Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Lowest Possible Gears

Started by cmcanulty · · Last activity · 123 posts · 6,482 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
10 April 2007
Last activity
12 May 2007
Original author
cmcanulty
Posts
123
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
6,482
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 81–100 of 123
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    At this point, on every single trip, the guide would announce to
    everybody not to worry -- should the unthinkable happen, there are
    in fact two giant springs at the bottom to slow us down ... Manitou
    Springs and Colorado Springs.

    Interestingly, the M&PP RR bought its current trains from SLM in
    Switzerland where the units were tested before shipping to the USA.
    The M&PP is standard gauge while nearly all cogwheel RR's in
    Switzerland are 1000mm or 800mm gauge, so testing was limited to only
    one RR, the Rigi. The Rigi was Riggenbach's first Swiss cogwheel
    endeavor and used his preferred gear rack (Riggenbach Rack). M&PP
    uses ABT rack, the two being incompatible, SLM installed Riggenbach
    cogwheels for the test.

    It should be noted that the Pikes Peak Cog Railway,
    which I believe is still operating, is a different animal than
    the Manitou Incline, which stopped running long ago.

    R


  2. Quoted message said:

    Some riders with severe leg problems get around the stalling problem
    by switching to tricycles for stability.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    The trike is the ultimate low speed climber. When I was recuperating
    from a near terminal illness I rode a tadpole trike up a steep hill
    and people were walking past me.....A front triple coupled with a 3
    speed rear internal hub is the cheapest wide range gearing.
    Towing the dog on a lead is IMO dangerous for the dog.

  3. Clive George said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > If a hill is so steep that your calves hurt after you push a bike up
    > it, how would your calves feel if you managed to pedal up the same
    > hill, straining to force the pedals around the dead spot?

    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Most of my leisure
    riding is done on a tandem. We're not terribly strong, so on MTB stuff we
    get to push quite a lot, and my calves hurt.

    [snip]

    Dear Clive,

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  4. On 17 Apr 2007 03:34:59 -0700, lightninglad <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Towing the dog on a lead is IMO dangerous for the dog.

    Definitely. Be sure to have the dog tow you!

  5. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we push.
    We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on our legs.
    The problem is traction.

    What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?

    cheers,
    clive

  6. Quoted message said:
    Clive George said:
    Quoted message said:

    > <[email hidden]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> If a hill is so steep that your calves hurt after you push a bike up
    >> it, how would your calves feel if you managed to pedal up the same
    >> hill, straining to force the pedals around the dead spot?

    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Most of my leisure
    riding is done on a tandem. We're not terribly strong, so on MTB stuff we
    get to push quite a lot, and my calves hurt.

    [snip]

    Dear Clive,

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    1) My calves don't hurt on steeper hills that I can ride because they
    are smoother then shallower hills that I can't ride because of assorted
    obstacles.

    2) Sometimes due to an obstacle at the bottom of a hill you have to get
    off and push, other times you clear the obstacle and ride. Those times
    where I get off and push my calves hurt, those times when I'm able to
    clear the obstacle and ride my calves don't hurt.

    Need more scenarios? Maybe you should go experiment rather than ask
    endless questions.

    Greg
    --
    The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
    http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

    Dethink to survive - Mclusky

  7. Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push. We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on
    our legs. The problem is traction.

    What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?

    Time for Mr Fogel to get out and experiment.

    Greg

    --
    The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
    http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

    Dethink to survive - Mclusky

  8. Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we push.
    We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on our legs.
    The problem is traction.

    What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?

    cheers,
    clive

    Dear Clive,

    First you said that you push quite a lot on the MTB stuff because
    you're not terribly strong:

    "Most of my leisure riding is done on a tandem. We're not terribly
    strong, so on MTB stuff we get to push quite a lot, and my calves
    hurt.

    But now you're saying that you're so strong that you can pedal up
    paved roads just as steep with heavier load--you just push up MTB
    trails because there's not enough traction:

    "Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push. We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on
    our legs. The problem is traction."

    See why I'm not following the logic?

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  9. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push.
    We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on our legs.
    The problem is traction.

