# A SS-rider vs a Geared-rider



## arnuld (18 Feb 2010)

I am using my FM for commuting and it is single speed (SS) . Earlier, like a normal Indian I was hell bent on buying a geared bike but then after finding forums like cyclechat.co.uk  and singlespeed.net I came across this article that changed my view of SS forever. Now after riding for some time and still loving it all the time




I keep on browsing the net for cycling related discussions and here I came across this post in singletracks.com forum that again have impacted me a lot. The post starts with SS vs Geared cycles but what I found was that its more of a rider comparison rather than the cycle type:

http://www.singletracks.com/forum2/view ... aa7d867542

You guys have experiences like this to share ?


----------



## tyred (18 Feb 2010)

A singlespeed bike is lighter and more efficient and when you ride one, you quickly learn the principle of conserving momentum for hills. Remember that each gear change robs a little momentum and if you have low gears to play with, you will use them so on a singlespeed, you climb hills in a higher gear so each turn of the pedals propels you further.

Building a singlespeed roadbike was the best thing I ever did. I rarely ride my geared bikes. I even use a bottle dynamo on it without a problem (I was concerned it would make it too hard to pedal). Someday, I might even be brave and replace the freewheel with a track sprocket.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Feb 2010)

i had a ss fs mtb over the summer and it was fun. unfortunately the mtb has been pushed into winter commuter and ss commuting was not practical for where i live. it really did improve my fitness a lot and i can nearly keep up with other riders.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

I bought a fixed wheel bike for getting about the city (with being able to ride track as a training activity in mind), bought the cheapest I could find (a Fuji Track for a little over £300 new), since I wanted to be able to lock it up without worry, I love it. Its actually not the lightest thing in the world, by feel, my Cannondale road bike is about the same weight if not lighter. But its quick and as far as I can see, its upgradable fairly successfully. ill be getting it resprayed soon and sticking some nicer wheels and front break on it.

I like how riding fixed makes you more aware of what is around you, knowing you cant stops very fast etc. Not so tempting to blast from lights to lights, wasting energy accellerating hard then slamming the breaks on. Its also really inviting to put your foot down when you get a nice long stretch of open road. I find Im fresher after 20 miles on fixed than on a geared road bike too. I am new to cycling but I am confident I could make 40 miles no problem on the fixed (on fairly flat routes). On the road bike, id make it, but I'd be much more tired. The dead spot on the pedal motion is like a smack in the face moving from fixed to geared for the 1st few miles.


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Feb 2010)

Fixed is more fun! Also, fixed bikes are lighter! Also, fixed riders get stronger, because there's no easy option going uphill - you just have to push harder. Reps will build muscle, but to build serious muscle you have to do reps at or exceeding your limit. On a fixed, every proper hill gives you that kind of workout. I went fixed about 9 months ago, for my daily 7-8 miles each way thru' London commute. I've barely been back on a geared bike since (used the knobbly-tyred hybrid in the snow, but that's it).


----------



## RedBike (18 Feb 2010)

Daft question, but whats an FM?

I've ridden virtually nothing but singlespeed / fixed wheel bikes for the last 6months now. 

IMO single speed bikes work because they are more efficient. The increased efficiency comes partly from the lack of rear mech and partly from the decreased weight. 

I did a highly un-scientific test a few months ago to see just how my single speed measured up to my geared bikes. 
http://redbikes.blogspot.com/2009/09/hill-climbing-fixed-wheel-vs-single.html


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2010)

Interesting test there Redbike, I know it's not scientific but it does show not a huge amount of difference between any of the bikes. The only thing that puts me off fixed is the lack of freewheel. But I do find my 3 speed very easy to get around on, that's geared 40/54/72 inches. Laden touring, or mountains, would probably need gears below 40 inches but I find the 40 covers everything I need.


----------



## Tynan (18 Feb 2010)

no straight answers from the SS types I see

not dissing the SS but gears is quicker, having the range lets you crank on when a SS has run out of legs and accelerate when they're still winding up, I see loads of SS riders on my commute and not seen one yet I didn't pass as the speed increased

of course a good rider rides faster/better but all things equal, gears wins, those TDF types seem to like gears for some reason


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

I really can't see how a SS can possibly be faster than a geared bike, all other things being equal. If SS was faster and more efficient wouldn't all the pro racing teams be using them?


----------



## colinr (18 Feb 2010)

Don't forget that fixed hubs are infused with the magic flywheel effect 

I rode fixed all last year, easy enough around Norfolk but it was a struggle keeping up with geared riders on the flat and they absolutely destroyed me downhill. Love it for commuting, have picked up something geared for the weekends though.


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

I'd like to see a SS'er climb the Col du Tourmalet


----------



## ianrauk (18 Feb 2010)

They are not... however a SS rider can be faster then a geared rider.



Debian said:


> *I really can't see how a SS can possibly be faster than a geared bike,* all other things being equal. If SS was faster and more efficient wouldn't all the pro racing teams be using them?


----------



## RedBike (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> I really can't see how a SS can possibly be faster than a geared bike, all other things being equal. If SS was faster and more efficient wouldn't all the pro racing teams be using them?



