What's your favourite gear ratio?

ehhh doesn't that feel like you're riding one of those tiny bikes? In fact is this you?

Pah.. 75mm is where it's at!

Is that real hippy or are the cranks just at an angle.

nope, I dont skid, dont care about that, but to each their own. I ride a front brake. I think Ill end up with a 48x17 set up, it will give me about 76 gear inches, so Id be happy with that.

cheers.

hippy

Pah.. 75mm is where it's at!

Jesus !! What the fuck is that all about !? :D

Never seen cranks arms as short as that, are they for real ?!

nope, I dont skid, dont care about that, but to each their own. I ride a front brake. I think Ill end up with a 48x17 set up, it will give me about 76 gear inches, so Id be happy with that.

Yep 48x17 is the way to go

39 x 16 suits me fine.

Used to ride 48:16, great for going fast but shit acceleration and big hills hurt like all hell. I also used to rely on my front brake a lot.

Changed to 48:18 on my new bike and life is just peachy now. Just as quick (spin more, keep warmer) and a lot easier on the old knees...

people who ride big gears generally do so as some sort of macho behaviour or because they simply don't understand the pyhsics of the mechanical / anatomical interface which is the bike.....when I was kid I thought big gears made you go faster because you turned the pedals less times to go the same distance....some people will always have difficulty getting beyond this and taking into account the many variables....most of which point to using lower gears for training / commuting....no matter what size or shape you are.

It will be interesting to see how gear choice affects results at the upcoming track day....it will definitely have an influence, my guess that people who haven't raced track before and choose what they may perceive as race gears (above 90") will have difficulty in distance races......especially if there is wind.

Fnck. BMMF, you funny b*stard.

48x17 on my Mercian but about to go 48x18, knees no likey no more...
46x17 on the hipsterwankmobile but going to 48x19 (maybe 20) on that this week...

Don't be wimps! :)

Oh, and i run 44x17 (170mm cranks) on my all-weather convert, and 45x17 (165mm) on my Vivalo.

is that "mile a minute Murphy"????

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/woodland/murphy.html

And he's got a white front Zaffiro, that fella's WAY ahead! ;-)

Wow, that's an amazing story!

Judging from the name of the file, I'd say it's Robert Stuck (whoever that is)

asm Is that real hippy or are the cranks just at an angle.

It's real. It's a 'bent. Recumbents often have tiny cranks. I raced a Greenspeed one in a 24hr with 110mm cranks I think.

105mm on the 'bent trainer.. 267rpm :)
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/aus.bicycle/msg/de60b05863035847

Summary of cadence studies: http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html I heart 100rpm.

well 48-18 here, 170 cranks.

Only 1 skid patch - due to only one skid so far (apart from one in my pants) as I approached the rear of a bus at unadvisable speed).

aidan
indeed it does...we're great!

Cool. That was always my suspicion. Nice to have it confirmed. Everything on the interweb is true.... :-)

hippy Summary of cadence studies: http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html I heart 100rpm.

Great article, thanks for the link.

This part: *In addition, individual differences in percentage of slow- and fast-twitch fibers may help to explain why some individuals prefer different cadences and why some of us excel at short sprints, while others perform better during long, sustained efforts. *

. . . is the point I tried to make above.

Quote the whole paragraph:
*At any submaximal cycling speed, if we select a high cadence, the glycogen depletion study of Ahlquist et al (1992) suggests that we will minimize the recruitment of fast-twitch fibers. However, we can still supply ATP to the working muscles of the leg using predominantly slow-twitch or intermediate fibers. Since there is less reliance on fasttwitch fibers, there is less likelihood of a large increase in lactic acid in the working muscle. This theory fits nicely with the observation that fatigue seems to be delayed when using a high cadence, compared to a low cadence. In addition, individual differences in percentage of slow- and fast-twitch fibers may help to explain why some individuals prefer different cadences and why some of us excel at short sprints, while others perform better during long, sustained efforts. Recreational cyclists, who cycle slowly so that force demands are low, have no need to pedal at high cadences since they are already utilizing their slow-twitch fibers. They may even be pedaling at their most economical cadence, since they are in no hurry to get from A to B.*

So, if you are slow, stick with your 60rpm, it's probably more efficient. If you are riding at speed, and I would guess that a lot of riders on here are, ride with a higher cadence, like 90-100rpm. I used to be a grinder and there's no way you're gonna convince me to go back to the 'big' ring and drop my cadence. Spin to win, spin to grin.

Although I'm happy as Larry at 90-110rpm on the flat, and 200-260rpm on the rollers/turbo, my seated climbing cadence is more like 60rpm, and standing climbing cadence (optimal lung/arm/leg/back efficiency) seems to be 60-70rpm.

It's was definitely riding fixed for a few winters (on otherwise geared group rides) that helped broaden my spectrum of workable cadences.

But big gear mashers are always going to get left behind when it counts (and have a nice collection of varicose veins/mutilated cartilages in later life) :p