Fixed gear?
Maybe because I'm 50, love technology, prefer to keep my intestines on this side of my abdominal wall OR all of the above, I just do not understand the love of "fixies". I mean what is so wrong with shifting gears. I just can't see myself enjoying my 25 mile RT commute without gears.
They certainly look cool but can someone please explain these brakeless beauties to me.
Views: 2918
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eli on
-
Funny, I'd think the derailleur-geared road bike would be more analogous to the Formula 1 car. After all, the most-ridden commuting/utility bike in the world, the Flying Pigeon, is a single speed.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on
-
Aren't all bikes manual? :-)
T.K. 8.4 mi said:This is more like the car equivalent of Manual transmission vs Automatic transmission.
-
Permalink Reply by T.K. 3.5 mi on
-
True, True.
The thought was that both are ways to feel more 'connected' with your experience. You get more feedback from the machine with each. Also, both take more skill and concentration, and therefore might give a more rewarding experience to the user.
Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:Aren't all bikes manual? :-)
T.K. 8.4 mi said:This is more like the car equivalent of Manual transmission vs Automatic transmission.
-
Permalink Reply by Gecko on
-
I don't consider normal sidepull caliper brakes very effective, so when I say "very good" I mean V-brakes (or discs, but that's another discussion), and fixed-gear frames don't normally come with canti mounts. There are also usually no fender/rack eyelets nor enough clearance for true fenders, so you end up with clip-on everything. It's a bit like adding fenders and a luggage rack to an F1 car to make up for the fact that it has no trunk.
You're right about the transmission thing, but I would say that in terms of everyday usability, fixed gear has more in common with a racing sequential gearbox and multiple-plate clutch rather than a normal H-pattern manual with a single-plate clutch. It's a lot harder to use one of those on the street.
You could ride 47/16 on a velodrome and be fine. My single speed has full fenders and a rack and is geared 42/16 so I can start faster from a standing stop at the expense of top speed (I usually ride comfortably at a 14-16mph average). Just like driving, commuting by bike is not a race and I don't need to be uber fast, just to get there in a timely fashion with everything I need to carry.
My whole disagreement with fixed gear is this: Why waste energy? You save energy when coasting so you can use it again when you need to pedal. That's why coasting bikes are so popular! With fixed gear, you have to work harder ALL THE TIME, which doesn't make any sense. I hardly coast on my single speed anyway, and the only time I do is when I'm timing the lights, or there is an obvious obstacle that I have to avoid, or if I'm turning very sharply. Most fixed gear 'advocates' are just chest-thumping and peacocking. "Hey, I ride a stupid racing bike for the wrong use and I work harder than all of you, therefore I'm better. It's more ZEN, man." Do us all a favor and shut up.
T.K. 8.4 mi said:Nick, you could just as easily say:
"If I need to commute, I can use a fixed gear with fenders and very good front and rear brakes."
I have never ridden a velodrome, but assume that people use much bigger gear ratios. That would probably be a bad choice on the road, for your knees and your safety. Bring that ratio down to something more manageable (I use 47/16), and that bike is essentially analogous to your single speed. This is more like the car equivalent of Manual transmission vs Automatic transmission.
-
-
Fair enough.
T.K. 8.4 mi said:True, True.
The thought was that both are ways to feel more 'connected' with your experience. You get more feedback from the machine with each. Also, both take more skill and concentration, and therefore might give a more rewarding experience to the user.
Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:Aren't all bikes manual? :-)
T.K. 8.4 mi said:This is more like the car equivalent of Manual transmission vs Automatic transmission.
-
Permalink Reply by BruceBikes on
-
This is a good analogy Nick. I generally agree with you on most of your points, but I would argue that in the case of a "fixed gear", it's not a type of bike, but rather a type of transmission.
Don't confuse track-inspired, day-glo, minimalist fixies with sensible, well-mannered, well-equipped fixed-gear commuters.
Nick G said:Nobody uses a BMX to commute every day unless they don't have any other choice. I prefer to use the right tool for the job. If I want to jump ramps and do tricks, I ride a BMX. If I need to commute, I use a single speed with a freewheel, fenders, and very good front and rear brakes. If I want to ride off-road, I use a mountain bike. If I liked riding on a velodrome, I would use a fixed gear. Just because you CAN use a particular bike for a particular use, doesn't mean it's the correct tool for that use.
I like to use a car analogy when explaining fixed gear bikes to non-bike people. Let's say your normal commuting street bike is like a Ford Focus: middle of the road, not too fast, but peppy enough for city driving, and reliable and comfortable. Your mountain bike is your lifted Jeep, with big fat tires and poor gas mileage. It's comfy and fast and goes off road very well, but if you used it every day you'd be annoyed at its shortcomings. A fixed gear on the other hand, is like driving a NASCAR or an F1 car. It's technology that has been specialized for racing on a track, not down the road. Imagine trying to drive an F1 car on the street. The turning radius is horrible, the suspension is too stiff, the ground clearance is too low, it's uncomfortable, and the slick tires wear out really fast and don't provide adequate all-weather traction. Sure it would be fun once or twice to drive a race car on the street, but I'd much rather drive a Ford Focus every day.
That's why I don't ride a fixie.
-
-
In my experience, my fixed gear is the most efficient of all my bikes. It is the lightest and has the most direct and efficient transmission of power. I find it accelerates better, requires less energy to maintain speed and generally cruises easier at a higher speed.
Also, just because the pedals are spinning doesn't mean you're using energy. You still "coast" on a fixed gear - you stop applying power and just sort of let your legs spin around with the pedals.
Nick G said:My whole disagreement with fixed gear is this: Why waste energy? You save energy when coasting so you can use it again when you need to pedal. That's why coasting bikes are so popular! With fixed gear, you have to work harder ALL THE TIME, which doesn't make any sense.
-
-
Ok so you put a racing sequential gearbox and multiple plate clutch (fixed gear) in a Ford Focus (your commuter). What did you gain? Maybe it's easier to maintain, maybe it made the car slightly faster, it definitely lets you know more what's going on with the car and it's definitely harder to use effectively on the street, but a normal H-pattern box (single speed freewheel) would give you all of that when compared with an automatic (geared freewheel) too.
BruceBikes said:This is a good analogy Nick. I generally agree with you on most of your points, but I would argue that in the case of a "fixed gear", it's not a type of bike, but rather a type of transmission.
Don't confuse track-inspired, day-glo, minimalist fixies with sensible, well-mannered, well-equipped fixed-gear commuters.
-
-
Efficiency! A bicycle is a machine, so efficiency is key to its operation. It is your lightest bike, which automatically skews the efficiency in its favor. Your acceleration and top speed are all a byproduct of the higher efficiency due to the light weight. However, efficiency is the ratio of work output to work input, therefore because you have to work LESS on a freewheel bike OF THE SAME WEIGHT because you're able to take advantage of coasting down grades, the mechanical efficiency of a freewheel bike is HIGHER than a fixed gear. Your work input is higher to reach the same work output. It's simple physics.
BruceBikes said:In my experience, my fixed gear is the most efficient of all my bikes. It is the lightest and has the most direct and efficient transmission of power. I find it accelerates better, requires less energy to maintain speed and generally cruises easier at a higher speed.
Also, just because the pedals are spinning doesn't mean you're using energy. You still "coast" on a fixed gear - you stop applying power and just sort of let your legs spin around with the pedals.
Nick G said:My whole disagreement with fixed gear is this: Why waste energy? You save energy when coasting so you can use it again when you need to pedal. That's why coasting bikes are so popular! With fixed gear, you have to work harder ALL THE TIME, which doesn't make any sense.
-
-
I wouldn't equate a fixed gear with a racing sequential gearbox. A fixed gear is the most basic, simple type of transmission ever used on bikes, and it's what was used originally on bikes before the technology came along to create internally geared hubs and derailleurs.
To extend the analogy, the sequential gearbox of the bike world is the 11-speed, carbon fiber/titanium, electronic, road-racing derailleur. For the same reasons you point out, I would not recommend one of these on your everyday commuter, be it bike or car.
Nick G said:
Ok so you put a racing sequential gearbox and multiple plate clutch (fixed gear) in a Ford Focus (your commuter). What did you gain? Maybe it's easier to maintain, maybe it made the car slightly faster, it definitely lets you know more what's going on with the car and it's definitely harder to use effectively on the street, but a normal H-pattern box (single speed freewheel) would give you all of that when compared with an automatic (geared freewheel) too.
-
-
Semantics. You're only thinking about the number of gears, not its application, ease of use, and intended purpose.
Fixed gear is for racing on a track, sequential gearbox is for racing on a track. Neither of these are effective or useful on a long-term basis for commuting unless you like showing off or punishing yourself for no good reason when there are better, more efficient solutions out there.
BruceBikes said:I wouldn't equate a fixed gear with a racing sequential gearbox. A fixed gear is the most basic, simple type of transmission ever used on bikes, and it's what was used originally on bikes before the technology came along to create internally geared hubs and derailleurs.
To extend the analogy, the sequential gearbox of the bike world is the 11-speed, carbon fiber/titanium, electronic, road-racing derailleur. For the same reasons you point out, I would not recommend one of these on your everyday commuter, be it bike or car.
Nick G said:
Ok so you put a racing sequential gearbox and multiple plate clutch (fixed gear) in a Ford Focus (your commuter). What did you gain? Maybe it's easier to maintain, maybe it made the car slightly faster, it definitely lets you know more what's going on with the car and it's definitely harder to use effectively on the street, but a normal H-pattern box (single speed freewheel) would give you all of that when compared with an automatic (geared freewheel) too.
-
-
The light weight is a byproduct of not needing shifters, deraillleurs, free-hubs, cassettes, extra chainrings, cables, cable housing, extra brake calipers, and extra brake levers. The bike is otherwise the same as a normal road bike, but lighter.
Acceleration and top speed are indeed the byproduct of light weight, but also the byproduct of less rotational mass in the crank arms, less rotational mass in the rear well, less moving mass in a shorter chain, and less friction from derailleurs and pulleys. This again would not be possible unless it were a fixed gear.
From physics, work is the result of a force acting on a body. When riding downhill on a fixed gear, I need to apply no force to the pedals, so I am doing no work. A fixed gear is equally as efficient as a geared bike in this respect.
Nick G said:Efficiency! A bicycle is a machine, so efficiency is key to its operation. It is your lightest bike, which automatically skews the efficiency in its favor. Your acceleration and top speed are all a byproduct of the higher efficiency due to the light weight. However, efficiency is the ratio of work output to work input, therefore because you have to work LESS on a freewheel bike OF THE SAME WEIGHT because you're able to take advantage of coasting down grades, the mechanical efficiency of a freewheel bike is HIGHER than a fixed gear. Your work input is higher to reach the same work output. It's simple physics.
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