£200/£300 will buy you a new reasonably light-weight single speed bike. 
Now compare that to what you get for your money in terms of a new geared bike. Provided we're not talking about the alps here you could well find the lighter more efficient single speed bike is quicker up the hills than the heavier geared bike.

You still get a lot of people time trialling on fixed wheeled bikes because on the right course the increased efficiency of a fixie does out-weigh the advantages of gears.


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2010)

I think you're missing the point, it's more about selecting a bike for purpose. If you need something to do everything then you'll probably need gears. If you are able to run a commute specific bike then low maintenance is a very attractive proposition. Everyone's going to be different in their requirements and what works for them. A year round commuter sporting a double or triple seems like expensive hard work to me.

SS, fixed or hub gears make perfect sense for commuting/workhorse duties, beyond that it's really a matter of preference.


----------



## RedBike (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> I'd like to see a SS'er climb the Col du Tourmalet



The tour-de-france did used to be ridden fixed wheel / single speed. 

Even when gears did start to appear the speed of the riders didn't significantly increase.


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

ianrauk said:


> They are not... however a SS rider can be faster then a geared rider.



Yes, depending on the comparative fitness and strength of the riders but surely there must come a point where a rider simply cannot spin the legs any faster and hence cannot go any faster.

Conversely there must come a point on a hill climb where a SS rider simply cannot push hard enough to continue, at which point he/she is walking the rest of the way.

Both of the above scenarios can be compensated for by gearing.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the fun factor and the simplicity/greater efficiency of the bike's construction being advantageous and I haven't ridden one (well, not since I was about eight anyway ) so I can't write from experience. It just seems counter-intuitive to me.


----------



## tyred (18 Feb 2010)

It's all about having the right gear. I've geared my SS bike to suit the terrain I ride in. If I lived in the Alps, then I would just need a SS with a very low gear.


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> I think you're missing the point, it's more about selecting a bike for purpose. If you need something to do everything then you'll probably need gears. If you are able to run a commute specific bike then low maintenance is a very attractive proposition. Everyone's going to be different in their requirements and what works for them. A year round commuter sporting a double or triple seems like expensive hard work to me.
> 
> SS, fixed or hub gears make perfect sense for commuting/workhorse duties, beyond that it's really a matter of preference.



Hub gears I can see being advantageous, I just can't get my head around the overall benefit of a SS.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Feb 2010)

Less mechanicals...

(PS I am not a fixie or SS'er)



Debian said:


> Hub gears I can see being advantageous, I just can't get my head around the overall benefit of a SS.


----------



## Brahan (18 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> If you are able to run a commute specific bike then low maintenance is a very attractive proposition.



I keep hearing about how low maintenence ss/fixed cycles are, but bikes _are_ low maintenace, aren't they? I mean how low maintenance do you want?


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> Hub gears I can see being advantageous, I just can't get my head around the overall benefit of a SS.



I haven't ridden one but have 9 speed(shortly to be sold) and 3 speed hub gears, they work very well for intended purpose. I did try staying in the same gear on my geared bike and managed something around the 300 mile mark, this included a single ride of 115 miles. Obviously I still had all the derailler guff so it wasn't a true SS experience, but I thoroughly enjoyed not considering changing gears.


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

SS & fixies basically make the rider more flexible & widen their efficient power production range. Beyond that the basic fitness & strength of the rider governs the speed of the bike. As MacB says you may simply want a geared bike for general use but if you've got the strength or don't have a problem with spinning away at lower speeds a single speed can be made to do all things for the general utilitarian cyclist.



colinr said:


> I rode fixed all last year, easy enough around Norfolk but it was a struggle keeping up with geared riders on the flat and they absolutely destroyed me downhill. Love it for commuting, have picked up something geared for the weekends though.


There are so many variables, one of the reasons I built my geared road bike was so it was easier to keep the speed *down* to stay in-group on group rides. Flat & down hill I was fine but on the uphill section I simply wanted to keep the speed up much higher than the geared riders & on rolling undulations I found I kept breaking away because of the whole flywheel effect.

Debian, yes & no... I've climbed a 17% hill on a 80" gear by zig-zagging,, this does however increase the distance travelled & it can be a very noticeable distance increase.


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2010)

Brahan said:


> I keep hearing about how low maintenence ss/fixed cycles are, but bikes _are_ low maintenace, aren't they? I mean how low maintenance do you want?



That's why I said it varies from person to person, being bike fans there's probably a lot of people that enjoy the maintenance rituals. But there's also a lot that are quite happy to run a bike into the ground and replace bits when totally knackered. Examples:-

Ianrauk - he has a cleaning regime that would seem like a grind to many of us. At the end of a ride a surgeon could probably carry out an unorthodox operation, using parts from Ians bike, with no risk of infection for the patient. But this is his way and he's happy with it.

MacB - his bikes don't get cleaned and the chain gets a wipe with a rag and a bit of oil every couple of weeks. Chains, cogs, cassettes, chainwheels etc will only get replaced when unrideable, or beyond. He's also happy with his choices but recognises that his style is better suited to an inherently low maintenance setup


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

Brahan said:


> I keep hearing about how low maintenence ss/fixed cycles are, but bikes _are_ low maintenace, aren't they? I mean how low maintenance do you want?


