Gearing

I changed from 42/16 to 42/15 and it made a big difference, perfect on the flats (42/16 was too spinny) and still easy to start at the lights, track stand etc. I got the EAI 15t cog from Hubjub.co.uk

thanks guys.

you'll need a chainwhip to lash that on too. or else use rotafix. http://204.73.203.34/fisso/eng/schpignone.htm

rotafix works good, i run 42-15 and find it about right for where i am!

I'm planning a ride across France later this year - which will involve some flattish terrain and some of the smaller alps.

Anyone able to recommend gearing for this kind of ride? I have got it into my head to go singlespeed.

Thanks

Caveat: I've never riden in the Alps.

If your ride is mostly flat I would personally go for 48x19 or equiv. Any spinnier than that and you'll get pretty frustrated. I find 48x19 good for most hills, especially if you put in a bit of training before going.

Considered flip flop hub? You could have two freewheels and just flip the wheel when you get to a tougher hill...

Forgot to ask...will you be on a loaded bike? If you're riding heavy then that will change your gearing for the hills.

The alps aren't super steep they just go on a bit. Loading up the bike is going to reduce your gearing. How much will you be carrying?

quite light - 22l of stuff max, plus a couple of 750 bottles

i do think the majority of the uphill will be relatively shallow gradient, but there are a couple of more challenging bits that have me a bit concerned.

I guess it depends on how strong a climber you are then and how much time you have to do the flat bits. Gear too high and you'll be walking, too low and you'll be taking a long time. I've ridden 65-70" gearing around flat London and found it fine so I'd be looking to go lower than that with the cols involved and the touring aspect - you're not in a rush so better to do it comfortably on a lower gear than grind your whole way through the trip. Maybe find some examples of the grades you hope to ride closer to home and ride up them a few times.

My hunch is 66ish"...with 72" on the other side but ultimately its up to you to try it out and see how it goes...

If it was me I'd take 66" fixed and 72" freewheel but thats just my personal pref.

You could fit a double front rings and ENO Dos two-speed freewheel. You can get 70" and 55" with the right rings, and none of the faff of removing and flipping the wheel.

If you're going to that much trouble just take a geared bike. :)

^ Fair point that didn't even cross my mind.

yep, i want to enjoy the simplicity of a ss ride. if spinning my way along the flat means i get over the hills then that's what i'll do.

i'm 6'2" but pretty good at getting over the bumps - ride a ss mtb as well so i was already thinking something around the 66" mark

or perhaps a bit nearer 70" as hippy suggested

I'd go for the 66" - that way you just tootle through pleasant countryside and the hills are not a stress. I suppose it really would be best to take a couple of cogs with you, so if it becomes a pain in the arse you can change the cog the evening before you tackle a hard section.

just go fixed, single speed is just a road bike with a broken derailleur.

Hmmm. Descents on SS can be quite fun Ed.

hmm, yes, 66 seems like a strong candidate, especially as i know i have that ratio in the shed.
spinning through the countryside and freewheeling down the slopes sounds like a good way to spend a week in the saddle. cheers all.

Have you ever ridden in the Alps before?

Hmmm. Descents on SS can be quite fun Ed.

This is why I loved the idea of this Torpedo hubs;

http://www.sram.com/sram/urban/products/sram-torpedo-single-speed-hub

It's such a shame it got a bit of play (felt like a slack chain) when adjusted to a fixed transmission.

I'd go for the 66" - that way you just tootle through pleasant countryside and the hills are not a stress. I suppose it really would be best to take a couple of cogs with you, so if it becomes a pain in the arse you can change the cog the evening before you tackle a hard section.

Yeah, I'd always err on the side of gearing down (says the compact crankset shunner).

Just dumping this from another thread before things became too much off topic. In a nutshell, I accidentally did some city miles on 84" this weekend when I had originally plannned to do TT training on flat roads in Surrey. I am being told that 84" is bad for you even on flat road with no traffic lights and I am a bit confused.

No real rides for me this weekend. 40mi or so of town riding yesterday, couple of hills near Richmond thrown in for good measure. Was riding 84" yesterday...got up them ok but my lungs summited a few minutes after I did.

