So what is the crack with a Langster/single speeders then?

always_tyred

goldblendslurper wrote:

My line of thinking with the pedal grounding on a fixed is that because it's fixed you are always pedalling. With a singlespeed you can freewheel with the outside pedal down allowing you to carry more speed through the corner. With a fixed, you can't lean as far over because your inside pedal would hit the ground mid corner. Unless you fixie riders have some way of always timing the pedal strokes so that your inside pedals are always up then that's fine.

There is one particular corner on my route to work which is downhill and quite tight. I know that if I was on a fixed, the speed I'm going and the "length" of the corner, I would have to do a complete revolution of the pedals during the corner. Therefore I would have to take the corner slower and more upright in order to avoid grounding the pedal.

If you think I'm wrong or disagree, please say so. I won't be offended and will be interested to hear your explanation


SYMO: I didn't shop around when I gt my Fillmore. It was in the shop one day and I instantly bought it. Literally 10 seconds after seeing it I said "I'll have it". I did test ridde it to make sure it fitted but that was that. I know Kona make a nice one too.

Ahh, so by making yourself less able to avoid pedal strike, you are more likely to avoid it. Got ya.

To be honest (as opposed to contrary :oops: ) if you are canted over far enough to clip the pedal on the inside, one instinctively has the outside pedal planted to avoid sliding out.

Greg T

I like riding fixed as it gives me something to think about.

I've been riding to work most days for eight years, mostly on the same route. Riding fixed means I have to be that bit more aware and engaged.

Also I can fiddle with the ring (gnurk etc) and cogs and tinker with the bike in a way that you can't with a geared as the engineering is that much more difficult. It's made me much more aware of gearing and cadence and what my thresholds are - gives me a bit of a hobby and a reason to go into the bike shop and suck teeth with the blokes over cogs and chains.

Also - all the kids at school were doing it and I had to fit in.

secretsam

There's something about the simplicity of a single/fixed that appeals, the lack of weight and bits to go wrong, and both my commutes are flat-ish (well, they appear so to this Bristol boy)

But stopping me is the memory of my Grandad going on about riding a fixer as a youngster, "because that's all there was" and viewing gears as being for wimps. I think there's a kind of reborn Grandad-ism in a lot of the single speedie riders in London, and also there's a high proportion of people doing it because it's trendy...which just puts me right off...

Plus I'd probably fall off or something... :oops:

il_principe

goldblendslurper wrote:

My line of thinking with the pedal grounding on a fixed is that because it's fixed you are always pedalling. With a singlespeed you can freewheel with the outside pedal down allowing you to carry more speed through the corner. With a fixed, you can't lean as far over because your inside pedal would hit the ground mid corner. Unless you fixie riders have some way of always timing the pedal strokes so that your inside pedals are always up then that's fine.

It's very simple.. fixed gear bikes have a higher bottom bracket than is usual, making pedal strike far less likely.

il_principe

I ride SS because I wanted a bike that requires little maintenance especially throughout winter. Also because they are less attractive to thieves and can be more safely left in London than my geared bikes. Ironically they are now so popular I'm sure my Pearson is eminently stealable.

The main thing is that they are just fun to ride and build you strength, no need to think about gears you just pedal and this does wonders for your technique as well.

lost_in_thought

jashburnham wrote:

goldblendslurper wrote:

My line of thinking with the pedal grounding on a fixed is that because it's fixed you are always pedalling. With a singlespeed you can freewheel with the outside pedal down allowing you to carry more speed through the corner. With a fixed, you can't lean as far over because your inside pedal would hit the ground mid corner. Unless you fixie riders have some way of always timing the pedal strokes so that your inside pedals are always up then that's fine.

It's very simple.. fixed gear bikes have a higher bottom bracket than is usual, making pedal strike far less likely.

Well now I never knew that! Learn something new every day...

il_principe

"Mountain, cyclocross, and track frames have little bottom bracket drop - their bottom brackets tend to sit quite high. The primary reason for this is clearance: to keep roots, rocks, or a severely sloping track from hitting the pedals, chain rings or frame, the bottom bracket is kept high and out of the way. A higher bottom bracket also shortens the chain stays and downtube of a frame - the tubes of a bicycle put under the greatest stress during riding - thereby giving a stiffer, more responsive feel.
But stiffness and clearance come at the expense of stability; the lower the bottom bracket, the lower the bike's centre of gravity, and the more stable it will ride. Touring and commuter frames should have a lot of bottom bracket drop, as their function is more practical than performance. Road bikes tend to fall somewhere between the two extremes."

lost_in_thought

jashburnham wrote:

"Mountain, cyclocross, and track frames have little bottom bracket drop - their bottom brackets tend to sit quite high. The primary reason for this is clearance: to keep roots, rocks, or a severely sloping track from hitting the pedals, chain rings or frame, the bottom bracket is kept high and out of the way. A higher bottom bracket also shortens the chain stays and downtube of a frame - the tubes of a bicycle put under the greatest stress during riding - thereby giving a stiffer, more responsive feel.
But stiffness and clearance come at the expense of stability; the lower the bottom bracket, the lower the bike's centre of gravity, and the more stable it will ride. Touring and commuter frames should have a lot of bottom bracket drop, as their function is more practical than performance. Road bikes tend to fall somewhere between the two extremes."

