# Is fixed faster?



## Amanda P (21 Aug 2013)

I was just looking at my mycylinglog cycling log: 

Totals by Bike
Moulton AM 64:37:13 1477.46 20.53 57
Dawes Galaxy 18:45:39 463.68 20.14 32
Bentech SWB USS 22:48:45 515.66 20.35 36
Peugeot Single/fixed 15:13:36 380.11 23.21 31

The columns are time, distance (km), average speed (km/h) and ride count.

First of all, it's clear that the Moulton is my favourite bike. I'd have said that either it or the fixed were the quickest, and that the Bentech (short wheelbase recumbent) was the slowest.

I had no idea that the fixed was so much quicker than the others though. On my 11km commute, I often seem to arrive well under 30 minutes total, while the others are usually a minute or two over. And speed-wise, there's not much between the 'bent and the Galaxy - maybe that's not a surprise given that both are set up as heavy tourers and both are sometimes used to haul a loaded trailer, which would bring the mean speed down a bit. I generally use the Moulton for audaxes (although I've only done three this year) so you'd expect those to be fairly brisk rides, and, being long, to pull the average speed up if anything.

This is the first year I've used a GPS pretty systematically on every commute and almost every ride. I'm not that interested in speed, or in getting faster, but it's curious to see how much quicker the fixed is - despite being used on pretty much the same route with the same load as all the other rides.
I suspect fixed or single-speed is often just that: single-speed. Sort of: you can only go so slowly or you'll stall or your knees explode, and you can only go so fast or you'll spin out. So perhaps on fixed, one's speed is restricted to a narrower band of speeds than on a geared bike, and you'll get up to that comfortable cruising speed/cadence from starts and junctions much more quickly than on a geared bike where you might work your way up through the gears.

Thoughts, comments, discussion?


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Aug 2013)

My two faster (relatively) bicycles are a steel Claud Butler fixed (69" currently) and an aluminium road bike running Siroccos, nice-ish Campag. Both bikes have a fairly aggressive riding position.

Bear in mind that I was never fast and am now less so.

The geared bike is less fun, but it trumps the fixie over every distance above about five miles. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.

I know people who can go faster fixed. I wish I was one such. I'd make a lot of noise about it. But I am not, so I cannot.


----------



## HLaB (21 Aug 2013)

Are the routes identical, situtations (weather, traffic, etc) are the frames identical, etc if not you cant really compare. My fix is slower than my geared bikes because it weighs a lot more so stop start in traffic makes it lose out. But even that I have taken on a fast flat sprint of about 19.4mph for 11miles on the same circuit the geared bike was only 19.6mph whilst in the last year the gap has got wider they aren't radically different (drafting in part also helped to close that gap, the geared time is solo). The same fixie in town can average as little as 10mph.


----------



## Archie_tect (21 Aug 2013)

Do you use a free wheel on your fixed Phil? I can't get used to the non-free wheel and have nearly come a cropper whenever I've tried a friend's fixed wheel.


----------



## Amanda P (21 Aug 2013)

The routes are not identical, since, as I say, I tend to gravitate towards the Moulton for longer rides. However, the bulk of the mileage is going to work and back: an almost flat 11km each way (7 miles in old money). The frames certainly aren't identical - one bike's a recumbent, one's a Moulton spaceframe and the others are diamond-frames. But the engine is always the same: me. What I'm comparing is how that engine appears to perform in different chassis. I didn't expect the performance to be the same, but what surprises me is by how much the fixed seems to be quicker.

My theory is that the gearing on the fixed (67", I think) obliges me to maintain a pace that allows a comfortable cadence -and that's a couple of kmh faster than I'd naturally settle into on a geared bike (originally I built the fixed up specifically as a winter commuter for a flat route). And this makes me think that if I upped the gear ratio a bit, I'd probably have to go faster still to maintain that comfortable cadence. Mrs Uncle Phil, who normally pushes the pace relentlessly when we ride together, thinks I'm faster on the fixed, and even struggles to keep up a bit sometimes.