    What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?

    cheers,
    clive

    Dear Clive,

    First you said that you push quite a lot on the MTB stuff because
    you're not terribly strong:

    "Most of my leisure riding is done on a tandem. We're not terribly
    strong, so on MTB stuff we get to push quite a lot, and my calves
    hurt.

    But now you're saying that you're so strong that you can pedal up
    paved roads just as steep with heavier load--you just push up MTB
    trails because there's not enough traction:

    "Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push. We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on
    our legs. The problem is traction."

    See why I'm not following the logic?

    Quit nitpicking and start listening.

    Greg
    --
    "What have you got in that paper bag?
    Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
    Ain't got no time for Western medicine
    I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith

  10. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    you have to get off and push.

    Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    basis for comparison?

    Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push.
    We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on our legs.
    The problem is traction.

    What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?

    First you said that you push quite a lot on the MTB stuff because
    you're not terribly strong:

    "Most of my leisure riding is done on a tandem. We're not terribly
    strong, so on MTB stuff we get to push quite a lot, and my calves
    hurt.

    But now you're saying that you're so strong that you can pedal up
    paved roads just as steep with heavier load--you just push up MTB
    trails because there's not enough traction:

    "Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push. We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on
    our legs. The problem is traction."

    See why I'm not following the logic?

    Not really, no. If we were stronger, we'd be riding faster, so wouldn't
    suffer traction problems as much. Of course at this point in the argument,
    it helps to have experience rather than just theory, otherwise you're stuck
    with having to simply believe that what I state is true. I'll give you a
    hint though : the traction problems aren't what you'd get with a simple
    reduction of the coefficient of friction, they're more about the effects of
    having occasional bits of loose stuff on the trails.

    Now, you see my question above, the one you quoted? I'll repeat it for your
    benefit : "What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?"

    How about an answer to it?

    You're terribly concerned with picking holes in my argument, despite the
    fact they're based on real world experience. Is the problem that your
    argument is purely based on theory, and has no practical basis? In which
    case it would be sensible to update your theory to take into account
    people's real life experiences - that's how science works. If you don't
    believe what people say, arrange an experiment to disprove it - and go and
    perform that experiment. Yes, it's harder work than arguing on a news
    group - but I've seen that you are prepared to take this step in other
    cases, so you are at least aware that it's a very good way of giving your
    argument some credence.

    cheers,
    clive

  11. Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    > It sounds now as if your calves hurt when the trail is so steep that
    > you have to get off and push.
    >
    > Since you're not riding up that steep section of trail, what's the
    > basis for comparison?

    Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push.
    We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on our legs.
    The problem is traction.

    What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?

    First you said that you push quite a lot on the MTB stuff because
    you're not terribly strong:

    "Most of my leisure riding is done on a tandem. We're not terribly
    strong, so on MTB stuff we get to push quite a lot, and my calves
    hurt.

    But now you're saying that you're so strong that you can pedal up
    paved roads just as steep with heavier load--you just push up MTB
    trails because there's not enough traction:

    "Actually, we can and do ride up roads as steep as some of the ones we
    push. We also do it with more weight on the road bike, = more force on
    our legs. The problem is traction."

    See why I'm not following the logic?

    Not really, no. If we were stronger, we'd be riding faster, so wouldn't
    suffer traction problems as much. Of course at this point in the argument,
    it helps to have experience rather than just theory, otherwise you're stuck
    with having to simply believe that what I state is true. I'll give you a
    hint though : the traction problems aren't what you'd get with a simple
    reduction of the coefficient of friction, they're more about the effects of
    having occasional bits of loose stuff on the trails.

    Now, you see my question above, the one you quoted? I'll repeat it for your
    benefit : "What's your experience in this area, or are you just theorising?"

    How about an answer to it?

    You're terribly concerned with picking holes in my argument, despite the
    fact they're based on real world experience. Is the problem that your
    argument is purely based on theory, and has no practical basis? In which
    case it would be sensible to update your theory to take into account
    people's real life experiences - that's how science works. If you don't
    believe what people say, arrange an experiment to disprove it - and go and
    perform that experiment. Yes, it's harder work than arguing on a news
    group - but I've seen that you are prepared to take this step in other
    cases, so you are at least aware that it's a very good way of giving your
    argument some credence.

    cheers,
    clive

    Dear Clive,

    I'm concerned that that the experiences presented in this thread seem
    ill-digested.