Leading Rosie's afterwork ride tomorrow. Should get a few miles in this week. Still feeling my Christmas week riding in the legs. Not sure whether it was the miles or the wind but hopefully this quiet weekend will have given me some rest.

Riding around town on 84" isn't a sensible thing to do either, if you value your knees.

Completely agree Pete. I normally ride 66" in town. Set off expecting a flat ride through Surrey rather than town riding.

I commuted on 84" SS for a year or so with no problems (apart from my legs doubling in size) which means I don't become overly worried about injuring myself during a few hours of riding with the wrong ratio.

84" for a ride through Surrey is also way over geared. Just saying ;)

Stop being such a negative nelly. The route we were going to do only had a few hundred feet of vertical.

Sigh.

Depends how fast you're going...

Aiming for 20mph...flat route. Seems reasonable to me.

Not really, as that also depends on how fast you spin it. You don't need 84" to do a 20mph average.

I'm not really bothered how many inches Dan rocks, but there are lots of people who lurk on this forum taking what's said as gospel, so I'd hate them to get the impression that 84" is in any way sensible, except for the track.

Fair enough Pete, fair enough.

what's the difference between the track, or doing a flat countryside route where you're not stop starting.
Most fixed time trialling would be done on a gear dan was on, or even higher.

There's one major difference for both examples you use, racing.

An 84" gear is a bit low for racing really, but for general on road fixed riding it's excessively high, and the damage it could possibly do to your knees is only something you'll find out about after it's too late.

There's a reason why a gear in the mid 60s to low 70s has become the norm for road riding over the years, because it allows you to maintain a decent average speed whilst allowing you to tackle most hills you'll encounter in the UK. And it won't trash your knees.

But if you're riding shorter distances for speed on the flat with no traffic lights...

You'll still trash your knees. If you won't listen to me, you should listen to AndyP, he knows his onions.

Fox you should go out at the end of March and tell all the fixed TT riders the above.

I'm sure they'd love to hear that.

ffs...this is not about me refusing to listen to either you or Andy. You are both far more experienced cyclists than me. I've only been riding fixed for a year and I know very little.

I just can't see why riding 10mi on 84GI at 90ish RPM is any different than any other human being doing 10mi TT on a road bike. Are we saying that JAMIE, Brave, BMMF, 6PT and our other fast riders who regularly ride 84GI+ at 90rpm+ on their bikes are damaging their knees?

In all seriousness, if TTing is going to damage my chances of riding comfortably in the future then I might reconsider racing this season!

Anyway...please, not for this thread. Pub on Tuesday if you're there or wherever...just not here!

EDIT: Just to add, I feel I was clear that I should not have been riding hills and streets on 84" on Saturday. It was a foolish oversight. Wouldn't want any young impressionable minds going out there and snapping legs in half trying to do Ditchling on 102" ;)

I rode round the Surrey Hills on 74" fixed last year (summer) with a group of geared club riders, dropped them on the hills, was fine on the flat, but couldn't sustain their pace for the long descent down from Coldharbour to Dorking (lost nearly a minute, even keeping it going at 26mph on the flatter section after the endless spinning down the slope).

I rode the TNRC's Kent 2 ride on 79" fixed in early autumn with a predominantly geared group of predominantly club level riders, dropped them on the climbs (well, Calleva clung on up Star Hill), held my own on the descents, and then dropped eveyone on the Pilgrims Way (good legs that night).

I've also 'mixed it with the front riders' on a TNRC in the Surrey Hills on 59", but it was an exercise in souplesse more than anything.

Individual rider strengths/weaknesses aside, these weren't races, but were certainly spirited rides (with a lot of time spent in the 20-25mph zone). I don't really think terrain matters as much as projected average speed. I've tried gearing for the steepest climb on a route, but that can be too limiting if there's only one killer ascent - better to get off and walk up your average UK hill if necessary, and let the rest of the route flow at the desired speed; but this does mean being realistic about projected average speeds, knowing your self-selecting cadence(s), and erring on the side of caution if it's a group ride with people you don't know.

Anyway, I'm TTing on gears this year.