SS crew rigid vs front suspension

Dairyman

Active Member
Interesting topic. Hartshorne is my home turf too and I ride rigid ss considerably faster there than my fs. Only one or two recents where I can be slightly faster on the fs.
I finally started riding my SS again. Still haven't found the perfect hearing. I could see being faster on it overall. The weight savings is a huge plus too.
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
I finally started riding my SS again. Still haven't found the perfect hearing. I could see being faster on it overall. The weight savings is a huge plus too.
There is no perfect gear. Geared bikes are harder to ride fast longer. SS forces recover mode on downhills and when you spin out. U will never spin out in gears on an xc course.
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
DT is Dairyman confirmed.

The faster on geared is usually because you can put yourself in a comfortable hard pace. With the SS you are forced to push it. My highest HRs are in the SS. The scalpel may turn a time closer, but I used my body more efficiently. I think.
@Dairyman killed it at Monmouth County World Championships. I need to be asking him for advice, not giving it to him. Ha.
 

teabagger11

Well-Known Member
dont know for sure if SS makes you faster but i like it.. my friends say i'm faster but i think thats the climbing part definitely climb faster because you don't really have a choice all my bikes are rigid cause simplicity
 

1speed

Incredibly profound yet fantastically flawed
I think fast is fast, whether it's on gears or SS. The guys (guy? were all four of them named Wadsworth?) winning NUEs on a SS would win them on gears as well if they rode gears more often. Individuals are faster on one vs. the other based on what they're used to. Riding a SS is very different than riding gears, so if you are used to riding one and then switch right over to the other, you should expect to be slower at first. But after a while you'll get used to it and be as fast as you can be either way.

I think there is probably some face validity to the idea that gears can be harder to sustain over time (because you can always push a heavier gear whether you're going up or down), but I don't think that's the main reason you don't see as many SSers bonking in NUEs. I think that's due to sampling bias. People who sign up for an endurance race for the first time, or people with less overall experience with long distances, are probably going to ride gears. And those folks are probably more likely to hit a wall at some point. Not as many of the SSers in those races are beginners because, think about it, if you were going to sign up for your first 100 miler and didn't know what to expect, you're probably not thinking "Yeah, this is probably going to be the toughest ride I've ever done. I think I'll choose the stripped down bike with only one gear."
 

qclabrat

Well-Known Member
first of all apologies for asking a rookie question about gearing here
when setting up a first SS, is it better to go with harder gearing then lower as needed? or the other way around
Also thoughts on 36T, 34T, 32T round vs 32T oval chainrings to start? went a little big with cogs and have 18-24, which gives me a range of 45 to 60 gear inches
I'd rather have a bike which can go almost anywhere and deal with spinning out in some downhills
Will be testing the other ratios but looking for advice on where to start
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
I think fast is fast, whether it's on gears or SS. The guys (guy? were all four of them named Wadsworth?) winning NUEs on a SS would win them on gears as well if they rode gears more often. Individuals are faster on one vs. the other based on what they're used to. Riding a SS is very different than riding gears, so if you are used to riding one and then switch right over to the other, you should expect to be slower at first. But after a while you'll get used to it and be as fast as you can be either way.

I think there is probably some face validity to the idea that gears can be harder to sustain over time (because you can always push a heavier gear whether you're going up or down), but I don't think that's the main reason you don't see as many SSers bonking in NUEs. I think that's due to sampling bias. People who sign up for an endurance race for the first time, or people with less overall experience with long distances, are probably going to ride gears. And those folks are probably more likely to hit a wall at some point. Not as many of the SSers in those races are beginners because, think about it, if you were going to sign up for your first 100 miler and didn't know what to expect, you're probably not thinking "Yeah, this is probably going to be the toughest ride I've ever done. I think I'll choose the stripped down bike with only one gear."
I chose one gear :D
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
first of all apologies for asking a rookie question about gearing here
when setting up a first SS, is it better to go with harder gearing then lower as needed? or the other way around
Also thoughts on 36T, 34T, 32T round vs 32T oval chainrings to start? went a little big with cogs and have 18-24, which gives me a range of 45 to 60 gear inches
I'd rather have a bike which can go almost anywhere and deal with spinning out in some downhills
Will be testing the other ratios but looking for advice on where to start
I’ve been reading up quite a bit. Mainly due to chain wrap larger chainrings are the slightest bit more efficient. 34 is the “go to” chainring for reall ssers or so I have been told. Guys used to run 36 and 38s a lot but now mostly 34. I ran a 34 round last year and 32 oval this year. I will switch to a 34 oval next year for maybe some efficiency and so everyone doesn’t get confused when we talk gearing. I like the 32 because you becer bash it on rocks. I like the oval because without a doubt traction is way better. As to what gear you should run, that’s personal.
 

