fixed gear in TTs
zencycle
the use of fixed sprocket is forbidden: a
braking system that acts on both wheels is required."
This was evidently added in january of this year. I know I'm setting
myself up for flames, but does this apply to time trials as well? One
would think if they wished to differentiate they would have written
"for massed start races..." But, they didn't, so now I'm wondering if
they mean you can't use a fixed gear in a sanctioned time trial. I
haven't found anything else on the web about it.
Anton Berlin
John Frey's 40k tt record was set on a fixed gear. Still stands
today. I think there's a 3% advantage from this.
Scott
When was the last time you saw/heard of someone riding a fixed gear
bike in a UCI sanctioned TT? As I recall, I think O'Grady tried it in
a prologue somewhere early this year, but aside from that I can't
think of another example.
The point: if no one's doing it, what's the big deal about a rule to
prevent it?
OTOH, for non-UCI sanctioned events, I imagine you'll see lot's of
folks doing it. I've done it, it's quite the challenge unless you're
on the perfect course for it.
brian roth
Yeah, O'Grady used one in the Giro 1Km, dead flat, dead straight
prolougue a few years back...
zencycle
>
> The point: if no one's doing it, what's the big deal about a rule to
> prevent it?
Because I have an interest in cycling, and things like this. Since the
USAC tends to follow the UCI rather closely, it isn't outside the
realm of possibility that the USAC may follow suit.
> OTOH, for non-UCI sanctioned events, I imagine you'll see lot's of
> folks doing it. I've done it, it's quite the challenge unless you're
> on the perfect course for it.
I do it frequently, almost exclusively. I've set most of my PRs on
fixed gears. However, since the USAC tends to follow the UCI rather
closely, I would _certainly_ be interested if the USAC were indeed
considering implementing the same rule.
Scott
Ahhh, but you're now bringing up a new issue. As it turns out, there
are quite a few UCI rules that USAC chooses to ignore except for
during championship events. If you're not competing at nationals,
there's a really good chance the ban on fixed gear tt bikes will never
affect you.
Bob Schwartz
> Because I have an interest in cycling, and things like this. Since the
> USAC tends to follow the UCI rather closely, it isn't outside the
> realm of possibility that the USAC may follow suit.
Given that USAC doesn't follow the UCI closely, where are
you getting that they do? Before you dispute that, consider
showing up to your next TT with wheel covers.
Bob Schwartz
PS Hey dumbass Magilla, are UCI rules enforced at NRC races?
zencycle
>
> Ahhh, but you're now bringing up a new issue. As it turns out, there
> are quite a few UCI rules that USAC chooses to ignore except for
> during championship events. If you're not competing at nationals,
> there's a really good chance the ban on fixed gear tt bikes will never
> affect you.
Which isn't really my interest. I have an interest in bicycle racing,
and whether or not a specific rule affects me specifically is more of
an ancillary point. I know that the two-level handlebar rule will
never affect me at my local TT, but I have an interest in
understandinging, just because I want to. Besdies that, as I get older
I may have an interest in competing at master nationals someday,
therefore it may very well affect me.
thank you for not answering my question.
zencycle
wrote:
> zencycle wrote:
> > Because I have an interest in cycling, and things like this. Since the
> > USAC tends to follow the UCI rather closely, it isn't outside the
> > realm of possibility that the USAC may follow suit.
>
> Given that USAC doesn't follow the UCI closely, where are
> you getting that they do?
Actually, they do. In order to be considered by the UCI to be the
recognized sanctioning body, they _must_ follow UCI rules quite
closely. While certain technical rules may or may not be enforced in
non-UCI events, if the event is to be UCI recognized, the USAC must
adhere to _all_ UCI regulations except where specifically excluded. In
fact, I've never participated in a mass start event where I was able
to use bar extensions, or ride without a helmet, or ride in a shirt
that exposed my shoulders. Locally, the officials are enforcing the
wheel rules under uci 1.3.018. We had a rider recently that was told
not to show up with his Corima 4 spoke wheels again, though they let
him race that day.
so that's where I 'get that they do'. Because they do.
Thank you for not answering my question
Bob Schwartz
> On Aug 25, 2:08 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> zencycle wrote:
>>> Because I have an interest in cycling, and things like this. Since the
>>> USAC tends to follow the UCI rather closely, it isn't outside the
>>> realm of possibility that the USAC may follow suit.
>> Given that USAC doesn't follow the UCI closely, where are
>> you getting that they do?
>
> Actually, they do. In order to be considered by the UCI to be the
> recognized sanctioning body, they _must_ follow UCI rules quite
> closely.
Horseshit. You just pulled that out of your ass.
> While certain technical rules may or may not be enforced in
> non-UCI events, if the event is to be UCI recognized, the USAC must
> adhere to _all_ UCI regulations except where specifically excluded. In
> fact, I've never participated in a mass start event where I was able
> to use bar extensions, or ride without a helmet, or ride in a shirt
> that exposed my shoulders.
There are specific USAC rules that prohibit those things.
And by a large margin most USAC races are non-UCI events.
> Locally, the officials are enforcing the
> wheel rules under uci 1.3.018. We had a rider recently that was told
> not to show up with his Corima 4 spoke wheels again, though they let
> him race that day.
>
> so that's where I 'get that they do'. Because they do.
>
>
> Thank you for not answering my question
Look, if you are going to be a retard, that's fine by me.
I did answer your question, you just aren't smart enough
to know it.
I have had local officials tell me that legal stuff was
illegal, that's why I always used to keep a rulebook in
the glove compartment. Most riders don't know the rules
either, that's why the example you cited was allowed to
happen.
The cases where UCI rules apply are listed in the rulebook.
If it isn't listed they don't apply. If you choose to
not believe that, that's fine by me.