    One voice of experience stated that he could pedal up a hill at 4 mph,
    but could only walk up it at 1 mph. This extremely strange experience
    was explained when he revealed that he was forced to walk up it
    because he ate no breakfast and exhausted himself before reaching the
    hill.

    You experience is some tangled business about different hills,
    strength or traction, or whatever. First you couldn't climb the mtb
    hill because you weren't strong enough. Then you changed to claims
    about speed and traction on different hills. The rest of us can hardly
    test such claims.

    I argue that the knees are overbent. Since the pedal circle requires
    the feet to rise considerably higher than a normal stairway, this
    seems reasonable.

    I argue that the bicycling crouch provides the rider with poor
    leverage for the high-force demands of ultra-steep climbs. Since the
    first thing racers do to attack a hill is to "stand" as much as they
    can from their seated position and improve their hip angle to at least
    the posture of a chimpanzee, this also seems reasonable.

    You argue that your experience on different hills of unnamed grade
    with unnamed gearing feels different and that all other experience
    must support your feelings.

    If you've explained how this works, I've missed it.

    What mechanism do you believe makes a bicycle whose pedals move one
    foot when the tire moves one foot more effective than walking up a
    hill steep enough to require such gearing?

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  12. Quoted message said:

    One voice of experience stated that he could pedal up a hill at 4 mph,
    but could only walk up it at 1 mph. This extremely strange experience
    was explained when he revealed that he was forced to walk up it
    because he ate no breakfast and exhausted himself before reaching the
    hill.

    I don't think he said he could only walk up it at 1 mph. I believe
    that's what he felt more comfortable with.

    Quoted message said:


    What mechanism do you believe makes a bicycle whose pedals move one
    foot when the tire moves one foot more effective than walking up a
    hill steep enough to require such gearing?

    For the 12th time: THE ERGONOMICS OF PUSHING A BIKE.

    Greg

    --
    The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
    http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

    Dethink to survive - Mclusky

  13. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm concerned that that the experiences presented in this thread seem
    ill-digested.

    I'm concerned that you seem terminally unable to answer questions. Once
    again : What experience do you have in this field? How much pushing up steep
    hills of heavy bikes have you actually done?

    Here's a nice photo:

    http://www.goatchurch.org.uk/ctrips/iom/pbike.jpg

    Quoted message said:

    One voice of experience stated that he could pedal up a hill at 4 mph,
    but could only walk up it at 1 mph. This extremely strange experience
    was explained when he revealed that he was forced to walk up it
    because he ate no breakfast and exhausted himself before reaching the
    hill.

    You experience is some tangled business about different hills,
    strength or traction, or whatever. First you couldn't climb the mtb
    hill because you weren't strong enough. Then you changed to claims
    about speed and traction on different hills. The rest of us can hardly
    test such claims.

    My experience is that my calves hurt more after pushing up hills than if I'd
    ridden. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Quoted message said:

    I argue that the knees are overbent. Since the pedal circle requires
    the feet to rise considerably higher than a normal stairway, this
    seems reasonable.

    OTOH it does mean the movement is larger, which effectively lowers the
    required force.

    Quoted message said:

    I argue that the bicycling crouch provides the rider with poor
    leverage for the high-force demands of ultra-steep climbs. Since the
    first thing racers do to attack a hill is to "stand" as much as they
    can from their seated position and improve their hip angle to at least
    the posture of a chimpanzee, this also seems reasonable.

    There is another good reason for standing on very steep stuff - it keeps the
    front wheel on the ground. You must know that, surely? Doesn't apply on the
    tandem of course...

    Quoted message said:

    You argue that your experience on different hills of unnamed grade
    with unnamed gearing feels different and that all other experience
    must support your feelings.