SS/fixie - Clean chain, measure chain, check sprocket & chainring slack, check tension, oil chain.

Geared bike - clean chain, clean mechs, check & fettle (if required) indexing, clean cables & make sure they're running smoothly (replace if needed), measure chain, check sprokets (there are a lot more to check) & chainring (more to check again) slack, oil chain.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Feb 2010)

Edited for you 



GrasB said:


> fixie - Clean chain, measure chain, check sprocket & chainring slack, check tension, oil chain.
> 
> SS - clean chain, measure chain, clean cables & make sure they're running smoothly (replace if needed), check sprokets & chainring slack, check tension, oil chain.
> 
> Geared bike - clean chain, clean mechs, check & fettle (if required) indexing, clean cables & make sure they're running smoothly (replace if needed), measure chain, check sprokets (there are a lot more to check) & chainring (more to check again) slack, oil chain.


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Feb 2010)

Tynan said:


> no straight answers from the SS types I see
> 
> not dissing the SS but gears is quicker, having the range lets you crank on when a SS has run out of legs and accelerate when they're still winding up, I see loads of SS riders on my commute and not seen one yet I didn't pass as the speed increased
> 
> of course a good rider rides faster/better but all things equal, gears wins, those TDF types seem to like gears for some reason


Ah, but all things *aren't* equal. The TDF guys like gears 'cos of all those mountains. If I was going up mountains, I'd want gears too. But on my commute, there are no mountains. And at 'commuting' speeds on flat(tish) ground, the FG beats the geared bike every time. In theory the geared bike can go faster - as you say, there's only so fast a body can spin. In practice, my scalp remains firmly intact after 9 months on the mean streets of London Norf.


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

Must admit I'd like to try a SS bike but I'm very dubious as to whether I'd even like it for my commute. I like to ride keeping a nearly constant, fairly fast cadence at whatever speed I'm travelling.

The low maintenance idea is very appealing for a general commuter hack.


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

ianrauk, exactly what cables does a single speed have that a fixie doesn't?  The only addition to a SS you could add is check the freewheel is running smoothly.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Feb 2010)

Brake cables squire...



GrasB said:


> ianrauk, exactly what cables does a single speed have that a fixie doesn't?  The only addition to a SS you could add is check the freewheel is running smoothly.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

I dont know the top speeds of pro road cyclists, but track cyclists hit some pretty grizly speeds (even if its only over a short sprint), so I dont know where the arguement that road bikes allow you to go faster comes from, depends on the gearing of the fixed wheel bike from where im standing. Of course enlighten me if im wrong here.


----------



## Brahan (18 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> Geared bike - clean chain, clean mechs, check & fettle (if required) indexing, clean cables & make sure they're running smoothly (replace if needed), measure chain, check sprokets (there are a lot more to check) & chainring (more to check again) slack, oil chain.



Sh1t, all I do is oil the dam thing! Had it two years, Shimano Tiagra components, so not exactly top notch but I do a fair few miles in all weathers and the only thing I've had to do is change the rear brakeblocks.

That's what I call low maintenance.

I will be getting a fixed though because I want to ride track next year


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Brake cables squire...



A fixed should have brake cables as well, or at least one?


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Brake cables squire...


I have those to check on the fixie & geared bikes as wee. I was trying to highlight the difference in maintenance of the drive system


----------



## ianrauk (18 Feb 2010)

And I was just being a pedantic arse 



GrasB said:


> I have those to check on the fixie & geared bikes as wee. I was trying to highlight the difference in maintenance of the drive system


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> A fixed should have brake cables as well?



Depends! Personal preference really, not sure of legalities? I dont run a brake atm, although im going to be adding one.


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> I dont know the top speeds of pro road cyclists, but track cyclists hit some pretty grizly speeds (even if its only over a short sprint), so I dont know where the arguement that road bikes allow you to go faster comes from, depends on the gearing of the fixed wheel bike from where im standing. Of course enlighten me if im wrong here.


Yeah but on track you can run big gears because all you'd use the gears for is to get up to speed from then on out you'll be basically at the top end of your gears anyway so what's the point in having the gears?


----------



## tyred (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> Must admit I'd like to try a SS bike but I'm very dubious as to whether I'd even like it for my commute. *I like to ride keeping a nearly constant, fairly fast cadence at whatever speed I'm travelling.*
> 
> The low maintenance idea is very appealing for a general commuter hack.



This is the advantage you would gain from riding a SS. You would very quickly become good at producing a useful power output at a wide range of cadences. When you ride your geared bike again, you'll find you need to make less gear changes.

It doesn't need to cost a fortune. Get an old ten speed racer, (it doesn't have to be a high end one for a hack bike, the important part is that the main components are usable) remove the five speed block, the derailleurs, the cable and changes and throw in bin/parts box, fit a BMX freewheel (or track sprocket if you're going fixed) and space and disk the rear wheel so that it lines up with the inner chainwheel, fit a new chain and off you go.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> Yeah but on track you can run big gears because all you'd use the gears for is to get up to speed from then on out you'll be basically at the top end of your gears anyway so what's the point in having the gears?