Bob Schwartz
zencycle
wrote:
> zencycle wrote:
>
> > Actually, they do. In order to be considered by the UCI to be the
> > recognized sanctioning body, they _must_ follow UCI rules quite
> > closely.
>
> Horseshit. You just pulled that out of your ass.
Really? then go to a verge series 'cross race and ask them why they
only have one set of double barriers, no triple barriers, and why they
are exactly 40 cm tall.
> There are specific USAC rules that prohibit those things.
Yes, that were implemented as a result of being aligned with UCI regs
> And by a large margin most USAC races are non-UCI events.
irrelevant.
> > Thank you for not answering my question
>
> Look, if you are going to be a retard, that's fine by me.
> I did answer your question, you just aren't smart enough
> to know it.
Where? I asked if the rule banning fixed gears was meant to apply to
time trials. You answered 'don't worry about'. That's about as helpful
as answering 'what type of wheels are legal in road racing ?' with
'round'.
> I have had local officials tell me that legal stuff was
> illegal
irrelevant.
> The cases where UCI rules apply are listed in the rulebook.
> If it isn't listed they don't apply. If you choose to
> not believe that, that's fine by me.
A) not in every case
b) it still doesn't answer my question.
If you don't know the answer, how about either admitting it or not
bothering me with irrelevant information?
Anton Berlin
For what its worth the local USCF doesn't know fuck all about the
rules and that extends all the way up to the cunts that show up at the
Olympic trials.
Bob Schwartz
> On Aug 25, 3:17 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> zencycle wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, they do. In order to be considered by the UCI to be the
>>> recognized sanctioning body, they _must_ follow UCI rules quite
>>> closely.
>> Horseshit. You just pulled that out of your ass.
>
> Really? then go to a verge series 'cross race and ask them why they
> only have one set of double barriers, no triple barriers, and why they
> are exactly 40 cm tall.
Retard,
We were talking about time trials. The answer to your question
is, as I stated before, covered in the rulebook. Which lists
the specific cases where UCI rules are applied.
I've answered your question multiple times. The rulebook is
online, look it up yourself. The answer is there also. And
the online pdf won't call you a dumbass if you can't figure
it out.
It's a handy document, and worth reading. You can't assume
that all officials will bother.
Bob Schwartz
Anton Berlin
By the way, John used a Modolo Kronos on the front wheel that day.
His legs were the 'braking system" for the rear wheel.
zencycle
>
> For what its worth the local USCF doesn't know fuck all about the
> rules and that extends all the way up to the cunts that show up at the
> Olympic trials.
Yes, we have had several local instances of a Schwartz flashing a
rulebook in the chief referees face to get a rule enforced/overturned.
A few years ago the the national championship included a section of
singletrack - clearly a violation of both UCI and USAC rules, yet the
course was sanctioned by the local officials.
I've asked a local official here about the fixed gear rule. The
answer? same as the brain trust in this usenet sewer - "don't worry
about it".
Anton Berlin
To that degree, they're right. You'll need an especially flat course
to get this advantage, You get bogged down once, you're hosed.
You need a front brake better than the Kronos (Frey joked to me that
the brake cost him 20 seconds from the over shot turnaround. "I went
to hit the brake and NOTHING HAPPENED!" We only put it on the night
before.
Matt Chambers
director. sfar...@usacycling.org , but I don't recommend calling him
"Dumbass".
from rulebook:
3E. Individual Time Trial
3E1. Courses may be out-and-back, around a circuit, or one way. Only
out-and-back and circuit courses may be used for record purposes. A one-time
out-and-back course or a circuit large enough for a single lap is ideal.
3E2. Road bicycles shall be used. Bicycles with a front hand brake and fixed
wheel may also be used.
3E3. Starting order may be chosen by random selection, by numeric order, or
by seeding (normally fastest last).
zencycle
wrote:
>
> We were talking about time trials.
Pay attention, booby. the discussion digressed into USAC races
complying with UCI rules.
> The answer to your question
> is, as I stated before, covered in the rulebook. Which lists
> the specific cases where UCI rules are applied.
No, it isn't. The USAC rule book doesn't address the UCI ruling which
brings us to....
> I've answered your question multiple times.
No, you haven't. not once. Your first reply was:
> Given that USAC doesn't follow the UCI closely, where are
> you getting that they do? Before you dispute that, consider
> showing up to your next TT with wheel covers.
There is no answer to the question 'does the rule apply to time
trials?'. You subsequently attempted to assert you answered the
question. You never did.
> The rulebook is
> online, look it up yourself. The answer is there also.
No, it isn't. The USAC rulebok has no answer to the question 'does UCI
rule 1.3.025 apply to time trials?'. Since you seem to have great deal
of problems with reading comprehension, let me make it so simple that
even you can understand it:
UCI rule 1.3.025 states that fixed gears cannot be used in road races.
Does this rule apply to time trials?
The USAC rulebook states that a front brake and fixed cog may be used
in time trials. I wasn't asking about the USAC ruling, DUMBASS...I was
asking about the UCI ruling. I know the USAC ruling and have for many
years. The UCI ruling is new.
I may never have the need to worry about it, but I do have an
interest, and once again, all you have done is incorrectly assert that
you answered my question, which you did not. Should I ask it again?
Here, maybe this time you'll get it.
UCI rule 1.3.025 states that fixed gears cannot be used in road races.
Does this rule apply to time trials?
If you don't know the answer, fine. I don't either, which is why I
asked. But unless you can unequivocally state the UCIs position on it,
the stop being a bloviating shitbag.
zencycle
> Try sending your questions to Shawn Farrell USA Cycling's technical
> "Dumbass".
Matt,
Thank you for being the first person to actually attempt to answer the
question. However, I was interested in the UCI rule, that states fixed
gears cannot be used in road races. I know they're legal in USAC time
trials, but I was wondering if they were now illegal in UCI time
trials.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>> The cases where UCI rules apply are listed in the rulebook.
