The things people dump..

[Peter Korsten]

Andrew Tarpinian schreef:

> right on a current fixed gear bike if you were stationary and pedaled 
> backwards you would go backwards :) if you were in motion you can't stop 
> pedaling, you use your legs to slow your speed.

So... what do you do if you have to make an emergency stop?

> think of it this way, why do you want to drive a manual transmission? So 
> you can have more control, you want to slow down so you switch to a 
> lower gear. With a geared bike the only way to slow down is to use the 
> brake, same as with an automatic car. With a fixed bike you start 
> pedaling slower and it slows the bike. If you have an appropriate single 
> gear ratio for your ability there is no issue with starting off and 
> reaching a nice top speed. It gives your body a direct connection to the 
> bike and your body essentially becomes the real driving force of the 
> bike. It's a bit of a mental challenge as well, you have to pre-judge 
> the up coming road and modify your cadence to change your speed.

You don't drive stick, do you? :) If you'd shift down gears to slow 
down, that would be a sure way to break your gearbox/kludge quickly.

Manual gearboxes have three main advantages over 'classic' automatic 
gearboxes (meaning, not the really clever electronic ones):
1) Lower capital expenditure: cheaper to buy.
2) Lower operational expenditure: cheaper to run (simpler design, lower 
fuel consumption).
3) Greater control over acceleration, which is the case in point.

For example, if you know at what RPM you have maximum torque, and at 
what RPM you have maximum power, you can shift up as soon as you hit 
maximum power, have the rev counter end up at the maximum torque, and 
repeat this until you run out of gears. This is the fastest way to reach 
maximum speed, or 100 km/h / 60 mph.

The same goes for bicycles. You start pedalling in the lowest reasonable 
gear, and shift up as soon as your legs are going around faster than is 
comfortable. The idea is to end up at the rotational speed and pedal 
pressure that are optimal, just like a car engine has an optimal RPM 
number (usually around 1500 to 2000).

> Maybe my car analogy is not a good one. Sheldon can explain it better 
> than I can:
> 
> http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html

Still, apart from the weight and drive train efficiency, which make 
sense of course, there's a lot of 'you should really try it', kinda vague.

The thing is... I did drive them, even in a country that is as flat as a 
billiards table (the Netherlands). Or perhaps just because of that. 
Another thing of the Netherlands is that the wind usually comes from the 
south-east.

So you're on your bicycle, in a landscape that is completely flat, with 
maybe a line of trees next to the little canal and the cycle path, and 
the wind is coming straight at you. And it's not giving up. And it 
brought its friend the rain along, too. And you're still 10 km from 
home, it's getting dark so you need the light, which uses a dynamo and 
makes pedalling even heavier. Things are not looking up.

Something like this:
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n247/hanneketoen/o907/117.jpg

Now, the traditional Dutch bike would indeed be a fixed-gear one (but 
which at least would allow coasting), and it's what made the country 
great, sticking their fingers in dikes and all that.

But with more gears, at least you would have it a little bit easier. It 
would take you longer to get home, but at least you wouldn't need 
physiotherapy. :)

- Peter