David L. Johnson said:Paul Hobson said:trying never to coast. I had a fairly good idea going into it, but I
actually had to go down one lower to make it up the hills (42x18). Then
when I converted my fixie, I went back up one gear (to 42x16) since the
straight, simple drivetrain is (/seems to be) so much more efficient.Seems to be only. A fixed gear is not significantly more efficient than a
derailleur bike. But, on a fixed gear you don't have a choice of shifting
down, so you go up with what you have.
Well, I can get up hills at a reasonable cadence on my fixie (42x16)
that I can't do at a reasonable on the same gear on the geared bike.
Maybe I'm just getting lazy on the geared bike, but here's my perception:
I ride with toe clips/straps on all of my bikes. My geared bike is too
cheap to justify spending more than 1/4 of it's price on new pedals and
shoes and I scored some sweet shimano track pedals for the fixie. My
point is, the two bikes have equally sized dead spots in each pedal
revolution where a certain leg isn't applying much force and the other
leg takes the burden. On the geared bike, if the right leg is in a dead
zone, the left leg is in the only thing moving the pedals. On my fixie,
my previous momentum in the form of my rear wheel already rotating,
*plus* my left leg keep the pedals going.
from Sheldon's Site: http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html
<quote>
Fixed for (e)Fficiency
A fixed wheel 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.
</quote>
Maybe it's in all of our heads, but I can feel the difference.
<snip>
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the words to numbers
if you want to reply to me:.