    No. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, nor what you'd
    like other people to think I wrote in an effort to discredit me.
    I stated that my calves hurt more after pushing up hills than if I'd ridden.
    This is my experience, not tested in a controlled manner, because I'm not
    that interested. You may be - if so, go and do the experiment yourself.

    Quoted message said:

    If you've explained how this works, I've missed it.

    I haven't explained it, because I haven't needed to. I'm presenting
    evidence. You're the one playing with explanations.

    Quoted message said:

    What mechanism do you believe makes a bicycle whose pedals move one
    foot when the tire moves one foot more effective than walking up a
    hill steep enough to require such gearing?

    No idea. But it appears to work. How about lowering the required force?

    I believe the problem you are suffering is that you don't have a clue about
    what we're talking about, because you've never tried it. Your continued
    refusal to say what experince you have indicates this.

    clive

  14. On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:43:21 -0700, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    One voice of experience stated that he could pedal up a hill at 4 mph,
    but could only walk up it at 1 mph. This extremely strange experience
    was explained when he revealed that he was forced to walk up it
    because he ate no breakfast and exhausted himself before reaching the
    hill.

    I don't think he said he could only walk up it at 1 mph. I believe
    that's what he felt more comfortable with.

    Quoted message said:


    What mechanism do you believe makes a bicycle whose pedals move one
    foot when the tire moves one foot more effective than walking up a
    hill steep enough to require such gearing?

    For the 12th time: THE ERGONOMICS OF PUSHING A BIKE.

    Greg

    Dear Greg,

    Er, why not for the first time explain what the ergonomics are? Just
    shouting is scarcely an explanation.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  15. Clive George said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm concerned that that the experiences presented in this thread seem
    ill-digested.

    I'm concerned that you seem terminally unable to answer questions. Once
    again : What experience do you have in this field? How much pushing up steep
    hills of heavy bikes have you actually done?

    Here's a nice photo:

    http://www.goatchurch.org.uk/ctrips/iom/pbike.jpg

    Quoted message said:

    One voice of experience stated that he could pedal up a hill at 4 mph,
    but could only walk up it at 1 mph. This extremely strange experience
    was explained when he revealed that he was forced to walk up it
    because he ate no breakfast and exhausted himself before reaching the
    hill.

    You experience is some tangled business about different hills,
    strength or traction, or whatever. First you couldn't climb the mtb
    hill because you weren't strong enough. Then you changed to claims
    about speed and traction on different hills. The rest of us can hardly
    test such claims.

    My experience is that my calves hurt more after pushing up hills than if I'd
    ridden. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Quoted message said:

    I argue that the knees are overbent. Since the pedal circle requires
    the feet to rise considerably higher than a normal stairway, this
    seems reasonable.

    OTOH it does mean the movement is larger, which effectively lowers the
    required force.

    Quoted message said:

    I argue that the bicycling crouch provides the rider with poor
    leverage for the high-force demands of ultra-steep climbs. Since the
    first thing racers do to attack a hill is to "stand" as much as they
    can from their seated position and improve their hip angle to at least
    the posture of a chimpanzee, this also seems reasonable.

    There is another good reason for standing on very steep stuff - it keeps the
    front wheel on the ground. You must know that, surely? Doesn't apply on the
    tandem of course...

    Quoted message said:

    You argue that your experience on different hills of unnamed grade
    with unnamed gearing feels different and that all other experience
    must support your feelings.

    No. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, nor what you'd
    like other people to think I wrote in an effort to discredit me.
    I stated that my calves hurt more after pushing up hills than if I'd ridden.
    This is my experience, not tested in a controlled manner, because I'm not
    that interested. You may be - if so, go and do the experiment yourself.

    Quoted message said:

    If you've explained how this works, I've missed it.

    I haven't explained it, because I haven't needed to. I'm presenting
    evidence. You're the one playing with explanations.

    Quoted message said:

    What mechanism do you believe makes a bicycle whose pedals move one
    foot when the tire moves one foot more effective than walking up a
    hill steep enough to require such gearing?

    No idea. But it appears to work. How about lowering the required force?