Im just saying that you can hit the same speed on the bike, maybe even a bit higher with the reduced weight. So the absolute arguement road bikes let you go faster isnt really correct. If you geared the track to match a road bikes top gear the track/fixed could have the edge of top speed because if the efficiency and reduced weight.

May not be practical, I see that. Just saying in an absolute speed comparison since someone mentioned it.


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

tyred said:


> This is the advantage you would gain from riding a SS. You would very quickly become good at producing a useful power output at a wide range of cadences. When you ride your geared bike again, you'll find you need to make less gear changes.
> 
> It doesn't need to cost a fortune. Get an old ten speed racer, (it doesn't have to be a high end one for a hack bike, the important part is that the main components are usable) remove the five speed block, the derailleurs, the cable and changes and throw in bin/parts box, fit a BMX freewheel (or track sprocket if you're going fixed) and space and disk the rear wheel so that it lines up with the inner chainwheel, fit a new chain and off you go.



But all the above involves bike-building type work!  

I just want someone to lend me a SS!


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> Depends! Personal preference really, not sure of legalities? I dont run a brake atm, although im going to be adding one.



Almost any bike has to have two independent braking systems, i.e. one on each wheel in order to comply with the relevant construction and use regulations. If it doesn't it's illegal to use on a public highway.

What would happen if your chain snapped going down a steep hill?


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> Almost any bike has to have two independent braking systems, i.e. one on each wheel in order to comply with the relevant construction and use regulations. If it doesn't it's illegal to use on a public highway.
> 
> *What would happen if your chain snapped going down a steep hill?*



Thats why Im putting a brake on it (front only), because it can be difficult in certain situations like stopping at lights on a decent unless you go down at a slower than desirable pace, Ive not had the bike long, it was sold as a track bike, hence no break supplied and I just havent got round to putting one on it. At present I havent been on a steep hill as I do training rides on a flat route, I used to ride BMX so I'd use my foot as absolute emergency by instinct I guess. But I will be adding a brake.


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> . But I will be adding a break.



That's cool and sensible as the bike doesn't comply with the law as it stands. It's brake BTW


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> That's cool and sensible. It's brake BTW



yeah im writting 2 things with the words break and brake a lot at the same time, lol

My work paper will probly have brake all throguh it now


----------



## Debian (18 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> yeah im writting 2 things with the words break and brake a lot at the same time, lol
> 
> My work paper will probly have brake all throguh it now


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Feb 2010)

I was concerned about my legality actually, since Ive passed a few police cars on my training route, manchester to stockport and back. But they have never pulled me(even after eyeing me up proper at the lights in stockport), so I wasnt sure.

Doesnt bother me adding a brake though, since I bought the bike because it was cheap and knowing it should be okay for taking on a track (most of them, although I think may need different cranks to go on Manchester Velodrome) with changing some components and a re-spray(or powdercoat) factored into its purchase.


----------



## colinr (18 Feb 2010)

And your legs will thank you for the break when they don't have to do all the braking. Well, mine do.


----------



## fossyant (18 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> I was concerned about my legality actually, since Ive passed a few police cars on my training route, manchester to stockport and back.



You don't have any brakes other than leg braking...... sheesh.....you aren't riding fast enough then.... I'm surprised you don't slam into half the idiots that cut you up TBH....

I need both my brakes and legs to stop this beastie.....


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (18 Feb 2010)

tyred said:


> It doesn't need to cost a fortune. Get an old ten speed racer, (it doesn't have to be a high end one for a hack bike, the important part is that the main components are usable) remove the five speed block, the derailleurs, the cable and changes and throw in bin/parts box, fit a BMX freewheel (or track sprocket if you're going fixed) and space and disk the rear wheel so that it lines up with the inner chainwheel, fit a new chain and off you go.



That's exactly what I did. Except for a cheap fixie I fitted an old BMX freewheel that had completely seized, had someone run a weld on it just to make doubly sure. And put the brakes in the parts bin too.

It rode well, to say it had chromed steel cottered cranks and 27 x 1 1/4 chromed steel wheels.

That was in my previous incarnation as a cyclist about 14 years ago and even then my commute (yes, I commuted on it) was remarkably flat for Sheffield and i was much fitter.

I'm tempted to make one up again at some point. But I will keep the brakes, I'm older and less daft! But not sure how I'd handle my commute now. NONE of the hills I face have any way of conserving momentum, there are junctions at the bottom of every one.


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

fossyant said:


> I need both my brakes and legs to stop this beastie.....


+1 Not to long ago after a stopping from a >35mph hill decent I had to stop in a hurry & I could smell the brake dust burning. Leg braking is all very well but I don't think it could get close to that kinda power & repeatability.


----------



## fossyant (18 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> +1 Not to long ago after a stopping from a >35mph hill decent I had to stop in a hurry & I could smell the brake dust burning. Leg braking is all very well but I don't think it could get close to that kinda power & repeatability.



Lycra tights are good for keeping the knee caps from shooting down the road.....just so you can find them........scrabbling in the undergrowth for them can't be fun.