>> If it isn't listed they don't apply. If you choose to
>> not believe that, that's fine by me.
>
>A) not in every case
>
>b) it still doesn't answer my question.
>
>If you don't know the answer, how about either admitting it or not
>bothering me with irrelevant information?
Could you give me one example of where local officials defer to UCI
regulations that are not in the USCF rule book for a non-UCI event?
Since the average non-Cat I official has no idea what the technical
UCI rules are, other than in a vague, I heard Bobke mention it at the
Tour day France, way, they can't defer upwards.
Bicycles per the USCF rule book have often been significantly and
deliberately different than the UCI rules (for instance, your local
promoter can run a separate race for recumbents). Some UCI rules would
bring a six event USCF event to its knees if they tried to apply them
(Template? Template? I don't have no bleeping template!). Roll out was
bad enough and that effects like, what, ten riders a day?
The odds of the USCF banning fixed gears or free-wheeling single gears
are slim and none for non-UCI events. Too many masters that are
interwoven with clubs and promotion are fixated on the mystique of
riding fixies. Besides, the USCF rulebook already has the language
that you mentioned - its just that specific language in the time trial
area allows fixed gears and one brake.
So the answer is, they have already adopted the language and it
doesn't apply to time trials.
And Master championships are not considered selection races, so UCI
rules don't apply twice over.
Since I can neither read minds or fathom what logic informs the
decisions at the USCF, that is about as far as I can take it.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Bob Schwartz
> UCI rule 1.3.025 states that fixed gears cannot be used in road races.
> Does this rule apply to time trials?
Is a time trial a road race? Hint: Don't confuse
the terms 'road race' and 'mass start road race'.
They aren't the same thing.
Next time you take a dump and need someone
to wipe, don't call. I'm busy.
Bob Schwartz
Anton Berlin
Zen, I don't think the UCI has any road event time trials it
recognizes as records. They're all performed on a velodrome. And
then of course you're going to be on a fixed gear without a brake.
And also of course you'll have the RBR advantage of picking up speed
in the turns but only because you read about it here first.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>I may never have the need to worry about it, but I do have an
>interest, and once again, all you have done is incorrectly assert that
>you answered my question, which you did not. Should I ask it again?
>Here, maybe this time you'll get it.
From one of your responses:
>Because I have an interest in cycling, and things like this. Since the
>USAC tends to follow the UCI rather closely, it isn't outside the
>realm of possibility that the USAC may follow suit.
>> OTOH, for non-UCI sanctioned events, I imagine you'll see lot's of
>> folks doing it. �I've done it, it's quite the challenge unless you're
>> on the perfect course for it.
>I do it frequently, almost exclusively. I've set most of my PRs on
>fixed gears. However, since the USAC tends to follow the UCI rather
>closely, I would _certainly_ be interested if the USAC were indeed
>considering implementing the same rule.
You have been answered for both sets of questions, since you modified
your original question in the above response. Unless you are going to
ride in a UCI or a designated selection race, you only need worry
about the USCF rule, which permits one brake and fixed gear.
Your original question was answered with the comment that UCI events
simply do not use fixed gears anymore. You don't need them to get to
the minimum weight, you get few of the purported advantages and a UCI
team isn't going to keep yet another set of frames, so the answer is,
there is no exception and until they put one in, fixed gears and
single brakes are not permitted. Them are the rules. And since people
generally do not show up at true UCI event with their personal bike in
the back of the Volvo, there is no reason to change or modify them.
Its not like we are talking about anything at all here. The years of
time trialling as a major set of events at the UCI level disappeared,
what, sometime in the 70s-80s? TTs folded into the Tours are UCI road
and bible controlled. Unless you are going for the open USCF time
trial (which requires a UCI bike), I don't see what isn't covered in
the responses.
Tom Kunich
news:33de72c9-722c-4cf1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 2:08 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> > zencycle wrote:
> > > Because I have an interest in cycling, and things like this. Since the
> > > USAC tends to follow the UCI rather closely, it isn't outside the
> > > realm of possibility that the USAC may follow suit.
> >
> > Given that USAC doesn't follow the UCI closely, where are
> > you getting that they do?
>
> Actually, they do.
??? I don't know where you race but the USCF only follows the international
rules at national level races.
Bob Schwartz
> And Master championships are not considered selection races, so UCI
> rules don't apply twice over.
1M1(e) - Bicycles must meet current UCI technical regulations
at events that select 17-18, U23 and elite riders for
international competition or national teams. All bicycles
used in National Championships (for age 17 and older riders)
and NRC races must comply with the current UCI regulations
I was dead serious about always keeping a rulebook in the
glove compartment.
Bob Schwartz
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>Actually, they do. In order to be considered by the UCI to be the
>recognized sanctioning body, they _must_ follow UCI rules quite
>closely. While certain technical rules may or may not be enforced in
>non-UCI events, if the event is to be UCI recognized, the USAC must
>adhere to _all_ UCI regulations except where specifically excluded. In
>fact, I've never participated in a mass start event where I was able
>to use bar extensions, or ride without a helmet, or ride in a shirt
>that exposed my shoulders. Locally, the officials are enforcing the
>wheel rules under uci 1.3.018. We had a rider recently that was told
>not to show up with his Corima 4 spoke wheels again, though they let
>him race that day.
Lotta nice rhetorical tricks in the paragraph above. Kudos for that.
Matt Chambers
UCI rulebook says no fixed gear on the road. So, that must include road
time trials.
"zencycle" <zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote in message
news:eb13afd7-443d-498f...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Scott
Can you read? If so, you'd know the answer to your question. You
included the reference and everything.