The fixed bike has a flipflop hub with an 18-tooth sprocket on one side and 18-tooth freewheel on the other. I tend to gravitate towards the freewheel in winter because I tend to be carrying more kit to work with me in my panniers then and it's a pain to lift the rear wheel and get the cranks ready for starting off again when I stop at junctions on the fixed. Also if things are icy, it's nice to be able to stop pedalling and concentrate on staying upright.

In summer, I use the fixed side, since I've never had major grief* with fixed and with less kit to carry, it's no hassle to put the front brake on and just push the bike forward to lift the rear wheel and get the crank at ten-past-twelve, and ice isn't usually an issue. Having said that, I'm too lazy to flip the wheel over unless I have to take it out anyway to fix a puncture or something, so I often end up riding singlespeed well into the summer of fixed well into the winter.

*I say major grief: if I've not ridden it for a bit, there may be a dodgy moment when I forget to keep pedalling and the bike pedals me for a second, but it only ever happens once, and it's never caused anything more than a surge of adrenalin.

Fixed or single, riding it has definitely improved my technique. Pedalling all the way around the cycle, pulling back and pulling up on the pedals and pushing them over the top as well as pushing down, is a great way to get more power - which you need when climbing with only one gear available. This transfers well to a recumbent (on which honking isn't an option) and a Moulton (on which honking causes pogoing). It's also rather satisfying to be able to produce a lot of extra power to move ahead of another cyclist without apparent visible effort...


----------



## edindave (21 Aug 2013)

On my regular flat out-and-back coastal run (50km, 200m ascent) I'm about equal on fixed and geared.
But if you add any terrain the road bike wins. Eg. 5.2km, 89m ascent lap of Arthur's Seat: Fasted Fixed - 16:10; fastest geared - 11:45. That's with a similar ave HR for both times - within 5bpm anyway, rides a couple of months apart. The ascent times are quite similar, but the descent is always faster with gears.

I'm working on getting my cadence up after swapping from 48x16 to 48x18 last week, and it certainly feels a lot better for around town riding.


----------



## MrGrumpy (21 Aug 2013)

can climb faster on my fixed at times but find the limitations are the rider  However as Edindave says, going down hill is where I gain time on a geared bike. On a 48 x 16 can max out at approx 34mph but feels well out of control down hill


----------



## Smurfy (23 Aug 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> Do you use a free wheel on your fixed Phil? I can't get used to the non-free wheel and have nearly come a cropper whenever I've tried a friend's fixed wheel.


 
It takes a while to get used to fixed-wheel. After around 500 miles I found I'd settled in OK, and the 'reminders' to keep pedalling were few and far between. My worst ever 'reminder' was when I tried to turn around to see if my back light was switched on. Non-stop pedalling is rather difficult when your hips are twisted around in the saddle, and I swerved violently with only one hand on the bars, almost slamming into the kerb as my legs and the fixed-wheel fought against each other! For some people, pedalling automatically, totally non-stop, no matter what else is happening to the rider or the bike takes a while (I'm not proud of the 500 miles it took me, which is probably around 15 rides at an average of 35 miles per ride). It takes time to work through all the scenarios where you'd normally stop pedalling, and correct your behaviour. Some of the more obvious ones are sharp cornering, speed bumps, removing bottle from cage, scratching an itch.

On the plus side, one thing I noticed is that descending steep hills on fixed requires so much effort and concentration, when you get back on a bike with a freewheel it all seems so easy that you can go flying past all the riders who only ever ride bikes with freewheels. It also gives you one hell of a workout, so if some of your riding mates are a tad slow you can still push yourself.

Best thing is to get your own machine, and start by riding some quiet routes you know well (e.g. location of potholes etc. etc.) so there aren't too many surprises all at once.


----------



## dave r (23 Aug 2013)

Fixed isn't any faster, but its a lot more fun.


----------



## Sharky (27 Aug 2013)

Is Fixed faster? - After years of experimenting, I am still not sure. When I was young, I was racing on a Mercian track frame, but with gears bolted on it. I changed it to fixed for a couple of races and went slower. Now as a mature rider and on a low budget, renovated the same Mercian frame 40 years later as pure fixed and my times were more consistant than my road bike and certainly not slower. Another 5 years on, have swopped almost every component on the old Mercian and it is now a Nelson track frame with a 50*14 gear for racing. Still not a quick rider, but times are not that much different from some of my clubmates who have spent over £3k on carbon everything and 20 gears.

