?


----------



## zimzum42 (12 Nov 2007)

81 inches I think it's 48x16

I can flip the wheel to give me 48x19, but it's still not ideal for anything dramatically steep!


----------



## Canrider (12 Nov 2007)

> if you really want zim you can just start at renishaw/mastin moor and finish at frecheville spar petrol station


Renishaw to Frecheville?

that's one helluva commute!


----------



## bonj2 (12 Nov 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> Oooh, just spotted this.
> 
> 
> Right, still up for it, but it needs to be warm!
> ...


Whaddya mean needs to be warm - it is warm! was at least 6 or 7 deg C today! Lovely weather. 



zimzum42 said:


> 81 inches I think it's 48x16
> 
> I can flip the wheel to give me 48x19, but it's still not ideal for anything dramatically steep!




Basically if you really are up for it, I'll ride it with you - but do it for the fun, sorry I can't afford to give you any train fare or owt, as I am quite poor.
But I feel a bit guilty now - I don't want you to feel obliged to do it to stop me gloating that no-one's risen to the challenge - only do it if _you_ want to. The fixie brigade won't have 'lost' if you don't - to me, cycling isn't competitive, but if I were to ever have a 'race' I would just go at my own pace and if I come first I come first, if I don't I don't.
The route (well, the route I take, there might be a better one) - basically, it starts out flat, then there's a moderate climb of about 3 miles that I spin up probably on middle/large (42x25), then it's flattish for quite a while, then it undulates for a few miles but slightly more down than up. Then it hits the main road, and it undulates some more, before there's a real bitch of a climb that I go up at about 6mph on my granny ring (30x25) which is probably just a bit less than half a mile. Basically, if you have your fixie on 48x19, then what gear's the equivalent on my bike... ermm... my middle ring's 42, so it's like me being on a sprocket of 19*42/48 = 16.625. My cassette goes 25,23,21,19,17,15,13,12. So that's just a bit higher than 5th! Bloody hell... I just couldn't do that _at all_, even standing up. Sitting down would be an instant clipless moment. If i'm honking up it, I'll go on 30x19 or 30x21.
If you can do it, then you are what I would class as _extremely_ strong and powerful. What I'm trying to say is, whether you could do it or not, _*I*_ certainly couldn't, so therefore a fixie is a wholly inappropriate bike for me - but given that I couldn't, if _you can_, then I'd obviously be mightily impressed - but don't feel the need to put yourself through a load of travelling and pain just to impress me. Thinking about it, if there weren't any particularly steep hills round where I lived, e.g. if I lived in london, I could probably get round on 48x19/16 all day in comfort and with much fun, but it just grates a bit when people say "get a fixie bonj - you don't know what you're missing!" and that I just _know_ it wouldn't be appropriate for south yorkshire/derbyshire leads me instinctively to the knee-jerk reaction 'well YOU try it round here then'.




Canrider said:


> Renishaw to Frecheville?
> 
> that's one helluva commute!



 yeah do that...no holding on to the back of a lorry and putting your feet up on the crossbar on the M1 mind !


----------



## Canrider (13 Nov 2007)

Heh.
So post your route (Googlemaps will do fine) and let us kibitz it, then! There is, of course, always the possibility that you're taking the hard short route where a longer flatter one may exist, no? So post it!

As I've said in the past, my first impulse to try fixed gear was precisely the knowledge that I was only ever switching from 52x17 to 39x17 on any ride I undertook, so I split the difference to 48x18=72" and was a very, very happy camper.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (13 Nov 2007)

I liked my fixie. (I've still got it but it's in bits.) I found I wasn't using many gears on my commute - I'd already built a commuter with a single chainring for simplicity - so I thought I'd go the whole hog and try something different. It needed much less maintenance than my geared bike, which is a good thing. 
Fixies do feel much more part of you than geared bikes. You ride a bike with gears, but you wear a fixie.


----------



## bonj2 (13 Nov 2007)

Canrider said:


> Heh.
> So post your route (Googlemaps will do fine) and let us kibitz it, then! There is, of course, always the possibility that you're taking the hard short route where a longer flatter one may exist, no? So post it!
> 
> As I've said in the past, my first impulse to try fixed gear was precisely the knowledge that I was only ever switching from 52x17 to 39x17 on any ride I undertook, so I split the difference to 48x18=72" and was a very, very happy camper.



fair enough
it's more or less this
(with the main bitch of a climb marked with an arrow here)


----------



## bonj2 (13 Nov 2007)

stupid bloody google maps won't recognise my arrow when i try to link to it
i'll try again... between the blue markers here


----------



## bonj2 (13 Nov 2007)

actually that's over a km... the steep bit's not that long i don't think but the start marker is in the right place.


----------



## Canrider (13 Nov 2007)

Not to worry, I see what you're referring to: a climb of roughly 450m over a mile or so (If Googlemaps' pedometer function is to be trusted, naturally!).

Might I recommend you turning north off the A6135 onto Rotherham Road into the centre of what I assume is called either Mosborough, Halfway or Westfield, then L onto Station Road, leaving and rejoining the A6135 at the points you've indicated but flattening out that steep hill into a rise of a similar amount but over 2+ miles instead of just over 1.

You could spread it out even more by going all the way up past Crystal Peaks before making the L turn back through town to the A6135, but I can't assume where you're going to need to stop!