TBH, I don't know how folk ride no brakes at all..... much more skilled than me obviously.

I took to fixed in May 09 - from not really having ridden fixed before, other than an hour taster session 10 years previously at the Mcr drome). Was fine, bit scarey going down hill for the first couple of weeks, fine now. OK up hills, some 1 in 10's feel like 1 in 5's, but do-able (not recommended really).

Low maintenance for me means no fettling of mechs/cassettes (i.e. keeping clean) - Fixed are really easy to look after for an OCD bike clean freak like me  - the guys at work who ride maybe once a week - their bikes are dirtier than my daily ride.....and they keep saying so. After a wet ride, it's let dry in garage as I get clean/have tea/run kids about, later.....wipe chain, quick oil (dropper bottle only), quick wash with sponge and back away..... takes 10 minutes.

Fixed are good for training..out and out you will not outpace someone of "similar fitness" on a fixed than someone on gears, gears will win - this depends upon the fixed ratio though. If in low 70's then you will lose, but with a good battle  

Lots of Londoners run 80 plus inches and above, then the game is on.......


----------



## GrasB (18 Feb 2010)

I know someone who does & really they just end up be very pushy & take a lot of risks when dodging things, generally pissing people off in the process.

Depends how you're riding & what terrain, your power & how wide your power band is, I developed massive grinding strength before someone suggested moving my saddle & I learnt that I'm a spinner. The result is I have a massive power band which means I can deal with over or under geared bikes reasonably well compared to others. Oh & I'm one of them who can handle an +80" gear for day to day riding with reasonable ease, hell I can do a short 7.3% climb without much problem in that gear.

When racing a geared bike will win but A to B over flowing roads with gentle undulations & the rider doing their own thing I oft find the fixie is faster. It'll be interesting to see the long-term averages between my "BeOne Red-Perl" & the road fixie they're about the same weight. have very similar geom. & are setup with the same aggressive rider position. From HR v's speed the fixie is marginally faster, it benefits from far less drive train mass, but I've not done a flat-out back to back ride over a more challenging route.


----------



## arnuld (19 Feb 2010)

RedBike said:


> Daft question, but whats an FM?



Ah.. forgot to tell, its my cycle. People at BZ say I should name it, so named it Red Spider (as its LA-Sovereign's Spider) , that is feel good name but then I thought *FM* is better because its technically correct to call it my *F*itness *M*achine a I primarily bought it because I sit on computer all day writing C programs and have no exercise. It was very hard in the beginning, it was tough and at some point I think I should buy a motorbike but I wanted to test it for 1 month and I go everywhere on this, I pedal it to all the places I can because its takes care of my health and fitness, my thighs have become stronger, my stamina has become better. Check all the pics on my thread, here is one for you 











RedBike said:


> I've ridden virtually nothing but singlespeed / fixed wheel bikes for the last 6months now.
> 
> IMO single speed bikes work because they are more efficient. The increased efficiency comes partly from the lack of rear mech and partly from the decreased weight.
> 
> ...



Nice small and practical test you have done. I still want to buy a geared one to know what kind of ride it is. Regarding a fixed-gear, Sheldon Brown have scared the hell out of me., so I am never going to ride one. 2nd there are no fixed-gear cycles in India, no one manufactures them.


----------



## arnuld (19 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> Hub gears I can see being advantageous, I just can't get my head around the overall benefit of a SS.



Actually, I think everyone missed my original point. Its not about getting a better stamina and good thighs, you get them anyway if you cycle a lot. The point is The SS-er remains in contact with the environment, he has to think about the road, potholes, rough or fine road, about the traffic, about the people passing by at fast or lower speeds as he is helpless on changing a gear to get more speed and power, he has to continuously remain in sync with his road and environment, that makes him an an alert rider and gives him a better awareness than the geared riders. I take it as a enhancement in the skill required for safer riding.


----------



## Debian (19 Feb 2010)

arnuld said:


> Actually, I think everyone missed my original point. Its not about getting a better stamina and good thighs, you get them anyway if you cycle a lot. The point is The SS-er remains in contact with the environment, he has to think about the road, potholes, rough or fine road, about the traffic, about the people passing by at fast or lower speeds as he is helpless on changing a gear to get more speed and power,* he has to continuously remain in sync with his road and environment, that makes him an an alert rider and gives him a better awareness than the geared riders*. I take it as a enhancement in the skill required for safer riding.



I would utterly refute that. Certainly to use that as almost the only reason to run fixed is, IMHO, nonsense.

I am as aware as I can be when road cycling, and so should every cyclist be whether (s)he runs fixed, SS, 3 gears, 8 gears or 27 gears. I'm certainly aware of potholes, drains, etc, at least I haven't ever unknowingly ridden into one yet and I'm certainly aware of changes in gradient, junctions, etc up ahead as it's far better to change down slightly in advance than wait till you're on the climb/at the red lights, etc.

I think, if anything I'd be less aware of the road on a SS as I'd always be looking for the next problem point and worrying about it rather than being generally road-aware.

I'm not saying you shouldn't ride SS, just that I don't think the awareness reasons you give are entirely justified.