I do believe though that riding fixed increases both your strength from riding at low cadences and your suppleness at high revs. Something you get every time you go for a ride. On gears, you keep the cadence fairly static, so don't benefit from the too extremes.
In time your torque increases and you are able to ride a gear 10" lower that you would on gears and 10" higher.

Apart from my racing steed, I have another single steed with a much lower 69" freewheel and at the weekend I did my normal 25 mile training circuit and was 5 mins quicker than a ride I did a few days earlier on my gears bike. So although I don't really understand why, I think a fixed or even a single speed bike makes you more versatile and stonger and this leads to bringing up your basic speed.

Another couple of points that no doubt will prompt further discusions - I have this year swopped all my cranks from 170mm to 150mm, raised my saddle by 2cm and the effect is quite amazing. It opens up the hip angle and gives my fat belly much more room and am able to get into the drop position much easier and my pedal action is more effective through the entire 360 degrees.
The other point is that I switched from fixed to SS free on my 69" steed as the hills in north Kent are just too severe for fixed, especially the descents and I added a pair of clipon tri-bars. The combination of being forced to power up the hills in a single speed, coupled with an aero position on the descent seems to be very effective.

Cheers
Keith


----------



## Twelve Spokes (27 Aug 2013)

I've done 10000+ miles fixed this time round.I had a fixie in the mid 90's.


----------



## goody (27 Aug 2013)

Fixed can be faster if the gearing is just right. Maybe you're quicker on the fixed on your commute because the gearing is right for most of that journey, it's a fairly short ride compared to the other rides you go on and you have to be at work at a certain time so don't hang about. I used to commute on fixed with two hills to contend with I had to put more effort in to get up them than I might have on a geared bike just to keep the momentum going. I stopped riding fixed because I didn't like spinning down the other side.


----------



## TheDoctor (27 Aug 2013)

Dunno about faster, but it's lighter.
Carbon Uberbike - carbon frame and forks, Mavic Open Pro, 105 - 9.2kg ready to roll.
Fixed - Dynatech frame and forks, wheels and bits from the spares heap.
Also 9.2 kg ready to roll. And that's with a rack.


----------



## michaelcycle (28 Aug 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> My theory is that the gearing on the fixed (67", I think) obliges me to maintain a pace that allows a comfortable cadence -and that's a couple of kmh faster than I'd naturally settle into on a geared bike (originally I built the fixed up specifically as a winter commuter for a flat route).


 
I think that sounds about right depending on your physical strengths and weaknesses.

From what I have read if you maintain a relatively high cadence and lower gear then you utilise mainly your aerobic and respiratory systems which most people can hold for a longer amount of time as it is generally more conditioned.

Lower cadence / higher gear taxes your skeletal muscles more and sap your limited amounts of muscle glycogen (unless you are topping it up suitably with an on bike nutrition strategy depending on how long the ride is) meaning it is more likely to stall out quicker leading to an overall lower performance _on average._

Seems on your fixed you have found a natural cadence which suits your ability and physiology. Perhaps, if you use all your bikes with a cycle computer and keep an identical cadence using both the geared and the fixed bikes you could measure if it too see if it does in fact hold a true advantage. The route would need to be the same obviously (and ideally the overall weight!)

I am quite new to cycling but not to exercise physiology and like the geeky side of it


----------



## Pennine-Paul (29 Aug 2013)

I've played around with gearings on my commute,from a spinny 65 inches
up to what I cuurently use, 85 inches.I found spinning on 65 inches to keep
up a decent speed was a real pain,On 85 inches it's a bit harder setting off
but it's so much easier to maintain a decent speed.Comparing times of
the various gearings on my 11 mile commute home (600 feet of climbing)
65"..........53 mins
72"...........45 mins
85".............39 mins
Wouldn't go any higher than this as i have a 12% hill to climb and i can
climb this,just!