----------



## zimzum42 (13 Nov 2007)

Having no option of changing gear does make you attack a climb quite aggressively, which isn't to everyone's taste admittedly. Still, I'm one of those who tends to fly at everything a bit too fast, especially massive gyratories.

When i go to Scarborough, I admit I'd take a geared bike, it wouldn't be much fun doing some of that climbing on 81".

I guess your point is true, it wouldn't be that great riding around there with a fixie, especially when it's not geared for the flat, and i'd hate descending with low gearing on a fixed, you certainly wouldn't enjoy spinning that fast and trying to stay on.


But as for the 'it's possible on fixed' argument, it definitely is, but I think it would be a much more pleasant ride with a geared bike, just annoying to have to lug all the extra weight of the block etc when you know how light and nippy full of feel a ride on fixed is.

Damn, have we reached some sort of comprimise here?


----------



## bonj2 (13 Nov 2007)

Canrider said:


> Not to worry, I see what you're referring to: a climb of roughly 450m over a mile or so (If Googlemaps' pedometer function is to be trusted, naturally!).
> 
> Might I recommend you turning north off the A6135 onto Rotherham Road into the centre of what I assume is called either Mosborough, Halfway or Westfield, then L onto Station Road, leaving and rejoining the A6135 at the points you've indicated but flattening out that steep hill into a rise of a similar amount but over 2+ miles instead of just over 1.
> 
> You could spread it out even more by going all the way up past Crystal Peaks before making the L turn back through town to the A6135, but I can't assume where you're going to need to stop!


I could do that I'll try it in fact maybe this eve.

didn't know google maps has a pedometer function? will it tell you the height of a particular spot?!


----------



## bonj2 (13 Nov 2007)

zimzum42 said:


> Having no option of changing gear does make you attack a climb quite aggressively, which isn't to everyone's taste admittedly. Still, I'm one of those who tends to fly at everything a bit too fast, especially massive gyratories.
> 
> When i go to Scarborough, I admit I'd take a geared bike, it wouldn't be much fun doing some of that climbing on 81".
> 
> ...


hmm... i 'spose so... 
it does intrigue me, even though i can't see how it's not dangerous - until you're really used to it that is.


----------



## Canrider (13 Nov 2007)

You get used to it faaaaast.


> didn't know google maps has a pedometer function? will it tell you the height of a particular spot?!


It's not through the usual mapsdotgoogle, it's 
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/
I've never checked its accuracy, but it should work generally ok. Taking the Scarborough example, I know their topo sampling coverage misses the headland that Scarborough castle is on. Remember that this is the topo dataset that had to have the Matterhorn reinserted!


----------



## bonj2 (14 Nov 2007)

Canrider said:


> Not to worry, I see what you're referring to: a climb of roughly 450m over a mile or so (If Googlemaps' pedometer function is to be trusted, naturally!).



ahem... nah, it can't possibly be metres. A mile is only 1555 metres, so if it climbed 450m in a mile that would be between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 - and even then the steep bit is only about half a mile long. It's steep, but not _that_ steep!
I think it must be feet...
it goes from 164.04 to 416.66, so that's a rise of 252.62 feet. That's in 0.7118 miles, and a mile is 22x80 = 1760 feet, so that's 1252.768 feet. So that's 252.62/1252.768 = 1 in 5, apparently. Christ, that's still quite steep!


----------



## skwerl (14 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> A mile is only 1555 metres



[pedant]well. 1609 actually.[/pedant]


----------



## bonj2 (14 Nov 2007)

yeah, sorry. precision without accuracy makes no sense...! just had that figure in my head from somewhere


----------



## Canrider (15 Nov 2007)

You also had 1760 feet in a mile in your head from somewhere..

It's 5280 feet.


----------



## Canrider (15 Nov 2007)

You also had 1760 feet in a mile in your head from somewhere..

It's 5280 feet.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Nov 2007)

Canrider said:


> You also had 1760 feet in a mile in your head from somewhere..
> 
> It's 5280 feet.



oh yeah shoot, it's 1760 YARDS. so it's actually 1 in 15.
I thought even 1 in 5 sounded a bit dramatic for what it's actually like tbh.


----------



## Bug (27 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> Don't you know anything, Chuffy?   About a couple of years ago in a past job I was having to write test scripts for a piece of software. This is so that tests can be carried out to make sure the software does what it's supposed to do. How do I, as a mere author of the software, even _know_ what it's supposed to do? Well, that's obvious. Just see what it currently _does_ do, and whatever that is, that's what it's obviously _supposed_ to do.



ROFLMAO!! I was just going through this thread, so sorry for quoting from so far back, but this is classic! I really am a software tester (also been a developer in my distant past) - obviously Bonj isn't or he wouldn't have posted such an inane comment.

How are you supposed to know how to test something, Bonj? The same way that you knew how to write it in the first place. That is that someone took the customer's requirements, which were then turned into a number of (potentially) high and low-level design documents from which you would have written the code. Coming from the design, and linked through to the requirements would have been test conditions and use cases which describe the functional and non-functional aspects of the system to be tested. These test conditions would feed into test cases which would then be implemented by test scripts. As a developer, you would most likely have only performed the unit testing, and as such would have used white-box techniques (boundary value analysis, partitioning, etc) to have performed your testing.