----------



## Garz (19 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> I really can't see how a SS can possibly be faster than a geared bike, all other things being equal. If SS was faster and more efficient wouldn't all the pro racing teams be using them?



All I would say is maybe people are poor at gear selecting, or like to justify the convert to SS. They may encourage fitness by forcing no wimp-out moments uphill but to broadly state they are 'better' is nonsense as debian puts the racing example.


----------



## RedBike (19 Feb 2010)

> Nice small and practical test you have done. I still want to buy a geared one to know what kind of ride it is. Regarding a fixed-gear, Sheldon Brown have scared the hell out of me., so I am never going to ride one. *2nd there are no fixed-gear cycles in India, no one manufactures them.*



I'm running a fixed wheel MTB too at the moment. Because of the much higher bottom bracket compared to a road bike striking the pedal on the road while corning is nearly impossible. The lower gear ratio (than a road bike) also makes the bike much easier to control via the pedals. Its certainly an experiance worth trying. 

I can't see the correct side of the bike from that photo but by the looks of it provided thats a screw on freewheel on the rear wheel all you'd need to do is take that off and replace it with a track sprocket. 

Ideally when using a track sprocket you also need a lefthand threaded lockring to stop the fixed sprocket coming undone, but your hub is very unlikely to have the correct threads for this lockring. However, don't worry, provided you dont start skidding the rear wheel all the time you should be fine without one. Just use a bit of locktite or a right hand threaded old bottom bracket lockring.


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

m


fossyant said:


> You don't have any brakes other than leg braking...... sheesh.....you aren't riding fast enough then.... I'm surprised you don't slam into half the idiots that cut you up TBH....
> 
> I need both my brakes and legs to stop this beastie.....



Yes I cycle conservatively when riding my fixed, I dont hamer it then need to slow down fast, I probly have a moving average of about 15-16mph which is quite slow (I dont have a speedo so could be miles off). I cycle this way because I dont have brakes atm and because Im not used to cycling much in general since my teen years never mind riding fixed, hehe. Plus there are no steep hills that I have encountered yet. Steepest ive encountered is probly the long decent down onto stockports travis brow when approaching from parrs wood, which is not very steep at all. But I do really love the fixed riding. I dont have a preference between SS and Road bikes in terms of performance, I have no idea which is technically better etc etc, I dont really care since I dont compete, I just know I really love riding my fixed around. It feels nice to ride, it feels more relaxed and leisurely. Maybe thats cause with a relativelly expensive road bike(by my standards) I feel I need to make my performance riding it match its price and dont really relax on it.

Takes me 1 hr 45 mins to do a 20 mile ride through city centre traffic. If thats is slow, its slow 


I need to buy a computer too see how fast I am!


----------



## swee'pea99 (19 Feb 2010)

Garz said:


> All I would say is maybe people are poor at gear selecting, or like to justify the convert to SS. They may encourage fitness by forcing no wimp-out moments uphill but to broadly state they are 'better' is nonsense as debian puts the racing example.



To quote St. Sheldon:

"A fixed-gear bike is considerably lighter than a multi-speed bike of comparable quality, due to the absence of the rear brake, derailers, shift levers, and extra sprockets. A fixed-gear bike also has a substantially shorter chain.

A properly set-up fixed gear has a perfectly straight chainline. This, plus the absence of derailer pulleys, makes a real improvement in the drive-train efficiency, an improvement you can feel."


----------



## jimboalee (19 Feb 2010)

I've got a SS.

A Moulton Mini.

14" tyres. Sachs Torpedo 'coaster' rear hub ( with Sturmey Sprocket mounting ).

Original equipment was a 52 tooth ring and a 14 tooth sprocket, giving a gear length of 52". Low and behold, that's the same as Starley's Rover.

The OE crankset had 5 1/2" crank length for a small child.

I've installed a 46 tooth crankset with 6 3/4" cranks so suit me, an adult ??

I changed the sprocket to a 15 tooth to give a 43" gear.

That should get me up most hills.

I have an 18 tooth sprocket spare which would give a 36" gear. 
Now my flat road speed would be 9 mph at 85 rpm.

I'll stick with 43". 11 mph at 85 rpm.


----------



## Debian (19 Feb 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'll stick with 43". 11 mph at 85 rpm.



Now that's another downside for me. It's about my preferred cadence but I can be doing 18 - 20 mph for that on my MTB.


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> Now that's another downside for me. It's about my preferred cadence but I can be doing 18 - 20 mph for that on my MTB.



But of you geared the fixed to the same gearing you are doing that on the mountain with bike surelly you would be equally paced for your cadence if not faster on a fixed? Hell not even a fixed, a single speed or any road bike really?


----------



## Debian (19 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> But of you geared the fixed to the same gearing you are doing that on the mountain with bike surelly you would be equally paced for your cadence if not faster on a fixed? Hell not even a fixed, a single speed or any road bike really?



If it's highly geared enough to be doing that sort of speed then surely there'd be next to no hill climbing ability?


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

You cant have everything! lol

Its pretty obvious that the downfall of a single speed or a fixed is that its going to be less versatile.

