LondonSkaters Speed Team - Speed Skating & Rollerblading Club in London

merten · Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:27 pm Subject: Do skates have gearing?

(Please note: This topic is for bored boys pulling each others' leg because of autumn depression - do not post if you disagree Laughing

)

I enjoyed that little argument in the other topic, but I think we should not mess it up further. So let's have this discussion (one of your favourites, Mike? Smile

) First, I'll try to rephrase my position from the other thread. Skates do not have gearing (definitely not mechanical ones, which was what I meant). Of course they use the principles of some kind of simple machine (thanks Dan), but that applies to almost any type of movement if you break it down to details. Conversion of power is not necessarily a gear.

I've searched for English definitions of "gear":

Mikey-two-Names · Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 4107

Before you answer Merten's post, answer these questions:

When you skate up hills, especially steep ones, do your toes point out much more than usual?
When you skate fast downhill and/or downwind, do your toes point more towards straight ahead?

If the answer to the above two questions is yes, then you are changing the mechanical advantage you get through your skates, i.e. you are changing the gearing just as you would on a bicycle or a car.

My point is that skates have gearing, not gears, so I've edited your topic Merten. Your question is the wrong one as of course there are no cut gears on skates, but there is gearing. I hope you don't mind me doing that, but it's necessary as otherwise the poll would be very biased towards your argument, and I can't be having that, can I?

Oh, I've just thought of a couple of other examples to back my point. What about a fixed gear bicycle (it's got cogs/gears, but no way to change the ratio)? That has gearing. What about a Penny Farthing? That has no cogs (gears), but it still has a single fixed gear ratio.

Michi · Joined: 11 Jun 2005 Posts: 658 Location: Hamburg

Hmmm, I thought we were talking about "technical" as being somethin' non-human... Question

merten · Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:09 pm Subject:

Mikey-two-Names · Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 4107

My original post said:

dan_b · Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Posts: 2428

Either way it ends up being a debate about the meaning of the word "gears" and/or the word "gearing", which is not really that interesting. Nobody is contesting either that skating has some kind of mechanical advantage (albeit a MA less than 1, which probably makes it a mechanical disadvantage) over running, or that it doesn't involve toothed wheels.

THe more interesting question, at least for me: when I started skating I was overtaking some people on bikes but nowhere near as many as I can when I cycle. That was about a year ago, though, and my technique has probably improved since - also I've barely got the bike out since... Is there something intrinsic in skating that makes it slower than cycling assuming the same person is equally skilled in both, or is it a matter of technique? A one hour marathon on skates is pretty damned impressive, but a one-hour 25TT on a bike is basically club-level, correct me if I'm wrong. You get a better range of motion in skating and can involve more muscles (which presumably means you don't fatigue as soon); on the other hand you're only putting any real kind of force through one leg at a time, and you can't push so hard that you lose traction on the road.

(This year I'm overtaking more cyclists than I used to, but I suspect I'd still be faster on the bike)

merten · Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:16 am Subject:

Nobody ever argued that you cannot use different technique to achieve different power conversion. If you want to call that "gearing" - which does not really fit to any translation I could dig up, these all go down to the mechanical principle of fixed conversion levels - fine.
Not much sense in a further discussion, agreed. And the weather is better today Laughing

.

merten · Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:17 am Subject:

Dan: There was a discussion about efficiency in some other skating board - when comparing top- and medium range time trials results the figures are like this:

Walking: MA 1 (reference)
Skating: MA 4
Cycling: MA 5

The running value is probably questionable as over longer distances (marathon) running is much more an endurance sport than the same distance would be for a skater or cyclist.

So if your technique and stamina are the same for both sports, you should always be faster on a bike. But on the bike there is help of mechanical gears, which you do not have in your skates, therefore I think it is very interesting that there is such a little difference.

KarineM · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:44 am Subject:

Hum interesting question.

It didn't have an answer until reading all the posts. But I think I go with Mike. And it's merton who finaly conviced me Wink

I believe the cone type gears corresponds to what Mike is saying. And the MA of 4 compared to bikes with 5 proves someting is being gearded up somewhere.

But then I'm not a mechanical engineer either Smile

Karine
PS. Now I know a bike is more efficient than skates, I better start peddaling faster than I skate Embarassed

merten · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:43 am Subject:

Xia · Joined: 06 Apr 2004 Posts: 874 Location: Geneva (Suisse)

I'll vote for Merten on this one, Mike convinced me: I answered yes to his question, hence the human body can provide gearing to the skate. Not the skate themself.
Crap weather forecast for today!

Mikey-two-Names · Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 4107

Bit of false logic there Alex. Your ankle is just changing what the skate does, it's the skate that provides the gearing. Would you have this gearing without the skate? No.

By your logic cars wouldn't have gears either, because you change them using your arm and the clutch.

merten · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:25 am Subject:

Xia · Joined: 06 Apr 2004 Posts: 874 Location: Geneva (Suisse)

Its the fact that my legs can point at different angles that I can produce a gear.
Same as walking uphill when your pace slow down to allow more leverage to go up.
Unlike a bike when switching gear allow your body not your way of cycling.

Mikey-two-Names · Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 4107

There is no change of gear when you're walking because you always move exactly as much as you move your feet, no more and no less. When you bring hills into it, there is something else going on that has probably confused you both. A less steep hill and a more steep hill are effectively simple machines in themselves, inclined planes. There's no gearing in your body there.

Compare your walking example with a fixed gear bike as that is somewhat similar. You guys are saying that walking slower is a "lower gear". Is pedalling slower on a fixed gear bike a lower gear too? Of course not, neither involve any change of gear. Instead you're reducing power output to an easier level, and going slower as a result, but there's no change in mechanical advantage.

Changing your ankle angle is analogous to selecting gears in a car. It changes the gearing you get from your skates, not from your body.