Testing ultimately proves two questions 'have we built the right system' and 'have we built the system right'. Your approach to testing would have done neither and would have just been a complete waste of time. Using the existing code as a test condition is a newbie's mistake and one that no serious software development organisation would let you get away with making.

Sorry if that's boring to everyone else...


----------



## bonj2 (28 Nov 2007)

Bug said:


> ROFLMAO!! I was just going through this thread, so sorry for quoting from so far back, but this is classic! I really am a software tester (also been a developer in my distant past) - obviously Bonj isn't or he wouldn't have posted such an inane comment.


no, i'm not a tester no, but i was made to carry out testing duties in this particular job I once had. 



Bug said:


> How are you supposed to know how to test something, Bonj? The same way that you knew how to write it in the first place. That is that someone took the customer's requirements


ok, that's assumption number one - that the customer knows what his requirements are, but carry on...



Bug said:


> ...which were then turned into a number of (potentially) *high and low-level design documents* from which you would have written the code.


yeah right. 



Bug said:


> Coming from the design, and linked through to the requirements would have been test conditions and use cases which describe the functional and non-functional aspects of the system to be tested. These test conditions would feed into test cases which would then be implemented by test scripts. As a developer, you would most likely have only performed the unit testing, and as such would have used white-box techniques (boundary value analysis, partitioning, etc) to have performed your testing.


Theoretically, the unit tests should be written _first_, before the code that passes them. But in this particular company the tests were written so they could say to auditors "we test our software!" and tick a box that earns them ISO9001 accreditation. ISO9001 is a nightmare, I might add, for exactly that sort of reason.



Bug said:


> Testing ultimately proves two questions 'have we built the right system' and 'have we built the system right'. Your approach to testing would have done neither and would have just been a complete waste of time.


Tell me about it...
Not really MY approach, I was just the monkey implementing it. It was normally a case of, I'd get told to write tests to cover a huge chunk of the app preferably before the end of the day, so I'd examine each bit, come to the conclusion that "the bloke downstairs that uses it has probably already seen this bit and hasn't bitched about it yet, and it doesn't look wrong, so that's good enough for me" - write a test to make sure it does that. Auditor's box ticked, job done, everybody happy.



Bug said:


> Using the existing code as a test condition is a newbie's mistake and one that no serious software development organisation would let you get away with making.


Now now, surely you aren't going to assume you need to tell me why that sort of practice is wrong in principle.

FWIW, they can't have been 'serious' then.  Come to think of it, they did at least try and pretend to be 'serious' (unlike the next company after that I worked at that didn't even bother pretending), but I could quite clearly see they didn't do things properly. Getting things 'out the door' was more important, as it is all too often. You might be surprised as to how much of the software in the world that does quite important jobs is written using imperfect methodologies.

If you think it's easy to implement good practice in an organisation that doesn't recognise the value of good practice, and to make them think "wow - so _that's_ what we should be doing! " then I'm afraid I don't envy you.


----------



## Bug (28 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> ok, that's assumption number one - that the customer knows what his requirements are, but carry on...



Well, that should be the job of the BAs and Architects. If you can't pin down the requirements then you shouldn't write the software.

I take your point that the real world is often different to best practice. Thankfully, I work for the largest IT services company in the world, and we actually do follow best practice.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Nov 2007)

Bug said:


> Well, that should be the job of the BAs and Architects.


And if there aren't any?


Bug said:


> If you can't pin down the requirements then you shouldn't write the software.


And if there's a strong chance management won't like it if you simply sit on your arse with your feet up not writing the software that they've employed you to write?



Bug said:


> I take your point that the real world is often different to best practice. Thankfully, I work for the largest IT services company in the world, and we actually do follow best practice.



Good for you. Thankfully now, I also work for a company that does do things pretty well, including testing. Don't bother with any of that sort of poncey shite that never gets anybody anywhere though. We just have productive, open, discussions about what the software's supposed to do rather than sitting around drawing flowcharts and typing pages and pages of crap into MS Project.


----------



## skwerl (29 Nov 2007)

Bug said:


> I work for the largest IT services company in the world, and we actually do follow best practice.



hmmm...


----------



## bonj2 (29 Nov 2007)

skwerl said:


> hmmm...



yeah, come to think of it that sounds like a bit of a contradiction in terms doesn't it. You sure you don't just mean you produce a load of documents?


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (30 Nov 2007)

Don't worry about Bonj - he's trying to talk authoritatively about stuff he has no idea about. Again.

1555m in a mile? Sheesh.


----------



## jashburnham (5 Dec 2007)

I've not enjoyed a thread so much for a while!

Just a few things I wanted to say:
1. I'd love for this race to happen (i know i know, it's not a race - but it clearly will become one). I confidently predict that Zim will kick Bonj's ass.
2. Bonj, could the fact that you have never experienced frame flex be put down to the fact that you have the leg strength of a 6 year old girl, and therefore cannot produce enough wattage to get over 5mph, let alone cause any part of your bike to flex? 
3. Also to Bonj: why not have a read of Sheldon Brown's excellent article on frame material, where he says:

"Any frame will flex around the bottom bracket a bit in response to pedaling loads. This flex can be felt."

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

4. I love my new singlespeed; it's the perfect commuting/winter training steed. I'm gonna try going fixed soon...


----------



## bonj2 (6 Dec 2007)

whatever mate.

Without even seeing the route, zim sensibly accepts that it is likely to be the sort of route that would 'less than ideal' on a fixie and that if he was doing it he'd use a geared bike.