Given that you've only now defined the question clearly AND had
included the answer in the original post, don't blame us for having
trouble figuring out what you were asking. You already established
that UCI rules forbid fixed cogs, so we could only assume you were
asking about something else.
someone
where?
z
That's because the Kronos brake blocks were shit.
z
> On Aug 25, 11:44 am, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>> UCI rule 1.3.025 states "....For races on the road and cyclo-cross,
>> the use of fixed sprocket is forbidden: a
>> braking system that acts on both wheels is required."
>>
>> This was evidently added in january of this year. I know I'm setting
>> myself up for flames, but does this apply to time trials as well? One
>> would think if they wished to differentiate they would have written
>> "for massed start races..." But, they didn't, so now I'm wondering if
>> they mean you can't use a fixed gear in a sanctioned time trial. I
>> haven't found anything else on the web about it.
>
> today. I think there's a 3% advantage from this.
I hate to say it, but if the wording is to be taken literally, then no
fixed gears are permitted in road TTs. I base that on the wording in
1.3.020 "For road competitions other than time trials and for
cyclo-cross competitions...". Here the rules classify TTs as "road
competitions" and in 1.3.025 there is no distinction "For races on the
road and cyclo-cross, the use of fixed sprocket is forbidden: a
braking system that acts on both wheels is required."
That said, if the /intent/ is to have a dedicated braking system on both
the front and rear wheel (evidently the UCI are not hipster fixie
riders), then the rules lean toward at least permitting a fixed gear
bike with front and rear caliper rim brakes.
Regardless, if the intent is to prevent fixed gear bikes (with a front
caliper brake) in UCI road TTs, then it is a silly intention and goes
against the spirit of the competition.
As for Bob's question to MG, USACycling "1M1.(e)(e) Bicycles must meet
current UCI technical regulations at events that select 17-18, U23 and
elite riders for international competition or national teams. All
bicycles used in National Championships (for age 17 and older riders)
and NRC races must comply with the current UCI regulations"
Of course that conflicts with 1B1.(b) "(b) Races for 17-18, U23 or elite
riders (including national championships) that are used to qualify
riders for national teams or international competition have the option
of using UCI rules, either completely or in part, provided that
notification is given to the riders 60 days prior to the event."
Further, the 1B1.(b) rule does not include Masters because Masters
Nationals is not a selection event for any UCI sanctioned races. Masters
races are pretty much first come, first served without any other
performance qualifications.
However, if you compete in Masters races internationally, be prepared to
deal with 1.3.025 OTOH, I imagine there are a fair number of UK TTs
ridden on fixed gears.
Anton Berlin
Technically you could get the same advantage from using a single speed
freewheel and putting on a rear brake.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
In RBR.
z
Damn you, now you've gone and done it.
Someone will inevitably respond by bleating about how the fixed gear
helps turn the pedals over TDC or some such nonsense. The truth is that
unless you are backpedaling (and therefore slowing yourself down), you
will never receive any effect of a 'fixed'. As long as you are applying
forward pressure to the pedals, a fixed gear is no different than a
single speed freewheel.
zencycle
wrote:
>
> Next time you take a dump and need someone
> to wipe, don't call. I'm busy.
The next time you want to answer a legitimate question with "why do
you care, it doesn't affect you", reconsider your impression that
you're being helpful.
zencycle
>
> You have been answered for both sets of questions, since you modified
> your original question in the above response.
No, I wasn't. I asked if there was any specific knowledge that the
ruling applied to time trials. Up until I logged in this morning,
there was nothing more than "it doesn't affect you". That deosn't
answer the question, and I didn't modify my original question. I may
have elaborated on how it may affect me, but the original question
didn't change.
> Unless you are going to
> ride in a UCI or a designated selection race, you only need worry
> about the USCF rule, which permits one brake and fixed gear.
There it is again. and how does this apply to the UCI rule?
> so the answer is,
> there is no exception and until they put one in, fixed gears and
> single brakes are not permitted. Them are the rules. And since people
> generally do not show up at true UCI event with their personal bike in
> the back of the Volvo, there is no reason to change or modify them.
Good. I like that answer. Perhaps you could have opened with it.
> Unless you are going for the open USCF time
> trial (which requires a UCI bike), I don't see what isn't covered in
> the responses.
I may very well decide to compete in the masters national
championships, which are the feed to the masters world championships.
so, the ruling may very well affect me.
Scott
You'd think so, but I'd venture a guess that if you tried similar
setups you'd find that they aren't really the same. Can't explain it.
I'll give you a couple of scenarios to ponder. Some years ago I use
to ride a single speed w/ dual brake setup for select early season
crits. You know, just for the fun of it. It was a challenge, being
stuck in the preselected gear ratio, but not once did I ever perceive
an advantage of any sort. I also, some years ago, used to do quite a
bit of fixed gear riding, to include doing intervals up Lookout Mtn
here in the Denver area. I could routinely do multiple ascents up the
climb in gears I could not begin to use on my geared bike. Before you
attribute it to weight, don't bother... my fixie wasn't that light
(especially the wheels/tires) and my geared bike wasn't. The weight
difference was minimal, but the fixed gear bike allowed me to ride
significantly higher gears up the climb. Can't explain why in this
case, either.
Scott
As someone who's spent quite a lot of time on fixies over the years,
I've always found that thinking comical. To ride the bike in such a
way that the cog was turning the cranks instead of the other way
'round, you'd be reversing chain tension twice per revolution and the
noise would be deafening. Anyone who tells you that the fixed gear
FORCES your stroke through TDC is obviously very stupid or has never
given it any serious thought.
zencycle
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
>
> regulations that are not in the USCF rule book for a non-UCI event?
I already gave one, where a rider was told not to show up with his
corima 4 spoke wheels for a local dogshit crit. We had an incident a
couple of years ago where a local masters team had race radios, which
were illegal under UCI but not usac at the time. they weren't allowed
to use them. we've also had local 'cross courses where the promoter
was instructed to modify their barrier sets to be more in line with
UCI regs. It happens all the time in my region.