----------



## 4F (29 Aug 2013)

Faster possibly, more fun yes. I am still not sure but I do know that the only time I have managed to average 20 mph on my 15 mile commute home I was on my fixed. Of course the favourable tailwind and traffic lights may have also helped  . Currently riding 72 inches but set my fastest on 81.


----------



## al-fresco (1 Sep 2013)

I was surprised to find that over a 22 mile route on a pretty crappy road with about 1,000 feet of fairly gentle ascent my Langster is always 10-15 minutes faster than my heavier 18 speed Surly. I was even more surprised to find that there's only about 20 seconds between the Langster and a carbon fibre Willier Izoard costing four times as much.


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2013)

I reckon I climb faster on fixed, on certain climbs anyway. But on a flat road or descending, no way. I ride 63" and guess I would probably top out at around 35kph. 

I can find climbing easier on the fixed; a combination of having to (gears are a temptation to take it easy!), and the extra push you get from fixed (or should I say less loss than gears)


----------



## MrGrumpy (1 Sep 2013)

yello said:


> I reckon I climb faster on fixed, on certain climbs anyway. But on a flat road or descending, no way. I ride 63" and guess I would probably top out at around 35kph.
> 
> I can find climbing easier on the fixed; a combination of having to (gears are a temptation to take it easy!), and the extra push you get from fixed (or should I say less loss than gears)


I`m with you on that,I can climb faster on fixed if the gearing is spot on for the hill. On my commute there is very little in it in fact I grabbed one of the sprint KOMs on strava last week and that was on my fixed, just pure leg speed!


----------



## MrGrumpy (1 Sep 2013)

al-fresco said:


> I was surprised to find that over a 22 mile route on a pretty crappy road with about 1,000 feet of fairly gentle ascent my Langster is always 10-15 minutes faster than my heavier 18 speed Surly. I was even more surprised to find that there's only about 20 seconds between the Langster and a carbon fibre Willier Izoard costing four times as much.


Langster is quite a quick nimble beasty, love mine


----------



## 3narf (4 Sep 2013)

Is 'fixed' being used here as a generic term for singlespeed in general? It often is.

I fail to see how fixed can offer any advantage over freewheel singlespeed. Is it just that a lot of riders go straight to fixed thinking the SS experience won't be sufficiently 'different?'

Nobody would notice the difference in weight (brake or brakes, cables, freewheel mechanism) if that's all there is.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (4 Sep 2013)

3narf said:


> Is 'fixed' being used here as a generic term for singlespeed in general? It often is.
> 
> I fail to see how fixed can offer any advantage over freewheel singlespeed. Is it just that a lot of riders go straight to fixed thinking the SS experience won't be sufficiently 'different?'
> 
> Nobody would notice the difference in weight (brake or brakes, cables, freewheel mechanism) if that's all there is.


Oh dear, you've never ridden fixed? It uses the momentum of the flywheel effect to get the pedals over the dead top centre. It really does help when climbing.


----------



## 3narf (4 Sep 2013)

I have. I see no advantage in practice.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (4 Sep 2013)

3narf said:


> I have. I see no advantage in practice.


As per the other, your in the minority again...


----------



## al-fresco (4 Sep 2013)

I enjoy riding fixed but I'd have to admit that it's definitely slower than a freewheel on steeper descents.


----------



## 3narf (4 Sep 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> As per the other, your in the minority again...


 

Hmm. Maybe I need to have another go at it, although I'm not convinced (you don't say!).

From the point of view of it being some kind of training aid, I'm even more sceptical.


----------



## 4F (4 Sep 2013)

3narf said:


> Is 'fixed' being used here as a generic term for singlespeed in general? It often is.
> 
> I fail to see how fixed can offer any advantage over freewheel singlespeed. Is it just that a lot of riders go straight to fixed thinking the SS experience won't be sufficiently 'different?'
> 
> Nobody would notice the difference in weight (brake or brakes, cables, freewheel mechanism) if that's all there is.



No, fixed is fixed and not a generic term. The advantage being that once up to speed it is easier to keep the momentum going.