I notice you've got a geared bike jash - it'd be more suited to you than zimzum then. I'd be more than welcome to ride it with you. I'm a gracious loser, and you'd be more than welcome to stop round mine for some tea afterwards.


----------



## jashburnham (6 Dec 2007)

Geared and Singlespeed Bonj, best of both worlds and not a silly mtb in sight 
Did you have a look at the Sheldon article re flex? Surely you can't argue with the great man himself?


----------



## bonj2 (6 Dec 2007)

re sheldon - I'm not sure sheldon even IS _that_ great. He's _quite_ great, don't get me wrong, I don't want to get into a sheldon-bashing argument but at the end of the day his main areas of expertise are old and weird bikes, and all the weird and wonderful different measurement systems, metric and imperial, english and french etc. Want to know what tyre size to use on a 1960s tandem trike, and how to express that in any different denomination? Sheldon's your man.
Need a quick step-by-step setup guide for modern, standard, STI shifters? Go whistle.

re. flex: Basically, I'm not denying flex happens - but I've not felt it myself, that's all. 
I'm not suggesting people on this forum haven't experienced it, but what I AM suggesting is that people overemphasise and exaggerate it because it seems to be synonymous with being a fast cyclist and 'pushing your bike to its limits' which is something people aspire to be associated with.


----------



## bonj2 (6 Dec 2007)

re. singlespeed - surely singlespeed is the WORST of both worlds? Ithought the benefit of fixed was that you get 'rhythm' from the momentum of the bike carrying the cranks movikng forward, but the downside is you don't get gears.
Singlespeed doesn't have gears, but neither does it have 'rhythm'.


----------



## jashburnham (7 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> re. singlespeed - surely singlespeed is the WORST of both worlds? Ithought the benefit of fixed was that you get 'rhythm' from the momentum of the bike carrying the cranks movikng forward, but the downside is you don't get gears.
> Singlespeed doesn't have gears, but neither does it have 'rhythm'.



But it's low maintenance so excellent as a city commuter bike, especially in the wet and gritty winter. I don't ride fixed on my commute because I'm new to it and don't trust myself riding fixed in traffic. I have a flip flop hub so if I want to ride fixed I can very easily. Best of both worlds.


----------



## hichakhok (8 Dec 2007)

my steel mercian flexes more than my alu pinarello. 

Regarding singlespeed and fixed, for me its about art and beauty and aesthetics..
You either get it and enjoy it, or you don't.

Like learning to play jazz, if you need to ask how, you will never really know.


----------



## bonj2 (8 Dec 2007)

hichakhok said:


> Regarding singlespeed and fixed, for me its about art and beauty and aesthetics..


then go to an art gallery?


hichakhok said:


> You either get it and enjoy it, or you don't.



Oh, I get it alright. I understand the viewpoint, in fact I _understand_ it better than the fixie brigade themselves do, I just don't share it.
I understand the attraction to it perfectly well thanks. It's purely fashion. All this 'urban chic' and 'street cred' - that's why you do it. OT, but I suspect that's why ACF bans anyone with the remotest possibility of dissent, 'cos they want their forum to 'look' nice.
But what grates on me is the skirting round of admitting this - by using made-up terms like 'rhythm', 'zen', 'art and beaty'.
What's wrong with admitting you like a certain type of bike because it's fashionable?


----------



## smiorgan (10 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> re sheldon - I'm not sure sheldon even IS _that_ great.



Heretic! Boil him in oil! Boil him! 

Seriously though - Sheldon teaches how to
- lace wheels
- set up cantis
- unstick a seatpost
- clean a chain etc

I get your point about STIs etc - but to be fair the STI is non-user serviceable and the sort of thing most people get a LBS to set up*

Without Sheldon's advice I'd still be taking my bike to the LBS for trivial things instead of doing them myself.

----

* does not apply to Campy kit which is rebuildable and nicely documented for the end user. Hey - I ride a Campy bike and a fixie, how unbearably smug am I?


----------



## Canrider (10 Dec 2007)

> But what grates on me is the skirting round of admitting this - by using made-up terms like 'rhythm', 'zen', 'art and beaty'.


I like it because it weighs less and I have more control over my traction and it's easier to repair and maintain and the drivetrain is more efficient..

All of which _could_ be expressed as 'zen', or 'art and beauty'. I choose not to.

You fancy you'd like to think it's all about fashion, but if it was, you very likely wouldn't see as many couriers as you do riding fixed, given they're in employment where issues like cost, efficiency, serviceability and durability become more important than they are to the average hobbyist.


----------



## bonj2 (10 Dec 2007)

smiorgan said:


> Heretic! Boil him in oil! Boil him!
> 
> Seriously though - Sheldon teaches how to
> - lace wheels
> ...


to be fair yes I did learn how to build wheels off his site.

I don't know about non-user serviceable - I've set up shimano mechs before
going to set up my new shifters on my road bike when i get them aswell.




smiorgan said:


> Heretic! Boil him in oil! Boil him!
> 
> Seriously though - Sheldon teaches how to
> - lace wheels
> ...


to be fair yes I did learn how to build wheels off his site.

I don't know about non-user serviceable - I've set up shimano mechs before
going to set up my new shifters on my road bike when i get them aswell.