> The odds of the USCF banning fixed gears or free-wheeling single gears
> are slim and none for non-UCI events.
that's nice to hope for, but I think hope is the best we can hope for.
> Since I can neither read minds or fathom what logic informs the
> decisions at the USCF, that is about as far as I can take it.
So, we don't know for sure that the usac will _not_ adopt the uci
rule. Got it.
Bob Schwartz
> I may very well decide to compete in the masters national
> championships, which are the feed to the masters world championships.
> so, the ruling may very well affect me.
Masters nationals are the feed for masters worlds? Really?
Sheesh!
Bob Schwartz
zencycle
>
> Zen, I don't think the UCI has any road event time trials it
> recognizes as records. They're all performed on a velodrome. And
> then of course you're going to be on a fixed gear without a brake.
>
> And also of course you'll have the RBR advantage of picking up speed
> in the turns but only because you read about it here first.
I remember that flame war....hilarious....
zencycle
>
> Anyone who tells you that the fixed gear
> FORCES your stroke through TDC is obviously very stupid or has never
> given it any serious thought.
I personally have found going up a hill in a given fixie ration to be
much easier than the same hill in the same freehub/wheel ratio. It
does _seem_ to turn over easier. One of the local TT courses has a
reasonable hill that I've ridden hundreds of times on various bikes
with various combination. My PR on the course was with a fixed gear.
Tom Kunich
news:ae4c53c5-727b-4a84...@u20g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anyone who tells you that the fixed gear
> FORCES your stroke through TDC is obviously very stupid or has never
> given it any serious thought.
It isn't too strange that only people who are afraid to post under their own
names are pushing fixed gears.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
The rear derailuer and misalligned lateral chain make you 3% less
efficient. No mystery.
Anton Berlin
Here we go again.....
cur...@the-md-russells.org
You're a clown. I posted your comments that made it two questions.
Both were answered, in spite of the fact that you seem to deny that
you made the tie to the USAC rules yourself. Again, you are a clown
and not worth the waste of time already made.
Don't you have some Brittany Spears use group to post to?
Scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
How would you account for the difference between a fixed gear vs
single speed w/ proper chain alignment? No lateral deflection or
derailleur issues, but they aren't the same.
Scott
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I wouldn't say that ONLY people who post under pseudonyms ride
fixies. Lot's of folks who don't use false identities ride fixies,
myself included.
Just curious, but why the fixation (sorry, couldn't help it) with 'net
pseudonyms?
Tom Kunich
> On Aug 26, 8:59 am, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:ae4c53c5-727b-4a84...@u20g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > Anyone who tells you that the fixed gear
> > > FORCES your stroke through TDC is obviously very stupid or has never
> > > given it any serious thought.
> >
> > It isn't too strange that only people who are afraid to post under their
> > own
> > names are pushing fixed gears.
>
> I wouldn't say that ONLY people who post under pseudonyms ride
> fixies.
I didn't say people "riding" fixies. I said people PUSHING fixies as in
trying to get others to do the same.
> Lot's of folks who don't use false identities ride fixies, myself
> included.
You aren't telling us how you want to ride the Tour de France on a fixie to
show all those incompetent dopers real riding.
> Just curious, but why the fixation (sorry, couldn't help it) with 'net
> pseudonyms?
Typically people who post under pseudonyms have fewer qualms about posting
lies, distortions and personal attacks on others. Of course Berlin is the
exception.
AMuzi
>> Anyone who tells you that the fixed gear
>> FORCES your stroke through TDC is obviously very stupid or has never
>> given it any serious thought.
Tom Kunich wrote:
> It isn't too strange that only people who are afraid to post under their own
> names are pushing fixed gears.
I ride fixed; since 1975 about half the year.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Donald Munro
> Don't you have some Brittany Spears use group to post to?
Is she a fixed gear ?
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't expect there would be a difference. There's no free power
anywhere. If the legs are 'pushed' past TDC then it's at the expense
of road speed.
Anton Berlin
You mean.... "Anton Berlin is exceptional "
cur...@the-md-russells.org
To be honest, I don't even know if she is an outie or an innie. And
that is probably public knowledge.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Dude,
I don't think Bob has the impression that he is being
helpful.
We are not here to help. We are here to improve you
by teaching you to suffer. It's like that old saying about
building a man a fire versus teaching him:
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for one night.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of
his life.
That's the RBR motto.
Hope this helps,
Ben
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scott, 3% is a huge gain, especially when you're in the 10% part of
the 90/10 rule.
Another thing to consider, as an ex trackie I always took pride in
that us fixed gear riders have the best pedaling stroke. Turns out we
totally Kuniched that one. Mountain bikers actually have the best
pedalling technique.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's a fixie kook trying to be scientific
William Asher
>
> If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for one night.
> If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of
> his life.
>
> That's the RBR motto.
I thought it was "Please, not in the face."
--
Bill Asher
bjwe...@gmail.com
>
> You'd think so, but I'd venture a guess that if you tried similar
> setups you'd find that they aren't really the same. Can't explain it.
>
> I'll give you a couple of scenarios to ponder. Some years ago I use
> to ride a single speed w/ dual brake setup for select early season
> crits. You know, just for the fun of it. It was a challenge, being
> stuck in the preselected gear ratio, but not once did I ever perceive
> an advantage of any sort. I also, some years ago, used to do quite a
> bit of fixed gear riding, to include doing intervals up Lookout Mtn
> here in the Denver area. I could routinely do multiple ascents up the
> climb in gears I could not begin to use on my geared bike. Before you
> attribute it to weight, don't bother... my fixie wasn't that light
> (especially the wheels/tires) and my geared bike wasn't. The weight
> difference was minimal, but the fixed gear bike allowed me to ride
> significantly higher gears up the climb. Can't explain why in this
> case, either.
