What's your favourite gear ratio?

What if the rotating mass of the 52t chainring is less than that of the 40t chainring?

I suppose he means all other things being equal.

"I dispute that being a fact."

What are we talking about here... just alcohol or are you on drugs as well?

^^But they rarely are. It seems that the idea is more or less that the tooth count is what makes the perceived difference. If you doubled the size of the teeth and chain of the smaller ratio but it still had less teeth, would you still think it's faster?

^No drugs right now.

Not faster as such... faster acceleration.

Despite it being larger with a smaller tooth count?

I'm not a fucking scientist. I'm a simple guy... I drink beer straight from the can. I like whisky and I'll happily eat cold pizza for breakfast.

Your mum is larger with a smaller tooth count

ftfy

Touché.

It takes less energy to accelerate a 40/13 gear ratio from 0 to 120r.p.m. than it does a 52/17 ratio, that's an undisputed fact.

I don't think your legs are a reliable system of measurement. 51/17 should be a slightly more efficient ratio due to chain tension and chain link rotation.

What about the extra friction from the extra chain/cog contact? Would take cause another minute variable that probably wouldn't make too much of a difference?

It takes less energy to accelerate a 40/13 gear ratio from 0 to 120r.p.m. than it does a 52/17 ratio, that's an undisputed fact. Personally I believe it made a difference, but like previously implied I'm open minded.

Fine.

puts on tester hat

A bicycle drivechain is really simple system, it's near as dammit completely efficient and just serves to turn one revolution in the cranks to x revolutions at the wheel. How it achieves that is irrelevant - it's a completely linear relationship that is completely defined by a simple ratio. 48/18 = 2.67 revolutions at the wheel for one at the crank, 40/15 = 2.67 revolutions etc.

That's what I reckon.

I'm just more of a problem guy than a solution guy.

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/factors-affecting-bicycle-transmission.html

the straight chainline gear in this blokes test showed 96-7% efficiency.

"Fine.

puts on tester hat

A bicycle drivechain is really simple system, it's near as dammit completely efficient and just serves to turn one revolution in the cranks to x revolutions at the wheel. How it achieves that is irrelevant - it's a completely linear relationship that is completely defined by a simple ratio. 48/18 = 2.67 revolutions at the wheel for one at the crank, 40/15 = 2.67 revolutions etc."

I hear what you're saying, you're talking bull, but I hear you.

Can i have a tester hat?

Talking bull? How so sir?

flings down handkerchief

Like I said, I'm not a fucking scientist... Fuck desktop philosophy, ride your bike and tell me I'm wrong.

You won't hear me from my bike.

Sorry to hear that, but I'll live... ;-)

In case I haven't mentioned it before, this is my favourite thread.

But you won't hear it.

Like I said, I'm not a fucking scientist... Fuck desktop philosophy, ride your bike and tell me I'm wrong.

Desktop philosophy? It's the same physics that makes the machines that made your bike go, and that are allowing me to argue with you on the internet right now. How can turning your cranks once and going ten feet be any different to turning your cranks once and going ten feet?

I think this is my first internet argument, I'm enjoying it.

:)

You could turn them backwards.

I think the fallacy is the thought that turning your cranks once with a 'smaller' gear would be somehow quicker or easier, or with a 'larger' gear would be better at higher speeds.