Canrider said:


> I like it because it weighs less and I have more control over my traction and it's easier to repair and maintain and the drivetrain is more efficient..
> 
> All of which _could_ be expressed as 'zen', or 'art and beauty'. I choose not to.
> 
> You fancy you'd like to think it's all about fashion, but if it was, you very likely wouldn't see as many couriers as you do riding fixed, given they're in employment where issues like cost, efficiency, serviceability and durability become more important than they are to the average hobbyist.


----------



## Canrider (11 Dec 2007)

In other words, you have no counterargument?

My reasons for trying fixed are virtually a public record--I've never denied that I decided to give it a try *after* trying singlespeed, which I tried *after* realising I was only ever using one gear on 95+% of my rides.

And no, to stave off your inevitable response, 'deciding to try something new' is not a fashion statement.


----------



## hichakhok (15 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> then go to an art gallery?
> 
> But what grates on me is the skirting round of admitting this - by using made-up terms like 'rhythm', 'zen', 'art and beaty'.
> What's wrong with admitting you like a certain type of bike because it's fashionable?



I ride a fixed gear because I enjoy the feel, very different from a geared bike, and because it keeps the pounds off. What is so controversial about that? Fashion has nothing to do with it. I also get an aesthetic feeling of satisfaction from the bikes structural elegance, and is the quality that initially attracted me when I started. You act as people have only been riding fixed recently, a friend of mine has an antique Allen that he has been riding since the 60's. It's not a new thing.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Dec 2007)

Canrider said:


> In other words, you have no counterargument?
> 
> My reasons for trying fixed are virtually a public record--I've never denied that I decided to give it a try *after* trying singlespeed, which I tried *after* realising I was only ever using one gear on 95+% of my rides.
> 
> And no, to stave off your inevitable response, 'deciding to try something new' is not a fashion statement.



In my opinion, it's just *wrong*. When you're going round a corner, you should be able to put your outer foot down at the bottom of your pedal stroke as you lean. When you stop, you should be able to get your feet in the right position with ease in a relaxed way. In a way I can sort of see how you might be the sort of person who actually prefers the way a fixie rides, but then again even if you're not one of the people who likes them for fashion reasons, there are undoubtedly _some_ people who like them purely for fashion reasons. But that brings me on to the question, what makes YOU think _you're_ so special as to not be one of them?



hichakhok said:


> I ride a fixed gear because I enjoy the feel, very different from a geared bike, and because it keeps the pounds off. What is so controversial about that? Fashion has nothing to do with it. I also get an aesthetic feeling of satisfaction from the bikes structural elegance, and is the quality that initially attracted me when I started. You act as people have only been riding fixed recently, a friend of mine has an antique Allen that he has been riding since the 60's. It's not a new thing.



I'll put it a different way - how is weight loss ..., erm... -why do you persist in pretending that... - actually no I won't I'll just repeat the question: *What's wrong with admitting you like a certain type of bike because it's fashionable?*
'Aesthetic feeling of satisfaction from structural elegance'. Come off it you pompous tit. Are you even aware of how up your own back bottom you sound? Chavs probably get an 'aesthetic feeling of satisfaction' from a primark tracksuit and find 'structural elegance' in fake gold bling jewellery, but there's still no pretending it's nothing to do with fashion.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (16 Dec 2007)

I just like my fixie. It's fun to ride. At least, it is when it's not in many pieces in the shed.


----------



## Canrider (17 Dec 2007)

> there are undoubtedly some people who like them purely for fashion reasons. But that brings me on to the question, what makes YOU think you're so special as to not be one of them?


There are undoubtedly people who like pretty much any kind of bike you care to mention for reasons of fashion. I can only imagine how much sales of Treks went up when Lance started winning races..

I'd just remind you that you also thought cantilever axles were wrong, which tends to invalidate every automobile axle ever manufactured..


----------



## bonj2 (17 Dec 2007)

Canrider said:


> I'd just remind you that you also thought cantilever axles were wrong, which tends to invalidate every automobile axle ever manufactured..



er... can't remember that. Can you link to the post where i said anything about 'cantilever axles' (whatever they are)? are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?


----------



## Graham O (18 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> But that brings me on to the question, what makes YOU think _you're_ so special as to not be one of them? (Riding fixed for fashion reasons)



That is an incredibly arrogant statement. Why is it that only YOU can see the real reason for people riding fixed, and everyone else is deluding themselves? And your question presupposes that having a reason other than fashion is somewhat "special". Perhaps there are many reasons for wanting a fixie, with fashion being one of them. But to label all riders as following fashion is naive.

Personally, I have wanted to ride fixed ever since my brother had one back in the early 70's and last year I bought a set of wheels and have really enjoyed (almost) every moment since then. Fashion may have given me a bigger choice of off the peg wheels, but to say I only bought them for fashion reasons is wrong.


----------



## Canrider (19 Dec 2007)

Cantilever axles like you find on a C-dale Lefty fork?


----------



## hichakhok (21 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> I'll put it a different way - how is weight loss ..., erm... -why do you persist in pretending that... - actually no I won't I'll just repeat the question: *What's wrong with admitting you like a certain type of bike because it's fashionable?*
> 'Aesthetic feeling of satisfaction from structural elegance'. Come off it you pompous tit. Are you even aware of how up your own back bottom you sound?