I know that when climbing on a fixed gear bike, the
momentum of the bike carries your legs through
the top/bottom dead center position.
I don't think this actually makes the climb easier in
terms of power or the amount of oxygen you respire
or anything "objective." After all the momentum still
had to be applied by your legs in the first place.
I think it makes the climb psychologically easier
since you don't have that feeling of push-stall-push-stall
that you do climbing at low cadences on a freewheel
bike. So the climb does genuinely seem easier.
Also it leads you to climb in a higher gear than
you'd think possible, because there's no other choice.
(This would also be true on a singlespeed freewheel
though.)
IME a ride on a fixed gear feels like more of a workout
than a ride of the same length on a freewheel bike.
I don't think this is due to smooth pedal stroke magic,
but is sort of psychological: the fixed gear never lets
you slack off by coasting. It's like having Manolo Saiz
on your crankset yelling "VENGA VENGA" all the
time, though significantly less annoying.
Ben
Anton Berlin
> I know that when climbing on a fixed gear bike, the
> momentum of the bike carries your legs through
> the top/bottom dead center position.
Yes it would do that but again at the expense of road speed. There's
no free energy to be gained.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
>Also it leads you to climb in a higher gear than
>you'd think possible, because there's no other choice.
>(This would also be true on a singlespeed freewheel
>though.)
I think you are failing to factor in the fear of falling over and the
fear of embarrassment. Not that there weren't a few times that I spent
my time trying to figure out the best place to fall over on the climb.
Suggestion from experience: the whole Sean Kelly double strap thing
really sucks on a steep climb on a fixed gear. Really, really sucks.
Susan Walker
> Another thing to consider, as an ex trackie I always took pride in
> that us fixed gear riders have the best pedaling stroke. Turns out we
> totally Kuniched that one. Mountain bikers actually have the best
> pedalling technique.
Why, and what makes a pedalling stroke good?
Tom Kunich
news:4a95ba06$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Seems like he's never bothered to look at a Tour de France recording and
watched the various stage winners with completely different pedaling
techniques and cadences and yet each win for reasons obviously unrelated to
pedaling styles.
But that isn't much of a surprise.
Anton Berlin
Here is an excerpt of the studies:
http://www.smartttraining.blogspot.com/
The full articles
1. Coyle EF, Sidossis LS, Horowitz JF, Beltz JD. Cycling efficiency is
related to the percentage of type I muscle fibers. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. Jul; 24(7): 782-8, 1992.
2. Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Hopper MK, Walters TJ. Determinants of
endurance in well-trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol. Jun; 64(6):
2622-30, 1988.
3. Coyle EF, Feltner ME, Kautz SA, Hamilton MT, Montain SJ, Baylor AM,
Abraham LD, and Petrek GW. Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. Jan; 23(1):93-107, 1991.
Anton Berlin
> "Susan Walker" <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote in message
Tom what's a Tour de France recording? Another one of those
"things" you iand Edison nvented?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tom what's a Tour de France recording? Another one of those
>"things" you iand Edison nvented?
Aren't we reaching here? My hard drive on the DVD is full of them.
What do you call them?
bjwe...@gmail.com
In MTB'ing, if you are trying to climb a steep
loose hill, you have to keep traction, and also
balance so that you have enough weight on the
rear to have traction, and enough weight on the
front to keep from popping a wheelie.
If you stomp a high gear you are more likely to
break the rear wheel free, skid it, stop moving,
and fall over (or at best have to dismount and run).
Ideally, if you can pedal smoothly and decrease
the variation due to dead spots in the pedal
stroke, then you have a better chance of making
it up the hill.
That doesn't mean that you can totally eliminate
dead spots, or that this discipline is useful at other
times when traction is not a problem.
Ben
Scott
wrote:
>
> I know that when climbing on a fixed gear bike, the
> momentum of the bike carries your legs through
> the top/bottom dead center position.
>
> I don't think this actually makes the climb easier in
> terms of power or the amount of oxygen you respire
> or anything "objective." After all the momentum still
> had to be applied by your legs in the first place.
> I think it makes the climb psychologically easier
> since you don't have that feeling of push-stall-push-stall
> that you do climbing at low cadences on a freewheel
> bike. So the climb does genuinely seem easier.
>
Since you can't 'push' a chain, the only way for the momentum of the
bike to carry your legs through TDC would be for the chain to tighten
between the bottom of the chainring and cog, essentially pulling the
pedals through, not pushing them through. Again, if your chain were
to go slack/tight/slack/tight/slack/tight/ over and over again while
climbing, which is what would have to happen for the momentum to force
the pedals around, it would be so damn noticable that no one could
possibly doubt that it's happening. BUT, it doesn't happen. The
beauty of the fixed gear, IMO, is that you learn to pedal through TDC
more smoothly precisely to prevent such jerky chain tension changes.
You may have segments in the pedal stroke where there is less chain
tension due to reduced torque, but unless you're a really, really
choppy pedaller, you will not have the sort of chain tension changes
required to pull the cranks 'round.
Scott
wrote:
The problems of choppy pedalling on an mtb, with the resultant loss of
traction when the rear wheel breaks free, can be fixed with a 29er and
a good tire. Greater traction makes anyone seem like a more efficient
pedaller, as 29ers rarely lose traction when climbing seated.
someone
> On Aug 25, 6:52 pm, someone <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Aug, 21:40, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 25, 3:12 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 25, 4:05 pm, "Matt Chambers" <mattchamb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Try sending your questions to Shawn Farrell USA Cycling's technical
> > > > > director. sfarr...@usacycling.org , but I don't recommend calling him
> > > > > "Dumbass".
>
> > > > Matt,
>
> > > > Thank you for being the first person to actually attempt to answer the
> > > > question. However, I was interested in the UCI rule, that states fixed
> > > > gears cannot be used in road races. I know they're legal in USAC time
> > > > trials, but I was wondering if they were now illegal in UCI time
> > > > trials.
