Re: [RBW] Bleriot vs. Quickbeam efficiency

2010-05-21 Thread Ray Shine
Tyler - I also own a QB and a Bleriot. I don't notice a big difference in the effort expanded, but that's more likely due to how I ride each bike. I use the Bleriot primarily for commuting with a modest load on the rear rack. I also fit it with Albatross bars. I use the QB for "fun" rides.

RE: [RBW] Bleriot vs. Quickbeam efficiency

2010-05-21 Thread Frederick, Steve
The Bleriot has slightly slacker angles than the QB--can you compare your saddle setback? It's amazing what a difference in perceived effort a cm or so of saddle setback can make...check it by dropping a plumb bob (I use a washer on a piece of cotton string) from the nose of your saddle past th

Re: [RBW] Bleriot vs. Quickbeam efficiency

2010-05-20 Thread Clayton Scott
I could imagine going up in a hill in a granny gear spinning frantically being more exhausting than muscling up it. It it might be mentally more fatiguing too. On downhills you might be tempted to pedal in a bigger gear on the geared bike as opposed to coasting on the SS. On Thu, May 20, 20

Re: [RBW] Bleriot vs. Quickbeam efficiency

2010-05-20 Thread PATRICK MOORE
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Clayton Scott wrote: > Whereas on the geared bike you can always gear down and take it easy. > How, exactly, does this make you more tired? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this

Re: [RBW] Bleriot vs. Quickbeam efficiency

2010-05-20 Thread Clayton Scott
I think some of it has to do with the fact that you have to commit or walk on a single speed. Whereas on the geared bike you can always gear down and take it easy. I would imagine there are many times on the quickbeam where you shift down if you could but you don't because you can't, so you end up