I couldn't care less how I sound. Liking something just because it is fashionable often belies a lack of perception of the objects worth and value, and indicates the person is more concerned with socially fitting in, or being fashionable. It would be foolhardy to choose ones daily mode of transport for those reasons thus choosing a certain type bike just because they are in fashion is a bad idea.
You think fixed gear bikes are inferior to geared bikes, and those that ride them only do so for fashion reasons as there are to your myopic mind zero benefits to the rider. Well your wrong, and your "argument" if you can even call it that is wrong. If you think you can tell why someone you have never met before does something then your simply being a nutter. You need to listen to and accept other people, especially when they say things you cannot comprehend. 

All you can do is take the piss and insist I am lying and have other reasons. Your a bit mad. 

Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## bonj2 (21 Dec 2007)

"bonj said:


> [b"]are you even aware of how up your own back bottom you sound?[/b]





hichakhok said:


> I couldn't care less how I sound. Liking something just because it is fashionable often belies a lack of perception of the objects worth and value, and indicates the person is more concerned with socially fitting in, or being fashionable. It would be foolhardy to choose ones daily mode of transport for those reasons thus choosing a certain type bike just because they are in fashion is a bad idea.
> You think fixed gear bikes are inferior to geared bikes, and those that ride them only do so for fashion reasons as there are to your myopic mind zero benefits to the rider. Well your wrong, and your "argument" if you can even call it that is wrong. If you think you can tell why someone you have never met before does something then your simply being a nutter. You need to listen to and accept other people, especially when they say things you cannot comprehend.
> 
> All you can do is take the piss and insist I am lying and have other reasons. Your a bit mad.
> ...



...obviously not, then. You've obviously gone so far up there you've managed to convince even yourself there are tangible benefits.
My (fairly simple) argument is a physical one - that the simple fact that it's fixed adds no power or efficiency to the forward motion at all. That's not my opinion, that's the laws of physics working. Given that, then, the only thing the fact that it's fixed changes about the bike is to remove an element of freedom.


----------



## Canrider (21 Dec 2007)

> My (fairly simple) argument is a physical one - that the simple fact that it's fixed adds no power or *efficiency* to the forward motion at all. That's not my opinion, that's the laws of physics working.


Uh, what?
Let me guess, we're using the bonj concept of efficiency here, not the more widely accepted one?


----------



## bonj2 (21 Dec 2007)

Canrider said:


> Uh, what?
> Let me guess, we're using the bonj concept of efficiency here, not the more widely accepted one?



oh, sorry, yes i keep forgetting the 0.00000000000005% that's lost in the jocky wheel.


----------



## marky (22 Dec 2007)

Been away for ages -really missed all this. Have to say 'tho, I enjoy riding my singlespeed, probably because where I live is very flat, and I don't have to change gear much. Tried fixed - scared me half to death. What is indisputable though is that fixed is NOT more efficient than geared. Aesthetically more pleasing- probably. Simpler -definitely. Sexier -possibly. More efficient - I don't think so. Unless someone can demonstrate it with the appropriate physics? And no - lets not get into jockey wheel induced frictional losses.....


----------



## bonj2 (23 Dec 2007)

Graham O said:


> That is an incredibly arrogant statement. Why is it that only YOU can see the real reason for people riding fixed, and everyone else is deluding themselves? And your question presupposes that having a reason other than fashion is somewhat "special". Perhaps there are many reasons for wanting a fixie, with fashion being one of them. But to label all riders as following fashion is naive.


Well it's not only me that can see the real reason. A lot of fixie riders can probably see it, but choose to ignore it and pretend that it isn't the real reason.




Canrider said:


> Cantilever axles like you find on a C-dale Lefty fork?



oh well they ARE a genuine work of crapola. And probably also a deathtrap. But not because of the axle, but because they've only got one fork leg.


----------



## Twenty Inch (25 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> And probably also a deathtrap. But not because of the axle, but because they've only got one fork leg.



Ever flown on a plane bonj? Next time you do, have a look at the landing gear.

If it's good enough for a Boeing 747....


----------



## Graham O (26 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> Well it's not only me that can see the real reason. A lot of fixie riders can probably see it, but choose to ignore it and pretend that it isn't the real reason.





Saying that it is not only you who can see the real reason is not good enough. Where is your evidence to back up your assertion that we only ride fixed for fashion reasons? 

You say that some can "probably" see it. From a dubious statement, you then make assumptions about people's behaviour. Has it occurred to you that while your position has some truth in it, it is not the only correct position. Why can't you just accept that although fashion is one reason for fixed it isn't the only one? 

Yes, some people may not want to admit to it, but on a scale of 1 to 10, what difference does it make to anyone? If you don't understand the simplicity of riding fixed, why does it annoy you so much that other people do understand it and enjoy it?


----------



## mickle (26 Dec 2007)

Fixed is more efficient Bonj, your mistake is in thinking of the transmission in isolation. Certainly the absence of jockey wheels reduces tranny drag by a tiny factor but fixed is no different to single freewheel in this respect. The real efficiency benefit of a fixed transmission comes from the fact that the pedals are mechanically linked to the total mass of bike and rider. Instead of having to pedal through top dead centre of the pedal stroke the momentum of your body weight drives your pedals (and your legs) over. This is more biomechanically efficient as your legs only drive through the power stroke, which is what they do best.
Once you are up to speed on a fixed wheel you settle in to cruising speed, its like 'freewheeling' but on a fixed this means riding along without exerting any pressure on the pedals. Your legs are still spinning but your muscles are not consuming much fuel or oxygen. Its like keeping your car in gear on a downhill rather than relying on the brakes. Tiny changes in the amount of effort going into the pedals control your speed. You can ride along using very little energy but because your legs are still turning your cardiovascular system doesn't slow down as it does when you freewheel. Fixed wheel riding is the finest cardiovascular activity you can do which is the reason that many pro cyclists still ride fixed over the winter, just as they have done for decades. 