>
> > > recognizes as records. They're all performed on a velodrome. And
> > > then of course you're going to be on a fixed gear without a brake.
>
> > > And also of course you'll have the RBR advantage of picking up speed
> > > in the turns but only because you read about it here first.
>
> > where?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
when?
someone
> On Aug 26, 9:48 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Anyone who tells you that the fixed gear
> > FORCES your stroke through TDC is obviously very stupid or has never
> > given it any serious thought.
>
> much easier than the same hill in the same freehub/wheel ratio. It
> does _seem_ to turn over easier. One of the local TT courses has a
> reasonable hill that I've ridden hundreds of times on various bikes
> with various combination. My PR on the course was with a fixed gear.
Better wheel with ideal chainline and low Q cranks. Substitute a
freewheel on the fixed wheel and you can coast downhill. Fixed gears
are for track and training. No point in a time trial, fixed or free
will do for a hiilclimb or on the flat, freewheel for downhills.
someone
different wheel. Wheel built with track hubs have wider bracing angle
and are stiffer than a road wheel for they must be able to wihstand
the high cornering forces of the track.
z
What are these "high cornering forces of the track" that you speak of?
someone
Tight track and banking, good clean surface. Accelerations are made
in the corners and so speeds are higher than on the road where one
must stop pedalling when there is insufficient positive banking.
Speeds in the corners are higher on the track because every corner has
positive banking.
Tom Sherman °_°
> someone [aka Trevor Jeffrey] wrote:
>> [...]
>> different wheel. Wheel built with track hubs have wider bracing angle
>> and are stiffer than a road wheel for they must be able to wihstand
>> the high cornering forces of the track.
>
> What are these "high cornering forces of the track" that you speak of?
They are the ones that occur as Trevor's bike swings 10 feet side to
side with each pedal stroke. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths
Michael Press
<1a02d73a-91b1-443b...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What he says about holonomic constraints is incorrect.
But then he never actually uses the concept.
Yes, a sphere rolling on a surface is an example
of a non-holonomic constraint.
Yes, a bicycle wheel rolling in a straight line on
a surface is an example of a holonomic constraint.
_However_
A sphere rolling in a straight line on a surface
is also an example of a holonomic constraint.
A bicycle wheel rolling on a surface with arbitray
axle yaw is a non-holonomic constraint.
A constraint is holonomic if and only if it can be
reduced to a set of equations relating different coordinates.
--
Michael Press
M-gineering
>
> What are these "high cornering forces of the track" that you speak of?
going slow high on the track
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
Donald Munro
> What are these "high cornering forces of the track" that you speak of?
Magilla will tell you ad nauseum.
Donald Munro
>> If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for one night.
>> If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of
>> his life.
>>
>> That's the RBR motto.
William Asher wrote:
> I thought it was "Please, not in the face."
Where do you want it ?
someone
> z wrote:
>
> > What are these "high cornering forces of the track" that you speak of?
>
> going slow high on the track
> --
That is providing lateral wheel force, it is not cornering the bike
although the rider must resist this to continue in a straight line,
the front wheel is higher than the rear to counter the slip angle due
to tyre deformation. It is also a valid point in considering wheel
stability on the track, but the issue was a track wheel being ridden
on the road.
Anton Berlin
> in the corners
someone finally wrote it. literally
AMuzi
this may help:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/index.cfm
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
z
Somebody (pun intended) needs to 'splain to me how /cornering/ forces on
a track exceed those on the road. Road bends are generally not banked to
nearly the degree of track bends. The banked track means that the rider
is going through the turn much closer to perpendicular than an
equivalent radius and speed on the road. There are greater compressive
forces on the wheels in a turn on the track, but those are vertically
oriented relative to the bike, not horizontally oriented.
Pedalling is irrelevant to the issue of cornering forces whenever there
is braking involved on a road turn. People are not braking to allow
themselves to pedal through the turn. If you cannot go through a bend on
the track at full speed, then is is not a well designed track. Kenosha
comes close to this in it's 4th turn. You /can/ go through it at full
speed, but only after you have developed some trust. It's a home track
advantage.
someone
which cannot be done on the road due to pedal grounding restrictions.
someone
> Somebody (pun intended) needs to 'splain to me how /cornering/ forces on
> a track exceed those on the road.
The banking assists in directional reversal and peadalling can be
maintained.
> Road bends are generally not banked to
> nearly the degree of track bends. The banked track means that the rider
> is going through the turn much closer to perpendicular than an
> equivalent radius and speed on the road. There are greater compressive
> forces on the wheels in a turn on the track, but those are vertically
> oriented relative to the bike, not horizontally oriented.
Yes. There is still an absolute change of direction despite minimal
steering input to suggest otherwise.
>
> Pedalling is irrelevant to the issue of cornering forces whenever there
> is braking involved on a road turn.
It is relevant by its absence.
> People are not braking to allow
> themselves to pedal through the turn. If you cannot go through a bend on
> the track at full speed, then is is not a well designed track. Kenosha
> comes close to this in it's 4th turn. You /can/ go through it at full
> speed, but only after you have developed some trust. It's a home track
> advantage.
Acceleration comes from the riders legs with the assistance of
decending the banking and tightening the turn radius.
Bob Schwartz
Shit like this is why I tune in to rbr. I'd miss my bread
and circuses.
Bob Schwartz
z
If you are trying to express that greater cornering forces on a track
come from pedaling forces during turns, then say so. Not that I believe it.
Show us where pedaling forces in turns (where you must be in the saddle
at anything close to top speed) are equal to or greater than pedaling
forces when the bike is going in a straight line and you can pedal out
of the saddle.
At what rpm do riders achieve peak pedal force?
