Don't get it about single speeds

Claire Petersky said:

I know some people are all dewy-eyed about the wonders of single
speeds. But last night, it was dark, and in the mid-30s, with the
gentle rain turning to ice pellets and a cold north wind blowing. I
was in my granniest of granny gears, grinding up a hill (~100m) on the
shoulder of a freeway frontage road, while the cars whizzed by. The
lateness of the hour and the long day at work left me feeling like I
was nearly out of gas as it was, and tried to imagine why, why, why,
anyone would ever want a single speed. As it was, I was periodically
hitting my brifter like one of those crazed cocaine-addicted rats in a
lab experiment, hoping that maybe this time there would be a lower
gear to get me up the hill. As it was, 27 gears weren't enough -- why
would I have wanted just one?

If I had a single speed, I probably would have to walk the bike for
about a third of the commute. Why would I want to do this now? Isn't
the point of riding a bike, *riding* the bike, not pushing it? I mean,
if I lived in some god-forsaken flat place like Florida, maybe, I
could get it. But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's why
Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

I find I tend to ride at approximately constant effort (for a given terrain
-- I use more effort going up a hill than on the flats.) Thus, gearing up
or down is more likely to affect my speed than the amount of work I'm
doing. When climbing, I notice that I'm going slower than I like, and the
natural tendency is to then gear down, but I haven't found that this really
makes as big a difference as I would expect it to. I've been enjoying
riding a fixed gear around Vancouver recently, and although I stand for
hills more, some of them actually seem easier. I don't think I'm any
faster, but in many ways I've found it to be more fun.

All other things being equal, single speeds are lighter and more efficient;
I'm not sure how significant this is, however.

I have yet to take the fixie on a brevet,

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.

Single speeds are fun and help develop efficient pedaling. And they are
fun. Did I say its fun?
As to hills- well they are not great for major climbs but most
experienced riders can get up most moderates hills in a medium gear.
Perhaps you were struggling in your granny but I've never used one on a
road bike. I don't say this to be arrogant but it is likely that folks
with different levels of experience and fitness prefer different types
of riding. I like long hills, several miles at 5 to 10% is a pleasant
way to spend a morning.

Claire Petersky said:

If I had a single speed, I probably would have to walk the bike for
about a third of the commute. Why would I want to do this now? Isn't
the point of riding a bike, *riding* the bike, not pushing it? I mean,
if I lived in some god-forsaken flat place like Florida, maybe, I
could get it. But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's why
Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

From my understanding, you're on the right track: for "townie" bikes--around
town, errand running, flat-land commuting--single speed bikes mean fewer
moving parts, less maintenance, greater durability, reduced weight, and
freedom from shifting.

Me? I'll take /all/ the cogs I can get.

Claire Petersky said:

But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's why
Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

I live in middle Tennessee and it's quite hilly, yet I still ride a SS as
my primary bike. There's only one set of hills in the area that I really
can't do even by standing up, but I never frequented them anyway.

It's all about choosing the right gear. When I first started riding a
single in Chicago, I built a bike w 52x16 gearing and it just wasn't fun
at all, too tall even for such a flat town. Here I've settled upon 42x16
and can climb all necessary hills without a hitch, albeit standing up. The
gearing is so low that I'm forced to spin quickly on descents and the
flats which gets the blood pumping nicely.

What's cool about singles is the simplicity, the silence, and your
connection to the landscape. When it gets steep, stand, that's it. It
allows you to focus on the road, not your bike.

For a day to day commuting/utility bike I think hub gears are the best bet
for most folks. I certainly wouldn't want to ride a single to work every
day in Seattle or San Francisco, but in a few flat cities like Chicago or
Des Moine, why not?

Claire Petersky said:

I know some people are all dewy-eyed about the wonders of single
speeds. But last night, it was dark, and in the mid-30s, with the
gentle rain turning to ice pellets and a cold north wind blowing. I
was in my granniest of granny gears, grinding up a hill (~100m) on the
shoulder of a freeway frontage road, while the cars whizzed by. The
lateness of the hour and the long day at work left me feeling like I
was nearly out of gas as it was, and tried to imagine why, why, why,
anyone would ever want a single speed. As it was, I was periodically
hitting my brifter like one of those crazed cocaine-addicted rats in a
lab experiment, hoping that maybe this time there would be a lower
gear to get me up the hill. As it was, 27 gears weren't enough -- why
would I have wanted just one?