I'm coming to the conclusion that you are a just a wuss and you're just too much of a scaredy puss to ride fixed. If you were genuinely interested in dispelling some of the untruths and lies you claim people are writing you would at least give it ago. But no. Cluck, cluck, cluck. 

Until you're brave enough to actually try it why dont you shut the fcuk up. Pontificating on a subject about which you have zero experience isn't big or clever.


----------



## bonj2 (26 Dec 2007)

Twenty Inch said:


> Ever flown on a plane bonj? Next time you do, have a look at the landing gear.
> 
> If it's good enough for a Boeing 747....


I wouldn't fly on a plane that only had one wing.



mickle said:


> Fixed is more efficient Bonj, your mistake is in thinking of the transmission in isolation. Certainly the absence of jockey wheels reduces tranny drag by a tiny factor but fixed is no different to single freewheel in this respect. The real efficiency benefit of a fixed transmission comes from the fact that the pedals are mechanically linked to the total mass of bike and rider. Instead of having to pedal through top dead centre of the pedal stroke the momentum of your body weight drives your pedals (and your legs) over. This is more biomechanically efficient as your legs only drive through the power stroke, which is what they do best.


That sounds like an attempt at confusion.
Your legs only have to drive through the power stroke, yes, but it is only during this phase of the pedalling where there is anything other than minimal resistance to the pedalling.



mickle said:


> Once you are up to speed on a fixed wheel you settle in to cruising speed, its like 'freewheeling' but on a fixed this means riding along without exerting any pressure on the pedals. Your legs are still spinning but your muscles are not consuming much fuel or oxygen. Its like keeping your car in gear on a downhill rather than relying on the brakes. Tiny changes in the amount of effort going into the pedals control your speed. You can ride along using very little energy but because your legs are still turning your cardiovascular system doesn't slow down as it does when you freewheel.


you're still using energy. In fact, probably at least 95% of the energy as you would be if you were riding a freewheeled bike. The energy required to get the pedal back up to the top is negligible, but it's the notion that it isn't which is what your fallacy that it's somehow like a kind of perpetual motion machine relies on.



mickle said:


> Fixed wheel riding is the finest cardiovascular activity you can do


By what definition do you define 'finest'? It doesnt' use any upper body muscles for a start, like say swimming.


mickle said:


> I'm coming to the conclusion that you are a just a wuss and you're just too much of a scaredy puss to ride fixed. If you were genuinely interested in dispelling some of the untruths and lies you claim people are writing you would at least give it ago. But no. Cluck, cluck, cluck.
> 
> Until you're brave enough to actually try it why dont you shut the fcuk up.


'Bravery' and 'scaredness' has nothing to do with it. If I decided I wanted to try it it would just be a matter of getting used to it, and the fixie brigade are very keen to say how fast you get used to it. It just wouldn't suit the type of terrain I ride on. i.e. up and down hills. If I lived somewhere that's as flat as a pancake like say, york, or even where I'm staying now, near lincolnshire, then i'd possibly consider it. But for my commute it would be absolutely ridiculous. Trust me on this.



mickle said:


> Pontificating on a subject about which you have zero experience isn't big or clever.



Maybe not, but I _am_ right.

I don't need to try it to know what it would be like.


----------



## RedBike (26 Dec 2007)

I used to commute on a fixie in a hilly area. Curiously it used to take me about the same time to do the journey on the fixie as it did my geared bike. However, the fixie always felt much harder work. (Fun though!)



> Once you are up to speed on a fixed wheel you settle in to cruising speed, its like 'freewheeling' but on a fixed this means riding along without exerting any pressure on the pedals. Your legs are still spinning but your muscles are not consuming much fuel or oxygen.


I always found it much harder to maintain a 'cruising speed'. It only took a small rise and I would loose all momentum then struggle to speed back up again. Or while riding with a group I was forced to pedal at an uncomfortable rate.


----------



## bonj2 (26 Dec 2007)

RedBike said:


> I used to commute on a fixie in a hilly area. Curiously it used to take me about the same time to do the journey on the fixie as it did my geared bike. However, the fixie always felt much harder work. (Fun though!)
> 
> 
> I always found it much harder to maintain a 'cruising speed'. It only took a small rise and I would loose all momentum then struggle to speed back up again. Or while riding with a group I was forced to pedal at an uncomfortable rate.



well my commute is very undulating. Lots of up then down, up then down, etc.


----------



## mickle (27 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> I wouldn't fly on a plane that only had one wing.
> 
> That sounds like an attempt at confusion.
> Your legs only have to drive through the power stroke, yes, but it is only during this phase of the pedalling where there is anything other than minimal resistance to the pedalling.
> ...



Well then you really are an ignorant cock and I wash my hands of you. Your loss.


----------



## mickle (27 Dec 2007)

"If I lived somewhere that's as flat as a pancake like say .....where I'm staying now, near lincolnshire, then i'd possibly consider it."


Do you even read the shoot that you write? 