JDurk

Well-Known Member
first of all apologies for asking a rookie question about gearing here
when setting up a first SS, is it better to go with harder gearing then lower as needed? or the other way around
Also thoughts on 36T, 34T, 32T round vs 32T oval chainrings to start? went a little big with cogs and have 18-24, which gives me a range of 45 to 60 gear inches
I'd rather have a bike which can go almost anywhere and deal with spinning out in some downhills
Will be testing the other ratios but looking for advice on where to start

I'm sure this has been discussed in a separate post before.
 

1speed

Incredibly profound yet fantastically flawed
first of all apologies for asking a rookie question about gearing here
when setting up a first SS, is it better to go with harder gearing then lower as needed? or the other way around
Also thoughts on 36T, 34T, 32T round vs 32T oval chainrings to start? went a little big with cogs and have 18-24, which gives me a range of 45 to 60 gear inches
I'd rather have a bike which can go almost anywhere and deal with spinning out in some downhills
Will be testing the other ratios but looking for advice on where to start

Most folks who have been riding SS for a while edge toward larger chain rings because it last longer. A larger chain ring and cog combination takes longer to wear out, without really impacting the ratio itself. For example, a 34:19 is practically the same ratio as a 32:18 (actually, very slightly larger), but with extra teeth it'll last longer. Also, if you are making larger jumps compared to 32T, you can even sneak in a few "in-between" ratios, although it's unlikely you'd be comparing differences that large (e.g., if you could go up to a 40T, you could fit a 40:24 between a 32:19 and 32:20 with no corresponding 32T option to line up with it.) But like I said, that's only if you'd ever think to compare a 32 and 40, which is unlikely.

I have a 34t on my Moots and my Sir9, and a 36t on my China carbon. I like the 36t, but mostly because I like running a big gear on that bike and since I have a full range of cogs from 15 up to 25, I can go pretty big on that for, say, when I have to hang on for dear life during the winter sufferfests in Wharton. A 34t is a good choice in general. There are 33t's available, but I see no point to those unless you happen to have one already and don't want to spend money.

As far as the ratio goes, that depends on two things: you personally and the terrain you most often ride. I'd personally opt for easier ratios on rockier terrain, and if you spend the entire day climbing. But you'd be surprised how used to a big gear you can become even with lots of climbs. I've ridden a 2:1 at Wiss plenty of times and while it's not something I'd recommend doing consistently if you'd like to have knees when you're 70 years old, you can usually find a nice rhythm even with a blow-out gear if you want to. My go-to gear for most terrain is 34:19, and 34:18 when I need to "get serious" about fitness for a while. If you want to spin a bit more, a 34:20 is a very nice gear that doesn't sacrifice much speed and allows you to build momentum into short steep climbs. But be aware of that -- you still need to build that momentum. A 34:20 is a lighter gear by most standards, but it'l still hurt on climbs unless you use it properly -- always rev up your rpms going into the hill and by the time you start to feel the slow-down, you'll be halfway through. If you think a light gear will feel "easy" on a short steep climb without that momentum, you're going to find out the hard way that's not the case. On a longer climb, you'll learn pretty quickly how to settle into a pace, and that entirely depends on you. I tend to climb in a slow cadence, which is why I prefer a gear that's a little bigger even on rides with long climbs. My legs are used to that steady churn. If I were more of a spinner, I'd run a smaller gear, but I'm not. You may be, so once you figure that out you'll know what gear you really want. Bit of trial and error.
 
Top Bottom