Fixed gear cog w/o lockring. FYI

[Mark Hickey]

"David L. Johnson" <David L. Johnson <[email protected]>> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 18:04:46 -0500, Mark Hickey wrote:

>> It will also limit my downhill flailing considerably.
>
>Ah, but that's part of the fun... We all like to brag about how fast we went downhill on our very
>low fixed gears, as you have already seen on this thread.

I'll just do the conversion and post the RPM my crank SHOULD have been turning then... ;-)

>I do prefer about a 70" gear for street riding on a fixed gear, but to each his own.
>
>Is the frame one of yours?

Yep, but with horizontal DOs of course.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Kinkycowboy]

On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:05:31 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>KinkyCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:04:47 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>do ride in the mid-20's though since I do spend most of my time in the 53x16 and spinning
>>>90-100rpm.
>>>
>>Personally, I don't consider 100rpm to be "spinning", being pretty comfortable at up to 120, but
>>each to his own.
>
>I can spin a lot faster, but find my "maximum efficiency" somewhere between 90 and 100. I also
>wanted a gear that would preclude someone dropping me because I was spinning 130rpm to keep up. I
>figure if I have to spin 130rpm in a 52x16 to keep up, they're gonna get away anyway!

Efficiency means different things to different people; my local 10 mile TT course yields a ratio
between max and min speed of about 2:1. I find I get around quickest if I gear for rpm of 75 to 150,
but this means I'm doing 110rpm on the neutral sections. From time trialling with multiple gears, I
found my best times were acheived by aiming to stay, as you say, between 90 and 100rpm. This
suggests to me that efficiency falls off quicker below optimum speed than above it, but this is just
a subjective feeling. The fact that lots of people on fixed ride lower gears than they would if
using multiple gears suggests that I'm not alone in this feeling. The fact that Graeme O'Bree used
to time trial on some huge fixed gears shows that you're keeping some fine company by gearing for
optimum efficiency on the fast bits.

Kinky Cowboy

*Your milage may vary Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

A shy person wrote:

> Efficiency means different things to different people;

Any meaningful understanding of the word in a vehicular context deals with the ratio of distance
covered versus the consumption of "fuel."

> my local 10 mile TT course

Efficiency doesn't much matter in a short event like this, and in fact doesn't much matter in most
racing, except for ultramarathon type events.

Efficiency doesn't have anything to do with speed, but generally vehicles are most efficient at
speeds far lower than their maxima.

Sheldon "Words Do Have Meanings" Brown +-------------------------------------------------+
| Search the Quality Bicycle Products Catalog | and order on line: |
| http://sheldonbrown.com/quality |
+-------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Scott Hendricks]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> I guess I'm faster than a lot of riders, but I haven't used a bike computer for years so wouldn't
> want to make any claims. I suppose I do ride in the mid-20's though since I do spend most of my
> time in the 53x16 and spinning 90-100rpm.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

Maybe you should get a bike computer, WITH a cadence function. Looks like you're no better at
estimating your cadence than you are your speed.

90 - 100 rpm in a 53x16 = 24 - 26.5 mph. If you're capable of tooling along at that pace for any
length of time, you should be racing Pro.

My hunch is, that like I was, you'll be surprised when you find out what your real speed and/or
cadence is. I used to spend many hours on a fixed gear, guestimmating my cadence based on
guestimmated speed. Put on a computer, and wow did I find out I had a low typical cadence.

Scott

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
>>
>> I guess I'm faster than a lot of riders, but I haven't used a bike computer for years so wouldn't
>> want to make any claims. I suppose I do ride in the mid-20's though since I do spend most of my
>> time in the 53x16 and spinning 90-100rpm.
>>
>Maybe you should get a bike computer, WITH a cadence function. Looks like you're no better at
>estimating your cadence than you are your speed.
>
>90 - 100 rpm in a 53x16 = 24 - 26.5 mph. If you're capable of tooling along at that pace for any
>length of time, you should be racing Pro.

Naaah, that kind of speed wouldn't keep me in the pack. I should mention that most rides I do aren't
awfully long (average only about 15 miles / 25km), so I end up trading distance for intensity.

>My hunch is, that like I was, you'll be surprised when you find out what your real speed and/or
>cadence is. I used to spend many hours on a fixed gear, guestimmating my cadence based on
>guestimmated speed. Put on a computer, and wow did I find out I had a low typical cadence.