You are a fixed wheel coward. Too scary for you. 

Cluck.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> Well then you really are an ignorant cock and I wash my hands of you. Your loss.





mickle said:


> "If I lived somewhere that's as flat as a pancake like say .....where I'm staying now, near lincolnshire, then i'd possibly consider it."
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shoot that you write?
> ...



I somehow don't think you'd be _quite_ so angry if you didn't _know_ that I'm right. As in, right to reject the idea of even trying a fixie for my own personal situation and riding requirements.


----------



## Graham O (27 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> I somehow don't think you'd be _quite_ so angry if you didn't _know_ that I'm right. As in, right to reject the idea of even trying a fixie for my own personal situation and riding requirements.



Why do you persist in making these assumptions that you are right and everyone else is wrong, but refuses to admit it? Where is your evidence to back up these assumptions?

Okay, your commute and personal circumstances may mean that a fixed wheel bike is not suitable for you, but why do you criticise all fixed wheel riders who don't admit to a "fashion" reason for riding fixed? If you don't want or like fixed wheel, why do you spend so much time on a fixed wheel forum?


----------



## bonj2 (28 Dec 2007)

We're going round in circles here:



Graham O said:


> Okay, your commute and personal circumstances may mean that a fixed wheel bike is not suitable for you, but why do you criticise all fixed wheel riders who don't admit to a "fashion" reason for riding fixed?


Why do you criticise all my asssertions that riding fixed is _mainly_ to do with fashion?
I'm not saying it's fashion for ALL fixed wheel riders, or any particular ones (read: you), I'm just saying that it just so happens to be the case that, because of the fact that it IS highly fashionable (_aswell_ as possibly having other mechanical reasons which a minority might prefer) that coincidentally _most_ of the people who ride fixed do so for fashion reasons. Perhaps it need stating again, in case you didn't read/digest/understand the caveat the first time: MOST riders of fixed wheel bikes choose to do so for fashion reasons - not ALL of them, or necessarily, any particular ones (read: YOU).



Graham O said:


> If you don't want or like fixed wheel, why do you spend so much time on a fixed wheel forum?


If you don't want or like association (possibly falsely) with fasion, then why do you ride a fixed-wheel bike? If you personally know that _you_ have your own mechanical or more tangible reason than fashion for riding fixed, then you should be content with that and not really bothered about the fact that I associate fixed with fashion purposes. The fact that you seem to be one of the people who's _not_ content with that, would appear to suggest that you don't have any more tangible reason than fashion for doing it.


fwiw, I only see updates to this thread 'cos it started out with utterly pompous statements that I just had to rebuke.


----------



## Graham O (29 Dec 2007)

> Why do you criticise all my asssertions that riding fixed is _mainly_ to do with fashion?



You can't answer my "why do you..." question with one of your own. This discussion will never get anywhere without answers. But that assumes that it will get somewhere.




> I'm not saying it's fashion for ALL fixed wheel riders, or any particular ones (read: you), I'm just saying that it just so happens to be the case that, because of the fact that it IS highly fashionable (_aswell_ as possibly having other mechanical reasons which a minority might prefer) that coincidentally _most_ of the people who ride fixed do so for fashion reasons. Perhaps it need stating again, in case you didn't read/digest/understand the caveat the first time: MOST riders of fixed wheel bikes choose to do so for fashion reasons - not ALL of them, or necessarily, any particular ones (read: YOU).



At least you are starting to admit that there are different reasons for riding fixed and I detect some reasonableness coming into your arguement. But in that last statement is the cause of this long thread, "or necessarily any particular ones". Yet in earlier posts you have criticised particular people for not admitting to fashion.



> then you should be content with that and not really bothered about the fact that I associate fixed with fashion purposes.



The reason for this thread, this forum and much of the internet is to allow like minded people to associate and discuss their common interests. Here, we are all interested in cycling and want to discuss and argue our interests, ideas and theories. Personally I don't care what you think, but when it is put forward as an irrefutable proof, I have wanted to see your evidence but it is pure conjecture. If you think that I should not be bothered by what you think, they why are you bothered by what I and others think. It works both ways. 



> The fact that you seem to be one of the people who's not content with that, would appear to suggest that you don't have any more tangible reason than fashion for doing it.



I have already told you why I have a fixed bike and yet you are now making assumptions that, in reality, I am just a fashion follower. This is the source of this long thread. The fact that you just tar everyone with the same brush.




> fwiw, I only see updates to this thread 'cos it started out with utterly pompous statements that I just had to rebuke.



The world is full of pompous statements and others which sound pompous. However you took exception to statements about the rhythm and feel of fixed, without any knowledge of what it is like when a fixed wheel is up to speed. It really does feel different to a geared bike, but whether it is better or not, I don't know. Just different.


----------



## RedBike (29 Dec 2007)

> Perhaps it need stating again, in case you didn't read/digest/understand the caveat the first time: MOST riders of fixed wheel bikes choose to do so for fashion reasons


Yey...
For about the first time in my life I'm fashionable!

For what it's worth I work in several schools; and believe me in the eyes of the kids the 'fixie' couldn't be any more unfashionable if it tried. Heck, it hasn't even got rear suspension!

I got into fixed gear riding through riding the track. Somehow riding fixed wheel always seems more enjoyable. I know it's an odd comment to make, but somehow you really do feel more connected / a part of the bike.


----------