Well there you go! Very interesting, and it makes sense, especially the bit about the stiffer, more responsive feel.

I guess then that that's one issue of converting a road frame to a fixed gear...

chaley

biondino wrote:

Fixie-wixies = 75% pretentiousness, 20% inconvenience and 5% bloody-mindedly making yourself do extra work

PMSL

But I think it's, 5% bloody-mindedness, 20% inconvenience and 75% look how big my legs are!
Chaley

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

"Mountain, cyclocross, and track frames have little bottom bracket drop - their bottom brackets tend to sit quite high. The primary reason for this is clearance: to keep roots, rocks, or a severely sloping track from hitting the pedals, chain rings or frame, the bottom bracket is kept high and out of the way. A higher bottom bracket also shortens the chain stays and downtube of a frame - the tubes of a bicycle put under the greatest stress during riding - thereby giving a stiffer, more responsive feel.
But stiffness and clearance come at the expense of stability; the lower the bottom bracket, the lower the bike's centre of gravity, and the more stable it will ride. Touring and commuter frames should have a lot of bottom bracket drop, as their function is more practical than performance. Road bikes tend to fall somewhere between the two extremes."

I'm not sure this applies to the recent avalanche of single speeds on the market. Most of them aren't track bikes converted to road, as per the "original" courier machines. Rather, they are designed from the ground up for a new market more used to stable handling.

I suspect that there is something of a myth building up regarding pedaling technique.

Fixed gear bikes were originally purported to improve cadence. Cycling well at very high cadence is hard and is one aspect of pedaling technique. (See earlier posts regarding Chris Hoy's ability to hold 200 rpm - JayZeus) However, I can't see how they do anything for evening out the pedal stroke.

So, given that high cadence is only a benefit if you both have good pedaling technique and generate a reasonable amount of power at high cadence (which is not something that merely riding at high cadence provides) I am a little skeptical about their merits.

I can't help feeling that the idea that fixed/single was cool came first, and then there had to be some head scratching to come up with some advantages. Mechanical simplicity, aesthetics and theft prevention is plenty.

daniel_b

Thanks for all the replies chaps and chapesses, i think I am starting to get the idea!

My brother has just mailed me to say he fancies one of these:



Is it comparable with the Langster, or miles better? (I'm assuming it can't be wrose?)

Dan

biondino

It LOOKS miles better, though I like the Plug with the bullhorns best. Imagine the Plug is a bit heavier though that's justa aguess.

chaley

It depends what you want, from what i can tell if you want a single/fixed road bike the langster is a good bet, if you want a city bike the charge is a good looking tool, if you want a track based whippy monster then the Fuji is way cool, how ever if you want to be ice cool then you have to build your own. I'm going for a langster ( all being well), because I plan on putting a lot of miles on it, and I don't care what people think
Chaley

always_tyred

Its miles better (artistically - which is most important)

Littigator

biondino wrote:

Fixie-wixies = 75% pretentiousness, 20% inconvenience and 5% bloody-mindedly making yourself do extra work

Says the man who would have paid £1000 for one if it wasn't too small for him

Littigator

ps the Plug is quite a heavy bike compared to other similar price ranged models.

I got a bargain Bowery which weighs in at 9.5kg, good by general standards but still almost 2kg heavier than my nice nice road bike!

daniel_b

So today I had my first ride on a Langster, an 08 version in solid green, and a 58cm frame, which I thought would be way to big, but was actually only marginally a bit long in the top tube.

It was in freewheel mode (Not that brake on the test ride) and it felt very nice and nimble, and has only server to make me more interested in one.

I'm aware they don't seem to be 'that' highly regarded as opposed to other SS bikes, but I tend to buy things with my heart to a fair degree, but if I like it that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The Monaco one is the one I am rather smitten with, and my LBS is checking on Monday to see if there are any left, I expect not.

Common sense tells me that if I really do want/need a SS, for my commute a Tricross would be the sensible choice, if not as eye catching, haven't seen these bikes mentioned elsewhere on the forum, just wondered if anyone on here had one, and what they thought of them?

Of course what I 'should' do is just carry on commuting on my perfectly capable Carrera, but they had to produce this damned shiny lovely looking bike that I don't have didn't they :roll:

Bugger!

How does a 42/16 combo stack up against the sompetition, is it compartively low geared?

Dan