I dunno... I've been off the bike for a month and a half (achilles tendon injury) and since then
only have about 8 rides under my belt (spread over three weeks), for a total of only about 150
miles. I was in my 53x16 this morning on a flat section (but with a quartering headwind) and counted
just over 90rpm. I know I usually ride that section at least as fast as I did today. Coming home I
had some maniac with a MTB on my wheel for three miles (with three stop lights), including one
section where I was spinning a 53x15 at least 100rpm for about a mile. There are some really FAST
people out there (he was on knobbies no less)... I'm just reasonably fast for an old fart. ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Kinkycowboy]

On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:17:55 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

>A shy person wrote:

Not sure why you always assume that caution about publishing personal data equals shyness, but I
always sign my posts, and my name appears in the from field on everybody else's newsreaders.

>
>> Efficiency means different things to different people;
>
>Any meaningful understanding of the word in a vehicular context deals with the ratio of distance
>covered versus the consumption of "fuel."

It is permissable to discuss vehicular "efficiency" within the context of wider constraints than
just distance covered; after all, a vehicle which carries its payload around a closed circuit does
no actual work, so all such vehicles have an efficiency of 0. Therefore, all comparisons of
"efficiency" between vehicles necessarily consist of comparing energy used to acheive comparable
"effects", and meaningful comparative tests must specify route length and time allowed as well as
payload mass and dimensions. True efficiency tests in vehicle engineering can only really be applied
to power train components, where the efficiency is defined as the ratio of power delivered at the
ouput shaft versus rate of consumption of fuel energy for motors, or power delivered to the input
shaft in the case of transmission elements.

There are other meaningful, if not strictly accurate from a science/engineering view, ways in which
people use the term efficiency. The example I gave was a typical one, where the maximum "efficiency"
relates to a subtly different goal from minimal energy consumption.

It is probably already too late for pedants like you and me to persuade the rest of the world to
stop using the term "efficiency" when they mean "effectiveness".

>> my local 10 mile TT course
>
>Efficiency doesn't much matter in a short event like this, and in fact doesn't much matter in most
>racing, except for ultramarathon type events.

Not true; all racing benefits from increased efficiency, as using less energy for the same effect
inevitably means one can use the same amount of energy for enhanced effect, higher speed in the case
of racing.

>Efficiency doesn't have anything to do with speed, but generally vehicles are most efficient at
>speeds far lower than their maxima.
>
>Sheldon "Words Do Have Meanings" Brown

Kinky "Words Have The Meanings Agreed Upon By The Conversants" Cowboy

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:23:08 -0500, KinkyCowboy wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:17:55 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>A shy person wrote:
>
> Not sure why you always assume that caution about publishing personal data equals shyness, but I
> always sign my posts, and my name appears in the from field on everybody else's newsreaders.

So, would your true name be Kinky, or USERNAME_uk.excite.com?

>>Any meaningful understanding of the word in a vehicular context deals with the ratio of distance
>>covered versus the consumption of "fuel."
>
> It is permissable to discuss vehicular "efficiency" within the context of wider constraints than
> just distance covered; after all, a vehicle which carries its payload around a closed circuit does
> no actual work, so all such vehicles have an efficiency of 0.

Sort of like the guy who brags about how many feet of climbing his computer tells him he did at the
end of the ride. I always know the _net_ climb, since we end up right back where we started.

But still, efficiency of transport would have to involve distance (and for vehicles that do not
effectively recover energy on a downhill, climb) versus energy consumed. When I want to check how
efficiently my car is running, I do indeed check the miles per gallon.

> Not true; all racing benefits from increased efficiency, as using less energy for the same effect
> inevitably means one can use the same amount of energy for enhanced effect, higher speed in the
> case of racing.
>
This I would agree with.

> Kinky "Words Have The Meanings Agreed Upon By The Conversants" Cowboy

This is your signature where you publicize who you are? I think Sheldon was right, you are shy.

--

David L. Johnson

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

 

[Kinkycowboy]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:21:16 -0500, "David L. Johnson" <David L. Johnson
<[email protected]>> wrote:

>So, would your true name be Kinky, or USERNAME_uk.excite.com?

People who know me usually address me as Cowboy. If you need to contact me off list, you only
need two braincells to deduce my email address, which is two more braincells than spambots
usually come with.

>> Kinky "Words Have The Meanings Agreed Upon By The Conversants" Cowboy
>
>This is your signature where you publicize who you are? I think Sheldon was right, you are shy.

As I said, there is a difference between shy and self effacing.

Kinky Cowboy

*Your milage may vary Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts.