Perhaps I am off-base with even asking this question, but:
Assume, for the sake of argument, that a combination of your small front chainring and a rear cog (call it the 1/17 Combination), and your large front chainring and a rear cog (call it the 2/21 Combination), will each produce the exact same MPH if driven at the same cadence (I assume that this would also equate to power as measured in watts??). Is there any real life advantage to using the 1/17 over the 2/21, or vice-versa? Mechanical, muscular, aerobic, other? For example, is it "easier" (more efficient) even though it might not appear to make sense from a physics sense, to spin the 1/17 at 90 cadence because the front gear you are driving is smaller and the cycle is shorter (even though the "work" might be the same), than to spin the 2/21 at 90 cadence.
Thanks. No guessing. You have five minutes. This is half your grade for the semester.
DFL (but not on the bike or run)
Assume, for the sake of argument, that a combination of your small front chainring and a rear cog (call it the 1/17 Combination), and your large front chainring and a rear cog (call it the 2/21 Combination), will each produce the exact same MPH if driven at the same cadence (I assume that this would also equate to power as measured in watts??). Is there any real life advantage to using the 1/17 over the 2/21, or vice-versa? Mechanical, muscular, aerobic, other? For example, is it "easier" (more efficient) even though it might not appear to make sense from a physics sense, to spin the 1/17 at 90 cadence because the front gear you are driving is smaller and the cycle is shorter (even though the "work" might be the same), than to spin the 2/21 at 90 cadence.
Thanks. No guessing. You have five minutes. This is half your grade for the semester.
DFL (but not on the bike or run)