----------



## Seamab (4 Sep 2013)

IIRC there are some TT and hillclimb records that were set on fixed. So it must be faster in certain situations where the gear matches the terrain. My experience is that as soon as you combine steep ascents and descents then geared wins every time.


----------



## Steve Malkin (4 Sep 2013)

Seamab said:


> IIRC there are some TT and hillclimb records that were set on fixed. So it must be* faster in certain situations where the gear matches the terrain*. My experience is that as soon as you combine steep ascents and descents then geared wins every time.



This ^^^

If fixed were generally faster than geared over mixed terrain then all the TdF riders would be using them, ......they aren't

I see fixed gear bikes as good commuter machines because they will cope better with neglect in winter road conditions and as a training aid to build up strength in your legs when you struggle to get up a hill in too high a gear, but let's not kid ourselves that they are fundamentally faster than a geared bike.


----------



## 3narf (4 Sep 2013)

4F said:


> The advantage being that once up to speed it is easier to keep the momentum going.


 
That's what I mean about it not being a training aid. If it makes things easier it can't improve your fitness.

The only muscles you use on a fixed gear bike that you don't use on a freewheel SS are those used to slow yourself down, and it's difficult to see how building up those can improve your performance.

I agree though that a single gear bike can't offer any dynamic improvement over a geared bike, same as a supermoto can't be quicker than a supersport 600. You just end up adapting to a particular riding style that *in some situations* gives you a slight advantage.


----------



## 4F (4 Sep 2013)

3narf said:


> That's what I mean about it not being a training aid. If it makes things easier it can't improve your fitness..



I wouldn't be so sure, a strong headwind and one gear certainly helps as a training aid and any slopes etc in the road you just put your head down and power onwards. I agree totally however that it all depends on the getting the right gearing for the conditions you intend to ride.


----------



## 3narf (4 Sep 2013)

4F said:


> I wouldn't be so sure, a strong headwind and one gear certainly helps as a training aid and any slopes etc in the road you just put your head down and power onwards. I agree totally however that it all depends on the getting the right gearing for the conditions you intend to ride.


 
Oh, singlespeed can be a training aid, I agree!

But fixed? Its claim is far more dubious. It's more a fashion statement.


----------



## Pennine-Paul (4 Sep 2013)

Fixed riding makes you much fitter,you never stop pedalling,on my local hills where i ride the roadies come whizzing past me on the downhills but by the time i'm halfway up the next hill i've caught them up,they then try everything to try and get away,dropping gears going up the gears all to no avail,2/3 of the way up and i just leave em behind.I once looked behind me after beating a roadie up a 2 mile climb to see him stopped at the side slumped over his handlebars wimp!


----------



## Steve Malkin (4 Sep 2013)

Pennine-Paul said:


> Fixed riding makes you much fitter,you never stop pedalling,on my local hills where i ride the roadies come whizzing past me on the downhills but by the time i'm halfway up the next hill i've caught them up,they then try everything to try and get away,dropping gears going up the gears all to no avail,2/3 of the way up and i just leave em behind.I once looked behind me after beating a roadie up a 2 mile climb to see him stopped at the side slumped over his handlebars wimp!



So.....
1.You went faster up a hill than someone else
2. You were riding fixed and he was riding gears

You conclusion: riding fixed makes you much fitter than riding geared

I hope the fate of the nation never depends on your logical reasoning ability... 

Or are you claiming that you on your fixed bike would be faster than any other rider on any geared bike up any hill? - if you could demonstrate that then I might begin to take notice


----------



## zigzag (4 Sep 2013)

i was interested myself what's quicker geared or ss (ime - fixed is inferior). so i went onto some training rides and looking at the data i can see that ss is not any slower. i need to do more rides on ss for more consistent results.
(a shame that i can not compare ss data when riding in a group - i was out today just for that, but it wasn't meant to be - hit a massive pothole half way round and damaged rear rim, now the wheel needs to be rebuilt with a new rim..)












as you can see the route is not flat, but not too hilly either - very suitable for fixed/ss. on a very hilly route (i.e. many hills over 15%) the geared bike would have an advantage, obviously. both my geared and ss bikes are light, same size and position, same tyres and similar weight wheels - the main difference is in the transmission.

also i've done the same 300km audax on different bikes and it took 1hr less on ss bike than on geared - go figure..