The descending and tightening of the turn radius are red herrings as
they have virtually nothing to do with pedaling forces.
someone
It is rather obvious.
>
> Show us where pedaling forces in turns (where you must be in the saddle
> at anything close to top speed) are equal to or greater than pedaling
> forces when the bike is going in a straight line and you can pedal out
> of the saddle.
No. That is unlikely to occur.
>
> At what rpm do riders achieve peak pedal force?
There isn't one. Peak pedal force occurs at startup.
>
> The descending and tightening of the turn radius are red herrings as
> they have virtually nothing to do with pedaling forces.
Descending accelerates the speed of the rider, and so his legs
follow. Tightening the radius is due to greater cornering force, an
increase in lateral acceleration. Lateral acceleration will radially
stress the wheel to a greater extent. The cornering force is in
addition to that exhibited by rider weight.
Donald Munro
> Shit like this is why I tune in to rbr. I'd miss my bread
> and circuses.
Teasing of apes is prohibited without a permit.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>different wheel. Wheel built with track hubs have wider bracing angle
>and are stiffer than a road wheel for they must be able to wihstand
>the high cornering forces of the track.
This I rather disagree with. Most failures that I have seen have been
front wheels and have been from maneuvers with handlebar input, not
from smooth cornering on the track. If it was that simple, more rear
wheels would fail IMO and AFAIR, there was only one rear wheel failure
on a well maintained bike that I've seen and it was a bike that went
airborn. A whole lot else broke on that bike...
There well may be more downward force in the turn, but I don't think
it particularly stresses the wheels.
marco
> It is rather obvious....
Yeah! Way to tell him what's what, someone.
I'll bet 'z' never even rode on a track.
someone
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT), someone
>
> >different wheel. Wheel built with track hubs have wider bracing angle
> >and are stiffer than a road wheel for they must be able to wihstand
> >the high cornering forces of the track.
>
> This I rather disagree with. Most failures that I have seen have been
> front wheels and have been from maneuvers with handlebar input, not
> from smooth cornering on the track. If it was that simple, more rear
> wheels would fail IMO and AFAIR, there was only one rear wheel failure
> on a well maintained bike that I've seen and it was a bike that went
> airborn. A whole lot else broke on that bike...
>
> There well may be more downward force in the turn, but I don't think
> it particularly stresses the wheels.
I'll remind you that the discussion was specific for a fixed sprocket
freewheel. A rear wheel. These have a greater spoke bracing on the
sprocket side of the wheel than a road wheel. As you say, failure is
rare with well constructed equipment, a testament to the design. The
wire spoked track rear wheel is tougher due to its greater stability
than a road wheel. This comes not only from the greater bracing of
the sprocket side spokes but generally from a more concientious
construction resulting in a radially stiffer wheel maintaining rim
stability in high speed turns.
If downward force upon the wheels does not stress them, what do you
think does? You appear to have fallen for the Brandtian trap, that a
single wire spoke supports the bike by compression, foolish.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>If downward force upon the wheels does not stress them, what do you
>think does? You appear to have fallen for the Brandtian trap, that a
>single wire spoke supports the bike by compression, foolish.
Try reading for comprehension. I said that the it does not
particularly stress them. Whatever stress there is, it is not of any
significance in the design issues for the wheel. It will not be of
particular concern, nor will it lead to failure - all of which you
implied when you said it was a design issue.
someone
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:44:41 -0700 (PDT), someone
>
> >If downward force upon the wheels does not stress them, what do you
> >think does? You appear to have fallen for the Brandtian trap, that a
> >single wire spoke supports the bike by compression, foolish.
>
> Try reading for comprehension. I said that the it does not
> particularly stress them. Whatever stress there is, it is not of any
> significance in the design issues for the wheel. It will not be of
> particular concern, nor will it lead to failure - all of which you
> implied when you said it was a design issue.
>
An underconsructed wheel will fail when placed under high stress.
Buckling generally occurs with too great a spoke tension and folding
when there is insufficient spokage. Stress determines the build
requirement of the wheel. Calculable stress such as that occuring
during cornering should always be accounted for. Not doing so may
result in an underconstructed wheel.
Bob Schwartz
You're not an engineer, are you? If you are then I understand
the need to post anonymously.
What's "spokage"?
Bob Schwartz
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>An underconsructed wheel will fail when placed under high stress.
>Buckling generally occurs with too great a spoke tension and folding
>when there is insufficient spokage. Stress determines the build
>requirement of the wheel. Calculable stress such as that occuring
>during cornering should always be accounted for. Not doing so may
>result in an underconstructed wheel.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Try again.
someone
wrote:
in your case, diarrhoeic verbosity.
someone
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT), someone
>
> >An underconsructed wheel will fail when placed under high stress.
> >Buckling generally occurs with too great a spoke tension and folding
> >when there is insufficient spokage. Stress determines the build
> >requirement of the wheel. Calculable stress such as that occuring
> >during cornering should always be accounted for. Not doing so may
> >result in an underconstructed wheel.
>
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Try again.
Have it your way. Bye.
William Asher
> someone wrote:
>>
>> An underconsructed wheel will fail when placed under high stress.
>> Buckling generally occurs with too great a spoke tension and folding
>> when there is insufficient spokage. Stress determines the build
>> requirement of the wheel. Calculable stress such as that occuring
>> during cornering should always be accounted for. Not doing so may
>> result in an underconstructed wheel.
>
> You're not an engineer, are you? If you are then I understand
> the need to post anonymously.
>
> What's "spokage"?
This constant nit-picking over obvious typos is getting tiresome. He means
"sporkage."
--
Bill Asher
Bob Schwartz
Dumbass,
Curtis was being polite. He could have told you that you were
wrong in addition to being irrelevant. He might have said that
you are so full of shit that your track wheels are brown and
have insufficient spokage.
But he didn't. He's polite.
Bob Schwartz