If I had a single speed, I probably would have to walk the bike for
about a third of the commute. Why would I want to do this now? Isn't
the point of riding a bike, *riding* the bike, not pushing it? I mean,
if I lived in some god-forsaken flat place like Florida, maybe, I
could get it. But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's why
Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/

Well Claire,
Do you have the energy to stand and attack the hill in a higher gear?
It works for me sometimes just to get over a 25' high overpass and then
I go back to being seated and grinding again. I went out yesterday after
about 2 weeks off with no long rides and did that, and guess what, it
hurt my legs. I could really feel the burn after the holidays. It might
be that I have gained ten-15 pounds from all my friends over feeding me
but it's hard to turn down a hand prepared dinner an eat salad in insult
the cooks meal. Now if it would only get above 42 degrees F.
Single speeds are for kids on the streets. I can gear down, even on an
overpass and wait for the kids at the top because they are all walking
their single speeds. Those are really just made for kids to goof around
on and will go fast enough for a 'girl impressing(?)' skid or the rear.
My Take on it.
Bill Baka

Bill Baka said:

Claire Petersky said:

I know some people are all dewy-eyed about the wonders of single
speeds. But last night, it was dark, and in the mid-30s, with the
gentle rain turning to ice pellets and a cold north wind blowing. I
was in my granniest of granny gears, grinding up a hill (~100m) on

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shoulder of a freeway frontage road, while the cars whizzed by. The
lateness of the hour and the long day at work left me feeling like

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was nearly out of gas as it was, and tried to imagine why, why,

why,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anyone would ever want a single speed. As it was, I was

periodically

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hitting my brifter like one of those crazed cocaine-addicted rats

in a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lab experiment, hoping that maybe this time there would be a lower
gear to get me up the hill. As it was, 27 gears weren't enough --

why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would I have wanted just one?

If I had a single speed, I probably would have to walk the bike for
about a third of the commute. Why would I want to do this now?

Isn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the point of riding a bike, *riding* the bike, not pushing it? I

mean,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if I lived in some god-forsaken flat place like Florida, maybe, I
could get it. But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's

why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/

Well Claire,
Do you have the energy to stand and attack the hill in a higher gear?
It works for me sometimes just to get over a 25' high overpass and

then

Quoted message said:

I go back to being seated and grinding again. I went out yesterday

after

Quoted message said:

about 2 weeks off with no long rides and did that, and guess what, it

Quoted message said:

hurt my legs. I could really feel the burn after the holidays. It

might

Quoted message said:

be that I have gained ten-15 pounds from all my friends over feeding

me

Quoted message said:

but it's hard to turn down a hand prepared dinner an eat salad in

insult

Quoted message said:

the cooks meal. Now if it would only get above 42 degrees F.
Single speeds are for kids on the streets. I can gear down, even on

an

Quoted message said:

overpass and wait for the kids at the top because they are all

walking

Quoted message said:

their single speeds. Those are really just made for kids to goof

around

Quoted message said:

on and will go fast enough for a 'girl impressing(?)' skid or the

rear.

Quoted message said:

My Take on it.
Bill Baka

Bill I think you are confusing a single speed kids or city bikes with
a road bike set up as a single speed fixed gear. Differnt beasts with
different purposes.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

I've been enjoying
riding a fixed gear around Vancouver recently, and although I stand for
hills more, some of them actually seem easier. I don't think I'm any
faster, but in many ways I've found it to be more fun.

With all that standing, I'm wondering if maybe having
solid steel cranks on SS or fixed-gear bikes might be
a consideration?

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

With all that standing, I'm wondering if maybe having
solid steel cranks on SS or fixed-gear bikes might be
a consideration?

Sure, why not? The cheapest thing you could try is a BMX one piece
crankset--though I don't know if the spacing's the same as a road bike's
BB.

Realistically, if one was worried about durability, I'd think using a ss
mtb (or cxcross) crankset might offer more security.

I've never seen a modern track bike with steel cranks and those guys make
me look like a 98lb weakling, so no worries here.

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:07:53 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, maxo

Quoted message said:

Here I've settled upon 42x16
and can climb all necessary hills without a hitch, albeit standing up. The
gearing is so low that I'm forced to spin quickly on descents and the
flats which gets the blood pumping nicely.