----------



## 3narf (5 Sep 2013)

zigzag said:


> i was interested myself what's quicker geared or ss (ime - fixed is inferior).


 


What he said!


----------



## adds21 (5 Sep 2013)

Fixed is faster for me on my homeward 8 mile uphill commute (800 feet of climbing), but, unsurprising, slower on my (downhill) ride in.

Because of the hills, I run quite a low gear (67"), but the difference is that I have no choice but to attack the hills, where as on my non fixed bike, I can, and do, drop to a near 40" gear.

If I was less of a wimp, I'd obviously stay in a higher gear on the hills on my road bike, but I am, so I don't! My wife can always tell which bike I took to work by how out of breath am I when I get home.


----------



## zigzag (5 Sep 2013)

adds21 said:


> Because of the hills, I run quite a low gear (67"), but the difference is that I have no choice but to attack the hills, where as on my non fixed bike, I can, and do, drop to a near 40" gear.
> 
> If I was less of a wimp, I'd obviously stay in a higher gear on the hills on my road bike, but I am, so I don't!



it's not about being a wimp (and i'm sure you're not!). let's take a known hill like ditchling beacon. i was trying to get up it with geared bike on as high a gear as possible without shifting down, managed on 42x21 (53"), but it was hard work, a struggle. on 69" ss bike - no problem, wasn't even out of breath. i reckon i could get up that hill on ss with 75" gear. it's all about efficiency of the drivetrain.

geared riders often think that you must be really strong if you ride ss and can keep up with them, when in reality it's often easier to ride ss (or fixed..) - unless it's _very_ hilly.


----------



## adds21 (5 Sep 2013)

zigzag said:


> geared riders often think that you must be really strong if you ride ss and can keep up with them, when in reality it's often easier to ride ss (or fixed..) - unless it's _very_ hilly.


 
I can see this about fixed, mainly because of the push the peddles give you over the 12/6 position, but I don't see that ss can be easier than geared, other than physiologically. I'm not saying you're wrong, (and I've never ridden ss - always fixed). However, I can certainly see that with either fixed, or ss, you're much more lightly to keep your momentum up, which obviously helps (as it does on geared too, but there's less incentive - which is kind of the point).


----------



## al-fresco (5 Sep 2013)

adds21 said:


> I can see this about fixed, mainly because of the push the peddles give you over the 12/6 position, but I don't see that ss can be easier than geared, other than physiologically. I'm not saying you're wrong, (and I've never ridden ss - always fixed). However, I can certainly see that with either fixed, or ss, you're much more lightly to keep your momentum up, which obviously helps (as it does on geared too, but there's less incentive - which is kind of the point).



Don't forget weight - a SS (or fixed) bike will usually weigh a fair bit less than a similarly priced geared bike and that makes a big difference when climbing.


----------



## Sharky (6 Sep 2013)

Pennine-Paul said:


> I've played around with gearings on my commute,from a spinny 65 inches
> up to what I cuurently use, 85 inches.I found spinning on 65 inches to keep
> up a decent speed was a real pain,On 85 inches it's a bit harder setting off
> but it's so much easier to maintain a decent speed.Comparing times of
> ...


 
Hi - presume these times are on fixed. Have you tried a SS 72" freewheel? Keeping a gear on the lower side means you can stop/start easier and on the uphill drags you can keep a reasonable cadence. On the faster descents, when you top out at high revs, just tuck in to a low drag position and let gravity take over. When freewheeling, you get recovery time and when the next hill arrives, you are ready to power up again.

Cheers Keith


----------



## rb58 (7 Sep 2013)

I know little about the physics, but I think my leg strength has improved since riding fixed and my average cadence has definitely increased, which is quite noticeable when I use a geared bike. I have also surprised myself about the grade of hill I can get up on fixed, far higher than I expected. But I think that's psychological where it's a case of MTFU or walk.


----------