I ride a 48 tooth chain ring and 15 tooth down back, I dont know the technical implications of this (i.e. how far travelled per pedal roation) bar its low geared. But I manage fine, on a fairly flat terrain. Can take smallish hills just fine, but obviously the downfall I'll be slowing to a halt and falling off sideways on a really steep hill. I have a road bike for any hilly rides or rides I'll need versatility.


----------



## GrasB (19 Feb 2010)

What's your target cadence? I can climb short 7.5% gradients with an 85" gear (25.3mph @ 100ppm or 45:13 with a 650x23c tyre) & do sustained climbs over 5% on 73" (22mph @ 100ppm or 45:15 with 650x23c tyres). The hills would be harder to climb on a single speed or geared bike of the same gearing


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

Are you talking to me?

If you are, I really dont know my ideal candence on the road, I dont have a computer yet (since I spent like every penny on my road bike). On a stationary bike im most comfortable spinning at about 100 rpm. But I find riding fixed I pedal at a lower cadence than that (probly because its geared so low), and its still very comfortable, I cycle 20 miles and feel very fresh still after, I think I could do 40-50 miles on it over similar terrain.


----------



## tyred (19 Feb 2010)

I ride 46:18 SS on a 27 x 1 1/4" wheel. It's a light bike for a steel frame. I have managed 23-23MPH on the flat but can't keep it up for very long. About 18-19MPH is my normal speed on this bike. I have no idea what cadence that works out and tbh, I don't really care. With this gear, I can climb anything I need to climb in my area but I've had the speed down to about 5MPH on occasion on the steep bits. Yet I find I can't climb this hill any faster on my (admittedly much heavier) slick tyred MTB in a much lower gear ratio. Easier yes, faster no.

I enjoy how responsive the SS feels and the fact that I never have to think about what I'm doing, I don't need to thonk about what gear I should be in, I just get on with it - want to go faster - pedal faster, want to go slower - pedal slower, struggling going up a hill - stand up and pedal. To me, it's cycling in it's simplest form and I like it. The other thing I like is being able to travel in perfect silence apart from a little tyre noise. Derailleur equipped bikes make a lot more noise as the longer chain threads it's way through a load of additional wheels (and I didn't even notice this until I started riding SS and three speed, now I do notice).


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

tyred said:


> I enjoy how responsive the SS feels and the fact that I never have to think about what I'm doing, I don't need to thonk about what gear I should be in, I just get on with it - want to go faster - pedal faster, want to go slower - pedal slower, struggling going up a hill - stand up and pedal. To me, it's cycling in it's simplest form and I like it. The other thing I like is being able to travel in perfect silence apart from a little tyre noise.




This is exactly what I thought once I got over my initial fear riding it. 

I had not cycled much since I was about 14-15 (Used to ride a mountain bike along cycle paths regularly with my dad) my more recent cycling was basically only a 2 mile(4 mile round trip) commute each day on a tiny BMX bike. So I got on a road bike as a total newby to it, and within about 5-10 mile I was loving the simplicity of riding the track bike. Very relaxing, yet inviting to give it some along a nice clean stretch of road.


----------



## Debian (19 Feb 2010)

I must admit I'd love to try one out for the experience.


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

I guess its not for everyone, I only bought mine as a training tool that I could ride abut in the dark and wet without care, it was cheap, it was track legal (with minor modification) and for getting around in the city being able to lock it up without worrying.

Since then, its always been 1st choice over a really nice road bike that cost more than 3 times its price. Of course the road bike is my "favourite", but unless i NEED the gears(which I haven yet, Ive only used the road bike twice, lol), I'd choose the fixed every time. Always wondered the attraction to them, maybe fashion? maybe geniune advantages? For me its just simply good fun, and as added bonus easier to trackstand on  Only about 6 weks riding and im a fixed fanboy!

Certainly dont think they are better or worse than geared bike, just different, with different purposes I guess.

Test ride one at a LBS!


----------



## Garz (19 Feb 2010)

[quote name='swee'pea99']To quote St. Sheldon:

"A fixed-gear bike is considerably lighter than a multi-speed bike of comparable quality, due to the absence of the rear brake, derailers, shift levers, and extra sprockets. A fixed-gear bike also has a substantially shorter chain.
[/QUOTE]

You do realise that people's converted fixies (projects) and some low level cheaper offerings weigh a ton so dont fully believe this 'lighter' rubbish. Granted if I swapped my current bike to a fixie it would be lighter, however the examples I mentioned here actually weigh more than my bike carrying all the gubbins...


----------



## Rob3rt (19 Feb 2010)

Garz said:


> You do realise that people's converted fixies (projects) and some low level cheaper offerings weigh a ton so dont fully believe this 'lighter' rubbish. Granted if I swapped my current bike to a fixie it would be lighter, however the examples I mentioned here actually weigh more than my bike carrying all the gubbins...



I agree. My Fuji Track weighs (by feel - not acuratelly) about the same as my full geared Cannondale road bike.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Feb 2010)

More 'Mumbo Jumbo'.

To decide your optimum gear for a Fixie or SS, firstly you need to evaluate the cadence you are most comfortable at.