    I believe the problem you are suffering is that you don't have a clue about
    what we're talking about, because you've never tried it. Your continued
    refusal to say what experince you have indicates this.

    clive

    Dear Clive,

    I'm concerned that you present as the voice of experience two
    different hills, one paved, one dirt, no numbers about grade or
    gearing, and insist that your poorly presented experience trumps
    whatever my experience may be.

    It's rec.bicycles.tech, not rec.bicycles.myexperiencemustberight.

    Compare your posts to Kinky's recent post.

    I don't question the sincerity of your belief that you're interpreting
    your experience correctly. You jump to such conclusions about my
    experience that it's positively enjoyable to ignore your red herring.

    But neither your repetitions nor my experience support your conclusion
    that it "appears to work".

    How does pushing pedals 1 meter around a 350mm diameter circle lower
    the required force to move the rear tire 1 meter compared to walking?

    Greg may say "ergonomics," but what are they? "No idea" does not
    inspire much faith in your interpretation of your experience.

    If you're right, then you should spend some time trying to understand
    and then explain how right you are. If you're wrong, the same process
    should lead you somewhere interesting.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  16. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm concerned that you seem terminally unable to answer questions. Once
    again : What experience do you have in this field? How much pushing up
    steep
    hills of heavy bikes have you actually done?

    Come on Carl, answer the question.

    Why do you insist on not doing so?

    clive

  17. cmcanulty said:

    I carry a dog and all my shopping , library books, etc on my bike and
    am always looking for the lowest possible gear setup with standard
    available setups. I currently have a 26" wheel mt bike with a 18" gear
    (24 tooth on front, 34 tooth on back). Anyone have a way to go lower
    with easily available parts? I am also interested in doing the same
    with a folding bike but be able to stay under $600 or so. Thanks,
    Carol M

    I have a twenty on the front and a 34 in the back. I have an old 5 arm
    mtb crank. It had a 24 tooth front sprocket but I got a spider that
    made it able to accept a twenty tooth sprocket. I also had a five arm
    crankset that accepts twenty teeth sprokets.

    If you go to St john street cycles, they used to have lots of
    cranksets and chainrings with unique combinations. They are in GB but
    they ship to the US and thye used to be pretty cheap. The twenty in
    the front with the 34 in the back works perfect. I've done a lot of
    mtb riding in tough terrain and it shifts pretty good.

    Andres

  18. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:43:21 -0700, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    One voice of experience stated that he could pedal up a hill at 4 mph,
    but could only walk up it at 1 mph. This extremely strange experience
    was explained when he revealed that he was forced to walk up it
    because he ate no breakfast and exhausted himself before reaching the
    hill.

    I don't think he said he could only walk up it at 1 mph. I believe
    that's what he felt more comfortable with.

    Quoted message said:


    What mechanism do you believe makes a bicycle whose pedals move one
    foot when the tire moves one foot more effective than walking up a
    hill steep enough to require such gearing?

    For the 12th time: THE ERGONOMICS OF PUSHING A BIKE.

    Greg

    Dear Greg,

    Er, why not for the first time explain what the ergonomics are? Just
    shouting is scarcely an explanation.

    I have. Twice. I lean over far more when pushing my bike than when I am
    hiking without one. It hurts my calves. When riding I also don't clip my
    shins and calves on the pedals, either. I would rather ride than push, and
    it has nothing to do with ego.

    Greg
    --
    Ticketbastard tax tracker:
    http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

    Dethink to survive - Mclusky

  19. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Again, my position is that it takes the same power to push the same
    load up the same hill, but pushing our feet around a rigid 350 mm
    circle in a crouched position with an overall 1-to-1 gearing
    (foot-to-tire-travel) puts our muscles at a considerable disadvantage
    (inefficiency, more raw calories) when compared to walking up the same
    hill at the same speed (same foot movement covers same distance in
    same time).

    Don't our feet travel around a rigid 350mm circle any time we're pedaling
    our bikes? Your rhetoric makes it sound like we should always be walking to
    avoid that 350mm circle.

    Greg
    --
    "What have you got in that paper bag?
    Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
    Ain't got no time for Western medicine
    I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith

  20. On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:25:56 -0700, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Again, my position is that it takes the same power to push the same
    load up the same hill, but pushing our feet around a rigid 350 mm
    circle in a crouched position with an overall 1-to-1 gearing
    (foot-to-tire-travel) puts our muscles at a considerable disadvantage
    (inefficiency, more raw calories) when compared to walking up the same
    hill at the same speed (same foot movement covers same distance in
    same time).

    Don't our feet travel around a rigid 350mm circle any time we're pedaling
    our bikes? Your rhetoric makes it sound like we should always be walking to
    avoid that 350mm circle.

    Greg

    Dear Greg,

    Physics, not rhetoric, makes it sound as if we should use the awkward
    and unnatural circular movement of the pedals, overbend our knees, and
    crouch on a bicycle when we want to trade force for distance to do the
    same work

    The 1-to-8 travel ratio of pedal-to-tire movement in a typical high
    gear lets us take advantage of 25-foot "strides" on flat ground. A
    very small force on the pedal pushes us a very great distance against
    the minor wind resistance and tire drag.

    The awkwardness of the pedal circle shows up when you look at the
    speed of our feet going around it. It's easy to forget just how slowly
    we move our feet at what we consider brisk bicycle cadences on 175 mm
    cranks:

    mph
    rpm foot
    --- ----
    60 2.47
    90 3.70
    120 4.92

    At 90 rpm, your feet travel around the pedal circle at less than the
    speed they move if you're heading down an empty aisle in the grocery
    store. Studies keep showing that the faster they circle, the less
    power they put out--efficiency drops after around 60 rpm (but other
    factors make the popular 80-100 rpm useful).

    Uphill we have to fight gravity. Even a gentle slope forces us to drop
    gears, shorten our "stride" and work much harder to cover the same
    stretch of road.

    When a slope is steep enough to require 1-to-1 gearing for the load
    and power available, the leverage advantage has vanished, exposing the
    disadvantage of the pedal circle over a normal step.

    When an ultra-low gearing produces a 1-to-1 pedal-to-tire movement
    ratio (20x38, 175 mm crank, 2100 mm 700c tire), your foot must rise
    about 14 inches (350 mm) with every stride, which in turn must be
    about 43 inches long (1100 mm ).

    It's worth pointing out that elsewhere Kinky just mentioned that his
    experience was with 25 x 34 gearing. That works out to about 1 to 1.45
    pedal-to-tire-movement, meaning that his bicycle tire moved 45%
    fruther than his feet on the pedals. Steep as the trail was, he could
    still employ considerable leverage.

    (More and more, I wonder whether some posters in this thread know what
    their overall gearing actually is. If anyone is curious, feel free to
    email me crank length, tire size, and front x rear teeth, and I'll be
    happy to plug them into a spreadsheet. Until I fiddled around with
    such things, I never really realized that a 53x11 with a 175 mm crank
    and a 2100 mm circumference tire moves over 9 feet for every foot my
    pedal moves.)

    To get some idea of the awkwardness, try walking and raising both feet
    14 inches with every step with each stride--that's the height involved
    in climbing stairs, which at roughly 100% grade are steeper than
    anything people are claiming to climb on bicycles.

    Since the details can be easily confused, it's worth pointing out that
    a normal stair step is about 7 inches, but that your "stride" covers
    two steps (14 inches)--left foot on floor, right foot on first step,
    then left foot on second step, 14 inches above where it began. The
    grade is about 100% (45 degrees), but like the height of the
    individual step varies according to the builder.

    Again, note that when we run out of gears and the hill gets steeper,
    we "stand" up on the pedals in a chimpanzee-like crouch because even
    that wretched posture opens our hip angle and lets us use our muscles
    more effectively. The closer we get to a running/walking posture, the
    closer we are to efficiency.

    Human legs work most efficiently in the natural posture and motion.
    Anyone who doubts it can try to "walk" up a steep hill (obviously
    nowhere near as steep as a stairway) in the crouching bicyclist
    posture while moving his feet in the 14-inch high circle that a 1-to-1
    overall gearing ratio requires.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.