The Virtues of Riding Fixed (2005) [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

The Virtues of Riding Fixed (2005) [pdf]

wabicycles.com

9 pointsbrryant7 comments

If I understand the situation correctly what's being called fixed here is actually two differences from the usual gearing. The first that the ratio between pedal and rear wheel is fixed (there is only one gear) and the second that the pedals and rear wheel are linked directly with no way for the pedals to stop while the wheel keeps going as is usual in a cyclist coasting. The benefits seem to be related to the second change so could we not build gearing like in a car where once the shift is done the link is direct?

In cycling parlance, "fixed" refers to a bike where you can't coast. A bike that can coast is called "freewheel." A bike with only one ratio is referred to as "single speed."

It's possible to have a fixed gear hub with more than one ratio -- Sturmey Archer makes one with three ratios. This hub is a rarity, and most fixed gear riders also prefer single speed.

http://www.sturmey-archer.com/en/products/detail/s3x-silver

I'm not sure that I follow the article. It seems to suggest that on a freewheel bike, you pedal at a discontinuous rotational speed. If that were happening on my bike, I'd hear the freewheel mechanism engage and disengage with each stroke. Maybe this happens to elite cyclists, but I'm just not that strong.

>In cycling parlance, "fixed" refers to a bike where you can't coast. A bike that can coast is called "freewheel." A bike with only one ratio is referred to as "single speed."

Yeah, I assumed there would be proper names for both concepts but they do seem to go together usually and the article does discuss them without distinction.

>I'm not sure that I follow the article. It seems to suggest that on a freewheel bike, you pedal at a discontinuous rotational speed. If that were happening on my bike, I'd hear the freewheel mechanism engage and disengage with each stroke. Maybe this happens to elite cyclists, but I'm just not that strong

Yeah the reasoning does sound suspect. As long as your feet are attached to the pedals you should be able to power the rotation continuously and as you say never freewheel so you'd get no benefit over a fixed wheel. More importantly while in a track situation getting the power down might be a bottleneck in a road course surely the bottleneck is the rider actually being able to produce the power in the first place. As long as the drive system is efficient at transmitting power when it does exist there shouldn't be much more to gain from it.

As I understand it, there's a small amount of mechanical efficiency to be gained from ditching the derailleur, but the road cyclists need multiple gears in order to match their power output to the conditions: Terrain, wind, etc.

With all of this said, I'm planning to build a fixed gear wheel for one of my bikes this summer, just to try it out. But I am not a competitive cyclist by any wild stretch of the imagination, and this is just for curiosity and fun.

"do not worry about what is happening in the second decimal place until you understand what is happening in the first." On a fixie you have to work your legs just as hard (in someways harder) going down hills as you do going up them. With a freewheel you only have to pedal up the hills.

I was a bicycle mechanic for 6 years, I've been a mountain biker and bmxer for 12, and rode a fixie for 2 years. You do feel efficient and intimate on a fixie and what he says about the longer stroke length (and more effective torque) is true. But the benefits of coasting down hills, being able to make sharp turns without pedal bite, and having gears more than make up for this, and are why the vast majority of cyclists don't ride fixies.

On a more bike snobby note, bunnyhopping on a fixie sucks too.

Anything that inspires you to ride is a good thing; that said, fixed-gear drivetrains represent some serious tradeoffs. For enhanced power transmission and ease of maintenance gained you have to give up low gearing for hills and/or carrying a bunch of groceries etc., and of course being able to coast downhill.

The thing that always escapes me is that these fixed gear fanboys seem to ignore hub gear bicycles. That's what I grew up with in Europe. That's what comprises the majority of bicycles that people ride in cities (hilly or not) in Germany.

They are literally service free and if you select the gear with the 1:1 ratio and never change gear, there is no difference to a fixed gear bicycle except that you can switch, whenever you want/need.

After a year of being flabbergasted at his utter rejection of Derailleur gear cycles, and praising of fixed, I learned that an Italian friend of mine wasn't even aware of hub gears! Him, a self proclaimed bicycle aficionado! He had grown up close to the mountains and all bicycles sold there have Derailleur gears. Even those that people ride in the city on the plain.

Similarly, my ex GF who was from South Australia, had never seen or heard about a Derailleur gear bicycles until she first set foot on European soil at the modest age of 30.

Given that, the hipster hype around fixed comes as much less a surprise. However, knowingly ignoring hub gear bicycles in favor of fixed still borders on imbecility to me. Kindly pardon my bluntness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com