I think it has little to do with the setup of the bike and everything to do with torque generated by the massive thighs and calf's on gorillas like Marty Nothstein and Kurt Harnett. This is/was power riding.
Warren Young Wolfville NS Canada
Jerry Prigmore wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:48:04 -0400
>> From: genediggs(AT)aol.com
>>
>> ...Velodrome racing puts much more stress on the bike frame than you
>> do in
>> the average road race. You just can't get the torque level required to
>> keep from pulling the rear wheel, on a standing start, with a quick
>> release cam mechanism....
>>
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> Assuming equal-length crankarms, the smaller the chainring, the
> greater the mechanical advantage applying said pulling force to the
> chain and rear wheel. Smaller gear = more force. (The size of the rear
> cog affects the torque applied to the wheel [larger cog = more
> torque], but doesn't affect to as great an extent the force attempting
> to pull the drive side of the wheel forward in the fork end). The
> typically longer cranks on a road bike would further increase the
> mechanical advantage.
>
> Sprinting up a steep hill on a road bike in the small ring would apply
> more pulling force to a rear wheel than would sprinting on the track.
> It may be counterintuitive, but it is simple physics. I can't address
> the difference in power applied by a beefy track sprinter versus a
> wispy grimpeur.
>
> The cam action of a properly closed QR can apply an enormous closing
> force, and unlike a nut, will not loosen, due to the over-center
> action of the cam. However, "properly closed" is key, so it might make
> sense for a velodrome official to ban QRs to be on the safe side. At
> least in a litigious society accustomed to acommodating the lowest
> common denominator, that is.
>
> Jerry Prigmore
> Clovis, California, USA