I got sick of spinning out so switched to 44x16. It just feels slower
on the same hills but faster on the flats and easier on the downhills.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:07:53 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, maxo

Quoted message said:

Here I've settled upon 42x16 and can climb all necessary hills without a
hitch, albeit standing up. The gearing is so low that I'm forced to spin
quickly on descents and the flats which gets the blood pumping nicely.

I got sick of spinning out so switched to 44x16. It just feels slower
on the same hills but faster on the flats and easier on the downhills.

I've been riding a 42x14, which has been pretty good for me on relatively
short rides. I've even managed to descend from Burnaby mountain without
braking a couple times in this gear (this was even more tiring than going
up!). If I start going on longer rides I might switch over to the 16 cog
wheel.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.

Zoot Katz said:

Quoted message said:

Here I've settled upon 42x16
and can climb all necessary hills without a hitch, albeit standing up. The
gearing is so low that I'm forced to spin quickly on descents and the
flats which gets the blood pumping nicely.

I got sick of spinning out so switched to 44x16.

Too hilly for such a combo round here, unless you're really picky 'bout
your route.

I do run a converted freehub w/ bmx cog and spacers, so no spin outs for
me, just lazy coasting. :P

In article <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

Zoot Katz said:

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:07:53 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, maxo

Quoted message said:

Here I've settled upon 42x16 and can climb all necessary hills without a
hitch, albeit standing up. The gearing is so low that I'm forced to spin
quickly on descents and the flats which gets the blood pumping nicely.

I got sick of spinning out so switched to 44x16. It just feels slower
on the same hills but faster on the flats and easier on the downhills.

I've been riding a 42x14, which has been pretty good for me on relatively
short rides. I've even managed to descend from Burnaby mountain without
braking a couple times in this gear (this was even more tiring than going
up!). If I start going on longer rides I might switch over to the 16 cog
wheel.

Okay, this is getting weird: my fixie is set up with a 40x16, which is a
far lower gear. When did I turn into the wimp?

http://www.randonneurs.bc.ca/pacpop/times_time/2004_t.html

-RjC.
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Claire Petersky) said:

I know some people are all dewy-eyed about the wonders of single
speeds. But last night, it was dark, and in the mid-30s, with the
gentle rain turning to ice pellets and a cold north wind blowing. I
was in my granniest of granny gears, grinding up a hill (~100m) on the
shoulder of a freeway frontage road, while the cars whizzed by. The
lateness of the hour and the long day at work left me feeling like I
was nearly out of gas as it was, and tried to imagine why, why, why,
anyone would ever want a single speed. As it was, I was periodically
hitting my brifter like one of those crazed cocaine-addicted rats in a
lab experiment, hoping that maybe this time there would be a lower
gear to get me up the hill. As it was, 27 gears weren't enough -- why
would I have wanted just one?

Horses for courses. Singlespeeds and fixies aren't for those days when
you're cold, tired, and heavily laden. They're for when you're strong,
vital, and want to do some work.

Quoted message said:

If I had a single speed, I probably would have to walk the bike for
about a third of the commute. Why would I want to do this now? Isn't
the point of riding a bike, *riding* the bike, not pushing it? I mean,
if I lived in some god-forsaken flat place like Florida, maybe, I
could get it. But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's why
Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

My commuter has 16 speeds (no granny), and I enjoy having them. But I
can do the same ride on a fixed gear, and I sometimes do.

My own experience is that descending hills on a fixie is very
unpleasant, but everything else feels good. I'm planning to build the
other side of the wheel with a freewheel, and experiment with that.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

Ryan Cousineau said:

My own experience is that descending hills on a fixie is very
unpleasant, but everything else feels good. I'm planning to build the
other side of the wheel with a freewheel, and experiment with that.

You have to go with the flow on a downhill. It can be exhilarating.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |

In article <[email hidden]>,

maxo said:

Tom Keats said:

With all that standing, I'm wondering if maybe having
solid steel cranks on SS or fixed-gear bikes might be
a consideration?

Sure, why not? The cheapest thing you could try is a BMX one piece
crankset--though I don't know if the spacing's the same as a road bike's
BB.

Spacing? The problem is that an Ashtabula one-piece crank won't fit
through any other BB in common use, because a BB designed for a
one-piece crank is way bigger in diameter.

Solid steel cranks? I don't think so. Even Chalo manages to get by with
pinch-bolted, splined, _tubular_ steel cranks, and he breaks everything.

Quoted message said:

Realistically, if one was worried about durability, I'd think using a ss
mtb (or cxcross) crankset might offer more security.