Then assess the sustained power you can achieve for the duration of the ride you mean to do.

Then, using your 'roadload' curve, see what speed is applicable to the power you have deduced.

Then, using this speed figure, calculate the gear which gives you this speed at your 'natural' cadence.


It will be different for everyone, so asking and comparing is a waste of time. 

EXAMPLE.

90 rpm.
140 Watts.

Nominal aerodynamic characteristic of Cd 0.88 ( 17.5 mph at 140 W )

67" gives 17.5 mph at 90 rpm.

[This is what I use].


----------



## tyred (19 Feb 2010)

Garz said:


> You do realise that people's converted fixies (projects) and some low level cheaper offerings weigh a ton so dont fully believe this 'lighter' rubbish. Granted if I swapped my current bike to a fixie it would be lighter, however the examples I mentioned here actually weigh more than my bike carrying all the gubbins...



Note that Sheldon said for bikes of comparable quality.

I have two steel roadbikes built from bits and pieces, a Carlton and a Peugeot. I used the lighter Carlton as a SS and put gears on the Pug


----------



## jimboalee (19 Feb 2010)

PS

How to evaluate the 'rolldown' equilibrium speed of a fixie.

Take the chain off and put it in a plastic bag in your pocket...


----------



## PpPete (19 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> I must admit I'd love to try one out for the experience.



Takes a few rides to get used to fixed (at least for an old fart like me) but well worth persisting with. Left both brakes on in case I decided to change to SS, but even after a few weeks I'm pretty sure I'll stay fixed.


----------



## Garz (20 Feb 2010)

tyred said:


> Note that Sheldon said for bikes of comparable quality.
> 
> I have two steel roadbikes built from bits and pieces, a Carlton and a Peugeot. I used the lighter Carlton as a SS and put gears on the Pug



Yeah, but reality is your steel bikes will weigh more than my geared bike and again il mention any cheaper end fixies or old coverted ones will too. So your point about lighter is not always true..


----------



## GrasB (20 Feb 2010)

Carbon geared v's steel fixie isn't that clear cut garz. While my steel fixie is heaver it's a few 100g more than my carbon road bike & due to it's much lighter drive train has _better_ acceleration once I'm over 60ppm!


----------



## jimboalee (20 Feb 2010)

I just done the sums to assess how heavy my SWorks would be if I converted it to a fixie.

About 13 lb 12 oz....


----------



## Garz (20 Feb 2010)

My point is GrasB that most people wont be buying a 'carbon' SS and more likely use an old hack or a entry level new one which will all weigh tons more than your 'carbon' fixie.


----------



## MacB (20 Feb 2010)

Garz said:


> My point is GrasB that most people wont be buying a 'carbon' SS and more likely use an old hack or a entry level new one which will all weigh tons more than your 'carbon' fixie.



That's true but level playing field applies, especially when looking from a utility purpose. If you're speccing a bike of this nature then low maintenance, low cost of replacement parts and ability to leave locked up with lower risk of theft are important. This is true of any utility bike you spec up. To save weight you can up the cost but you also up risk and the cost of new parts. Alternatively you can remove gears.


----------



## Garz (20 Feb 2010)

Yep totally understand Mac, just wasn't totally agreeing with the weight ideology as it depends on what your using and the reason.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Feb 2010)

Coming back to Arnuld’s bike.

Studying the photos, it looks like it is a 42T ring to 18T freewheel sprocket. Confirmation required.

That’s 61” with a 26 inch tyre. 

I’m making some assumptions here but in my experience, that bike might have a drag coefficient of about 1.15 and a weight of 35ish pounds.

This computes to a power demand of 135 Watts ( 7 3/4 kCals/min ) at a speed of just about 14.5 mph. The kind of output to successfully finish an Audax 100 in 5 hours.

The gearing on this bike dictates 80 cadence at 14.5 mph, so Arnuld, you have a bike which has a ‘near perfect’ ratio.

When you get to a 5% hill, you will pull 270ish Watts and climb it at 8 mph at 50 cadence.
When you get to a 10% hill, you will need to pull the same 270ish watts but you will be riding at just under 5 mph at 28 cadence ( probably with your bum hovering off the seat).

Low and behold, when riding up a 10%, speed reduces to 1/3 and the power requirement doubles. 

“Mumbo Jumbo in action”….


----------



## MacB (20 Feb 2010)

jimboalee said:


> “Mumbo Jumbo in action”….



"Mumbo Jimbo" surely?


----------



## jimboalee (21 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> "Mumbo Jimbo" surely?



Yeh...

That's a dreadfully low cadence up a 10% moderate hill, but what else can one do?
I just hope there are few of these where Arnuld rides.

In fact, if each pedalstroke is on the second, it's 30 rpm, which would be an easier rythym to keep.


----------



## GrasB (21 Feb 2010)

Garz said:


> My point is GrasB that most people wont be buying a 'carbon' SS and more likely use an old hack or a entry level new one which will all weigh tons more than your 'carbon' fixie.


Garz, please re-read that because I have a *steel* fixie, admittedly a 753R rather than the more typical 531 but it's still steel.


----------

