dsh

That's true. After a few months of my geared bike being out of commission and riding exclusively the fixed, getting back on a freewheel just feels whack. "Broken" is a good word for it.

Tully

Also, you get very used to not having to CONSTANTLY ****ing touch a brake. Even if you ride with a front brake on a fixie, it is there IF you need it. It is insanely annoying not being able to just control my speed while going slowly, cut speed gradualy without really doing anything, etc.

LoRoK

Not even remotely true. When you are going down a 7 mile 4% decent after a hard 60 miles, coasting would feel pretty flippin' sweet. I've found myself wishing for it a couple times. Never just going around town, but like really riding my bike.

oneeyedhobbit

Because everyone definitely buys fixies for those 60+ mile days.

LoRoK

Right. Did I say that? No. I said that anyone who says that coasting isn't a pro hasn't ridden their bike enough to appreciate the idea of coasting on a long decent after a 60 mile ride. I can see how you'd get confused, though, because me saying that sounds a lot like "everyone definitely buys fixies for those 60+ mile days." Practically the same thing.

Tully

That still doesn't make it a pro. That makes it a pro, in one situation, that most people aren't going to ever end up in on a fixed gear. Yes, you are right, after riding hard for 60 miles, not peddling is going to feel nice. Holly molly, amazo!

Also, this is obviously an opinion. If you think it's a pro, rock on and rock hard.

hairnet

I only see coasting as a pro if you don't over do it. I always see people pedaling then coasting, pedaling then coasting, pedaling then coasting. Just get a motor if you're gonna be coasting 1/2 the time.

oldfixguy

While a bit off the topic, I don't get the idea/perception that a fixed gear bike somehow requires more energy or is somehow less restful (when desired) than a singlespeed bike. I ride longer distances - I put in a century every single weekend. Actually, you could call it 2 50's as I ride to my mother in laws and then back later in the day. Regardless, she lives in the mountains and I certainly climb to get there and spin out on the way back. On that note, I must admit my 49x17 could use a little adjustment (ha ha). Anyway, I find fixed gear riding to be very appropriate for riding longer distances and while I certainly get tired (you ride 50 with a belly full of grandma's dinner) I never feel as though a freewheel would somehow ease my burden. When coming out of the hills I stay on the front brake and when on the flats the fixed is essentially self propelling. I'm actively resting. I tend to believe people feel this way because without their knowledge or permission they spend their entire timer on their bikes gently supporting their weight off the saddle. Do this - ride along for a bit and then pull out of your straps/clips or unclip out of your clipless. Fell a weight difference in the saddle? If yes, then you are actively supporting your body weight every second you are on your bike and this is very tiring - which is why coasting gives you a break - your body weight is in the saddle and you can actually rest. If your bike is properly set up then your body weight is on the saddle. This is how guys can spin 130 rpm's. They sure aren't doing that while carrying their own body weight in the process. I think a person properly positioned on their bike would have a much greater leaning towards fixed gear riding. Nothing against single speeds in the least. But, they're not more restful transportation.

oneeyedhobbit

Pretty much what the guy below you said. If you plan on doing a lot of 60+ mile rides, then yeah, being able to coast is probably a huge benefit. I'd also argue that you probably want to be on a road bike, though.

At the end of the day op should consider his needs/what he wants out of the bike. Flip flop hub sounds like a really good way to experiment/compromise.

LoRoK

There are times that I would want to be on a roadbike, sure. Or at least a single speed with brakes. Like a couple weekends ago when I tried to ride to the crest of the mountain here, and I stopped because 1) I wasn't able to control my speed on the decent (no brakes) and 2) riding 48/17 up a mountain is pretty hard. That's my whole point: There are times when a fixed gear is limiting. That said, I love my track bike, I ride it every day. Doesn't mean it's the perfect bike for all occasions.

cc700

i prefer to say "ONE ****ING SPEED" rather than single speed.

also, i like both. i recently bought new cranks and brakes and am running my commuter wheelset on my aluminum road bike at 38/16. it's awesome. 18.5 lbs and low level components.

xsnakobx

I suggest fixed because pretty much everyone I know who started riding fixed after anything else now rides almost exclusively fixed (and I'm in SF too, actually pretty near you, in the Excelsior). The hills are bad, but not bad enough that riding fixed is too much of a chore (I ride 48/15 and handle them just fine). Definitely strap a brake on that thing though.

robotkiller

What proportion of coasting to pedaling is acceptable? I don't want to be on the wrong side of this issue.

Roy G. Biv

Everybody isn't riding in a pseudo messenger race in their head all the time. Some people just enjoy being on a bike.

noglider 

A rider who does pedal-coast-pedal-coast is probably in a too-low gear.

wroomwroomoops

The original poster isn't a FG rider more than a SS rider. He/she is undecided and potentially belongs to either category. Having an easier time downhill may be one of the criteria he/she wants to consider.

noglider 

Especially since he's in San Francisco! This thread gave me nightmares last night. I'm not kidding. I dreamed I was descending one of those hills and unable to control my speed, and traffic was heavy. Seriously, if I lived in San Francisco, I'm not sure I would enjoy cycling. Well, I'd probably do it, but man, it really boggles my imagination.

I don't even understand why people thought it would be a good location to build a city. If you haven't seen it, you probably don't know what I'm talking about.

cc700

until they get to the hill.


as someone who lives on a relatively big hill, "too low a gear" is about as relative a term as it can get.

spcialzdspksman

So, aside from the whole FG vs SS and coasting vs. pedaling debate, I'd really like to know more about the mechanism of a FG/SS instead. Like noglider said, the lower the crank-to-cog ratio, the easier for hills, but max speed is limited, and vice versa. But isn't it possible to create the same ratio from more than one crank-to-cog combination, and if so, what are the differences, say in bigger cogs and cranks?
Thanks for the help guys!

dsh

General consensus is that larger cogs/chainrings (given the same ratio) slightly reduces drivetrain wear. Whether or not this is true, or noticeable... I'm not sure.

TimArchy

There is some argument as to the effects of different combinations which create the same ratio (say 3:1 - 42x14, 45x15, 48x16, etc..). Traditionally, it is thought that a smaller ring/cog would give better acceleration while a larger ring/cog combo would allow you to "stay on top" of your gear more easily once you were at speed. Arguments were based both on empirical evidence gained from the observations of riders and on the idea that the relative difference between the diameter of the ring and the length of the crank somehow effects the amount of power that is translated into the drivetrain. This kind of thinking eventually led, in part, to the creation of the Shimano 10 Track group, which was based around a 10mm pitch chain instead of a half-inch pitch, which is the current standard. It allowed for smaller chainrings and cogs which contained the same amount of teeth as normal. Although it was marginally lighter than the competition, it didn't catch on.

More modern thinking has come to the conclusion that whatever benefits are gained by the decreased diameter of the chainring/cog is mostly canceled out by all the sources of friction in the system and generally not worth the bother.

A good idea is to keep your cog size between 15t and 18t. These are the easiest cogs to find when you need a replacement (16 being the most common). The same can be said for freewheels (with 16 and 18 being common). From there, choose whatever chainring you feel is good for you. Something like 45t will give you a lot of room to experiment with different gearings while giving you the most skid patches, should you decide to use skipping and skidding as a method of braking. It will also keep your gearing on the low end for all the hills.

Most SS/fixed frames with track fork ends are able to accommodate up to a two tooth difference in the rear cog without having to alter the chain length. This allows you to put a larger gear on one side and a smaller gear on the other. A common trick is to have a 16t fixed cog and an 18t freewheel. The freewheel can be smaller because you don't have to worry about spinning downhill.

Does this answer your questions? It is good to remember that bicycles have been around for a long time. And fixed/SS bikes were the first. Anything that anyone can think of to greatly improve the quality and comfort of the ride or the usefulness of the bike has already been tried by someone. If it works, it is generally picked up by the majority of the community. If it doesn't work, it isn't. Hence, you can learn just about everything you need to know about bike set-up (not including fit) by looking at the bikes around you. It becomes pretty easy to see which bikes are practical and which ones are impractical simply for the sake of being different. At the risk of sounding conformist, the more normal the bike looks, the better it is at performing its job.

GoingtoSpaceBRB

I would be very impressed if anyone with a single speed rides in San Fran. I can't imagine how strong you have to be to get up those hills at a reasonable pace. Unbelievable.

If you use gears, fine. You're human. But no gears? A single speed up steep San Fran... you must have murderous intent. Very impressive.

spcialzdspksman

So basically no real difference between the cog and chainring sizes as long as the ratio is the same. Got it, this helped a lot. Thanks.

lz4005

Bigger ones are a little heavier, smaller ones wear out a little faster.

TimArchy

Yeah, but the weight is largely irrelevant to most of us and I'd be willing to bet that the difference in wear time isn't that noticeable. I mean, change your chain every 4 months, your cog every 8, and your ring ever year and you'll be set. Or just ride a worn out drivetrain like most people.