A great number of colossally strong road cranks are now available. The
integrated designs look suspiciously indestructible.

Quoted message said:

I've never seen a modern track bike with steel cranks and those guys make
me look like a 98lb weakling, so no worries here.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

(Claire Petersky) said:

I know some people are all dewy-eyed about the wonders of single
speeds. But last night, it was dark, and in the mid-30s, with the
gentle rain turning to ice pellets and a cold north wind blowing. I
was in my granniest of granny gears, grinding up a hill (~100m) on the
shoulder of a freeway frontage road, while the cars whizzed by. The
lateness of the hour and the long day at work left me feeling like I
was nearly out of gas as it was, and tried to imagine why, why, why,
anyone would ever want a single speed. As it was, I was periodically
hitting my brifter like one of those crazed cocaine-addicted rats in a
lab experiment, hoping that maybe this time there would be a lower
gear to get me up the hill.

I love that turn of phrase...

Quoted message said:

As it was, 27 gears weren't enough -- why
would I have wanted just one?

Would you actually have been significantly more or less miserable if instead of
spinning and huffing and looking for a lower gear, you were standing and huffing
and slowly stomping on one pedal then the other?

Quoted message said:

If I had a single speed, I probably would have to walk the bike for
about a third of the commute. Why would I want to do this now? Isn't
the point of riding a bike, *riding* the bike, not pushing it? I mean,
if I lived in some god-forsaken flat place like Florida, maybe, I
could get it. But anywhere where there's hills? Forget it! That's why
Goddess gave us deraillers! Right?

As a resident of Tampa, weather is presently at the lower edge of T-shirt
comfortable, I must wonder how anyone commuting in freezing rain on a bicycle
can call Florida "god-forsaken."

Ron
going for a ride after work today. Hmmm, it'll still be light out. God-forsaken
indeed.

Zoot Katz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:07:53 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, maxo
<[email hidden]> wrote:

I got sick of spinning out so switched to 44x16. It just feels
slower on the same hills but faster on the flats and easier on the
downhills.

When I built up my new fixie on a Miyata nine 14 frame recently I
transferred my rear 16 sprocket but wanted to keep the neat 47 ring
that came on my new cranks. I had been riding a 42/16 so thought that
the 47 would be too much but I hardly notice any difference around
Vancouver and the Dunbar hill feels the same. Whoda thunk.

gds said:

Bill Baka wrote:

Bill I think you are confusing a single speed kids or city bikes with
a road bike set up as a single speed fixed gear. Differnt beasts with
different purposes.

Not really since the big adult cruisers are pretty much the same animal
but made for a bigger rider. I would personally go for the 3 speed
Sturmey Archer hub if I could, even if I had to go the Ebay route. That
would make it a little more 'classic' to me.
All the kids bikes are 20", zero 26" cruisers here except for the bike
shops. The people tell me they do sell them but not a whole lot and just
about never for a kid. More like a present from an adult to another
adult. I like cruisers too for the flats but even getting over a road
overpass can be a chore if you are a bit tired.
I just don't happen to own a cruiser right now because I don't have room
and I am considering buying a fourth car as a restoration project (1964
Dodge Dart slant 6). I like to tinker, be it bike or car or (heaven
forbid) something of my wifes or daughters.
On the cruisers I can see myself doing about 10 MPH all day on yard sale
day looking for antiques, a hobby I just can't seem to lose.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

maxo said:

Tom Keats said:

With all that standing, I'm wondering if maybe having
solid steel cranks on SS or fixed-gear bikes might be
a consideration?

Sure, why not? The cheapest thing you could try is a BMX one piece
crankset--though I don't know if the spacing's the same as a road bike's
BB.

Realistically, if one was worried about durability, I'd think using a ss
mtb (or cxcross) crankset might offer more security.

I've never seen a modern track bike with steel cranks and those guys make
me look like a 98lb weakling, so no worries here.

I've heard some scary stories of crank failures; I don't
recall any involving track bikes, though. OTOH, how many
track racers stand to power up hilly roads
(on their track bikes)?

The last store-bought bike I had was subject to a warning
about defective cranks, and was advised to bring it back
to the shop for replacement if the serial # had a certain
prefix.

Jobst submits an interesting and informative treatise on
cranks and their fallibilities (especially boutique cranks)
in section 8f.10 of the FAQ.

As a fixer-upper of old bikes, sometimes aging cranks
and handlebars worry me.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca