# So many gears, pointless?



## GoatBeard (17 May 2020)

Having made the jump from 8 spd to 11, I'm struggling to see the massive benefit of having more, can someone enlighten me? Both cassettes were of a similar range (11-26) I still don't use the smaller end apart from stopping spin out on drops. Even then, never 11t. Gear changes are smooth but the difference is not really perceptible and 26t to the next one down still goes as CLUNK as ever


----------



## vickster (17 May 2020)

There isn’t a massive difference if you have the same top and bottom gears. Marketing...more must be better right 

oops typo


----------



## DCBassman (17 May 2020)

I only changed from 8 to 9 to get lower gears. Just increasing the numbers without increasing the range would seem pointless to me, but then I *need* lower gears!


----------



## Tom B (17 May 2020)

vickster said:


> There isn’t a massage difference if you have the same top and bottom gears. Marketing...more must be better right



8speed stuff, chains, cassettes is massively cheaper too.

That's the reason why I'm reluctant to move away from 8spd. I can't see that a 10spd chain costs 2.5x an 8spd chain to make.


----------



## mjr (17 May 2020)

More gears mean smaller gaps mean you're able to use a gear closer to the theoretical ideal one for you on that road in those conditions = maximum speed in gears with straightest chainlines. Disadvantages include more metalwork, thinner chain, more precise adjustments needed, and more. My most-used bike has three gears...


----------



## roubaixtuesday (17 May 2020)

Beyond about 8s is incremental IMV - smaller gaps and/or wider range.

Nice to have but by no means essential. And a *lot* pricier.

If you're not using the 11t, you need to get yourself up the Snake Pass* and then descend flat out the whole way down**. Hard to have more fun on two wheels!

* Other long descents are available. 
** Obviously without being reckless and taking due care and attention to conditions and other road users, before someone comes along to berate me.


----------



## oldwheels (17 May 2020)

With 24 theoretical speeds if you work it out you find that only 11 are of practical use. At least on my bikes that seems to be the case. As long as the lowest can get me up the steepest hills I am not too bothered about the rest as I work somewhere around the middle of the range and there is always one to suit.


----------



## Venod (17 May 2020)

If your not using 11 put a smaller chainring on the front, I run a 46 and use all my gears, this gets you 30 mph at 90 cadence, you could run out of gears going downhill, but there is nothing wrong with freewheeling.


----------



## Gunk (17 May 2020)

mjr said:


> More gears mean smaller gaps mean you're able to use a gear closer to the theoretical ideal one for you on that road in those conditions = maximum speed in gears with straightest chainlines. Disadvantages include more metalwork, thinner chain, more precise adjustments needed, and more. My most-used bike has three gears...



Same here, my Brompton only has 3 and I don’t seem to miss the other 29 that my MTB has.


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

Gunk said:


> Same here, my Brompton only has 3 and I don’t seem to miss the other 29 that my MTB has.


32?


----------



## Gunk (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> 32?



Sorry crap maths, 30 gears


----------



## biggs682 (17 May 2020)

I can remember doing an Easter tour in Wales on a 5 speed complete with a rear rack and luggage


----------



## Toshiba Boy (17 May 2020)

Number of gears is a great indicator of age. 

My dad was amazed when I had a road bike in the mid eighties with six speed on the back, "Twelve gears, what do you need that many for, I raced fine on a four block?" (would have been late fifties). Oh how I smiled, knowing there was a "cutting edge" seven speed being developed 😮

Ride on 35 years, and I find myself smiling like a wizened sage when people are discussing eleven and twelve speeds, thinking "Twenty two gears, what do you need that many for, I .......".

C'est la vie!


----------



## MontyVeda (17 May 2020)

Venod said:


> If your not using 11 put a smaller chainring on the front, I run a 46 and use all my gears, this gets you 30 mph at 90 cadence, you could run out of gears going downhill, but *there is nothing wrong with freewheeling*.


The older i get the more i enjoy freewheeling... why should i do any work when gravity does a perfectly good job?


----------



## BigMeatball (17 May 2020)

GoatBeard said:


> Having made the jump from 8 spd to 11, I'm struggling to see the massive benefit of having more, can someone enlighten me? Both cassettes were of a similar range (11-26) I still don't use the smaller end apart from stopping spin out on drops. Even then, never 11t. Gear changes are smooth but the difference is not really perceptible and 26t to the next one down still goes as CLUNK as ever


Long story short, we don't need that many gears. Professional athletes probably do need them to do their job and earn their bread.

Chumps and recreational cyclists like the rest of us have no need for 11 gears. 8 is already more than we can handle.


----------



## a.twiddler (17 May 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> The older i get the more i enjoy freewheeling... why should i do any work when gravity does a perfectly good job?


Great isn't it. When I first started adult cycling I couldn't understand why the sportier element would pedal _downhill_. I just love the simple pleasure of the freewheel. With a set of free rolling tyres, the slightest excuse and I'm zizzing along.


----------



## ColinJ (17 May 2020)

BigMeatball said:


> Chumps and recreational cyclists like the rest of us have no need for 11 gears. 8 is already more than we can handle.


You are either superbly fit or don't cycle up many of these... 







That bike used to have 2 x 10 gears but _THIS _recreational chump cyclist struggled up 25% slopes like that so it now has 3 x 10!


----------



## DCBassman (17 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> You are either superbly fit or don't cycle up many of these...
> 
> View attachment 522963
> 
> ...


Yes, but it's the size of the largest rear sprocket, not how many companions it has! And that all-important 3rd chainring, natch.


----------



## Ajax Bay (17 May 2020)

Range of gears is limited by the capacity of one's rear derailleur not the number of sprockets. A larger number of the latter merely allows smaller steps (eg %) between each adjacent gear. A 48-38-28 triple with an 11-30 stays in spec for 'normal' road RDs and offers 25" - 118" gears - a big enough range for road cycling even in hilly country, imo.


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

BigMeatball said:


> Long story short, we don't need that many gears. Professional athletes probably do need them to do their job and earn their bread.
> 
> Chumps and recreational cyclists like the rest of us have no need for 11 gears. 8 is already more than we can handle.


agree (I do have an 8 speed I upgraded from 7) but I think 9 speed is handy as you can get a very reasonably priced 12-36 rear cassette for your more loaded bikes. Not sure if you can in 8. Max 34?
7 of course has the advantage of a less dished rear though I don't think you can get the hubs anymore.

7 to 9 on the rear is all most cyclists need I think.


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> You are either superbly fit or don't cycle up many of these...
> 
> View attachment 522963
> 
> ...


been up worse than that on my 21 speed Speed Pro (7 speed cassette plus 3 speed hub gear.

Somewhere I have a pic of it at the bottom - but stashed on the retired PC I think - not immediately available from my chromebooks.


----------



## DCBassman (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> agree (I do have an 8 speed I upgraded from 7) but I think 9 speed is handy as you can get a very reasonably priced 12-36 rear cassette for your more loaded bikes. Not sure if you can in 8. Max 34?
> 7 of course has the advantage of a less dished rear though I don't think you can get the hubs anymore.
> 
> 7 to 9 on the rear is all most cyclists need I think.


Exactly this. Ability to get a 12-36t rear is my only reason for going 9-speed.


----------



## Toshiba Boy (17 May 2020)

DCBassman said:


> Yes, but it's the size of the largest rear sprocket, not how many companions it has! And that all-important 3rd chainring, natch.


Especially with the hills down here in West Somerset and Devon.


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

DCBassman said:


> Exactly this. Ability to get a 12-36t rear is my only reason for going 9-speed.


Tis a thing of wonder isn't it? 
I have several 9 speed bikes but only realised that that cassette existed recently when it came already fitted to my Ridgeback Expedition 26inch wheel bike. I have carried a mega amount of junk on that and can I think get up pretty much anything. Costs between £10 and £15 I think.

Or folks could pay pretty much £100 by hopping to chain reaction for a 12 speed Deore (Deore FFS!) cassette.


----------



## ColinJ (17 May 2020)

The Tour de France peloton used to use fixed gear, but you don't see Chris Froome riding one of those bikes... 

Yes, you can get low gears without needing lots of them to choose between. For years, I used 9-speed 14-28 cassettes so I gave up 2 or 3 higher gears to get lower ones. It is quite nice to have some high gears available though for those luxury rides down gentle descents with a tailwind...

Yes, you can get a wide-range cassette without extra gears but then you have big steps between gears, which may not suit. 



DCBassman said:


> Ability to get a 12-36t rear is my only reason for going 9-speed.


My 2x10-speed CX bike has a 12-36 cassette on it but I find the steps between the bigger sprockets too big - one gear feels too high, the next down often feels too low.

My 10-speed CAAD5 now has almost the perfect gearing for me after I converted it from a double to a triple chainset. I use a 12-30 cassette (steps between gears not too bad), and 48/36/28 chainrings. The 48/12 top gear is high enough for me 99% of the time, and it doesn't hurt me to freewheel if I am going faster than my spin-out speed of about 60 kph (37 mph). The 28/30 bottom gear is low enough for me 99% of the time, and it doesn't hurt me to walk for a couple of minutes about once a year if I come across a ramp much steeper than 25%. The steps between the rings are nice and tight too. The big ring is small enough to use quite a lot on flat rides (as opposed to my old 53 which was too much like hard work). The middle ring is perfect for most of my riding - I can ride at my normal maximum speed using it, but it can also give me low enough gears that I don't have to resort to the little ring for short steep climbs. The little ring is always available for the terribly steep stuff, or long climbs at 10+%.


----------



## Kajjal (17 May 2020)

If you ride off road it makes more sense. My MTB has an 11 speed 11-42 cassette and two chain rings at the front. This means in the larger chain ring I can go fast especially downhill. In the small chainring the gearing means I can manage long steep climbs with no problems. To be honest 10 speed is also fine.

On road my bike has an 11-34 cassette which with the 48/32 chainrings will handle anything with no big gaps in the gearing. Gearing is always a personnel preference depending on what suits you best for where you ride.


----------



## FrankCrank (17 May 2020)

Great vid here if you haven't already seen it 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNsQpCL8LY

In the first minute one of the brothers gives his view of gears on modern bikes, brilliant stuff


----------



## winjim (17 May 2020)

An 11sp compact double is roughly equivalent to a 7sp road triple both in terms of number of gears and ratios. So there's that.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (17 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> You are either superbly fit or don't cycle up many of these...


----------



## carlosfandangus (17 May 2020)

@FrankCrank Thank you, just watched that, really enjoyed it


----------



## fossyant (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Tis a thing of wonder isn't it?
> I have several 9 speed bikes but only realised that that cassette existed recently when it came already fitted to my Ridgeback Expedition 26inch wheel bike. I have carried a mega amount of junk on that and can I think get up pretty much anything. Costs between £10 and £15 I think.
> 
> Or folks could pay pretty much £100 by hopping to chain reaction for a 12 speed Deore (Deore FFS!) cassette.



£100 for a 12 speed cassette is cheap. Don't go looking at SRAM X0 Eagle Cassettes


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

fossyant said:


> £100 for a 12 speed cassette is cheap. Don't go looking at SRAM X0 Eagle Cassettes




i won't only sram cassette i have is another £15 thing - 7 speed on speed pro dualdrive (21 gears).

I lied on the 12-36 - another threpence needs to be chucked at it:

https://www.rosebikes.co.uk/shimano...592?product_shape=standard&article_size=12-36


----------



## Grant Fondo (17 May 2020)

I went from 21 gears to 30 on my rigid MTB, could have had 33 of course but not losing sleep over it. 26 chainwheel/32 cassette is fairly useless unless you live in the Himilayas. Which I don't.


----------



## ChrisEyles (17 May 2020)

What gets me is how high the gearing is as stock on most bikes. I swapped out the triple on my tourer for a MTB 42/34/24 crankset and can honestly say 42/11 is as high a gear as I ever need. 

My 1960s racer has a top gear of 52/14, which isn't even quite as high as that - again I never need a higher gear, and back in the 60's I assume the pros would have managed to go pretty darn fast with this gearing. 

Anyone ever spin out 53/11?! What speed does that work out to, must be around 50mph+!


----------



## ChrisEyles (17 May 2020)

I think it's been commented before here on CC that what we all really want is a 14-36 8 speed cassette, now that would be sweet paired with a 52/42/30 crank for touring, general riding and a bit of off-roading.


----------



## ColinJ (17 May 2020)

Grant Fondo said:


> I went from 21 gears to 30 on my rigid MTB, could have had 33 of course but not losing sleep over it. 26 chainwheel/32 cassette is fairly useless unless you live in the Himilayas. Which I don't.


I have a 22/32 bottom gear on my MTB and I used that quite a lot on some of the more severe offroad Pennine climbs!


----------



## Racing roadkill (17 May 2020)

GoatBeard said:


> Having made the jump from 8 spd to 11, I'm struggling to see the massive benefit of having more, can someone enlighten me? Both cassettes were of a similar range (11-26) I still don't use the smaller end apart from stopping spin out on drops. Even then, never 11t. Gear changes are smooth but the difference is not really perceptible and 26t to the next one down still goes as CLUNK as ever


More available ratios just mean you can flatten out your power output curves, by reducing spiking as you shift gears. It makes for a more comfortable, more efficient and quicker ride. Some people really don’t need to worry too much about that stuff, to be fair, but it’s nice to have the option for those that do


----------



## screenman (17 May 2020)

Has nobody ever bought something they want rather than need?


----------



## carlosfandangus (17 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I have a 22/32 bottom gear on my MTB and I used that quite a lot on some of the more severe offroad Pennine climbs!


I have that on my MTB, however I cant keep the front down on a gravel path to my house, my gravel bike has 30/32 and I can make it and keep the front down, for some reason (in my head) I select the lowest gear when approaching the short climb, I know if I went one higher I could manage it.

I have 2 x 11 speed bikes and 2 x 9 speed one of the 9 speed (MTB) is a triple the others are double, I cant say that there is much difference, however one 11 speed was bought this way, the other was built, I find the price differential for spares is not really that great for the amount of replacements, I find a good deal and I buy a few, 11 speed cassettes were bought when Tesco had a tie in with Evans, they worked out at £10 each (3 bought) chains are cheap enough too, £10 each or less for SRAM


----------



## All uphill (17 May 2020)

I must have spent too much time with 3x7.

Dont tell anyone but now I have a bike with 2x11 I habitually change gears in twos. I might as well have a 6 speed cassette/freewheeling.


----------



## avecReynolds531 (17 May 2020)

FrankCrank said:


> Great vid here if you haven't already seen it
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNsQpCL8LY
> 
> In the first minute one of the brothers gives his view of gears on modern bikes, brilliant stuff



That's exactly what I thought of too: Norman Taylor saying :...but now they've gone berserk, they've got seven on there and three on here."
Always great to see this wonderful film again!
(...if a 73 degree head angle and 2 and half inches of fork rake was standard for Jack Taylor bikes, that's ok for me...)


----------



## Twilkes (17 May 2020)

I used 11-32 on an 8 speed with a triple chainring, and I kind of noticed the jumps between gears, but was never that fussed about it. But on a new road bike with 2x10 speed and 11-28 cassette, when I'm trying to time trial or just go as fast as I can I can feel the steps between gears and wish I had something in between. So I guess the faster you want to go and the more efficient you want to be with your cadence, the closer spaced cogs of an 11 speed will help you do that.


----------



## Archie_tect (17 May 2020)

My Dawes Lightning came with 53/40 and 5-speed Suntour 11-25 freewheel... swapped it for a 12-32 but had to push it up the final hill on the 63m Cyclone B up the Ryals which I can now manage in 30/32 on my Allez Compact.


----------



## ColinJ (17 May 2020)

Having posted what I did above about triples, big sprockets for climbing, small ones for whizzing along and so on... I have just got back from a short ride on my singlespeed bike and enjoyed spinning its 52/19 gear. It is overgeared for climbing and undergeared for whizzing along, but for undulating rides with gradients no worse than short stretches of 10%, or longer stretches of 6-8%, it is great!

It is funny how when stuck with a single gear I just get on with it, but if I have multiple gears and one gear is a bit too high, and the next lower is a bit too low I find it really irritating!


----------



## ColinJ (17 May 2020)

carlosfandangus said:


> I have that on my MTB, however I cant keep the front down on a gravel path to my house, my gravel bike has 30/32 and I can make it and keep the front down, for some reason (in my head) I select the lowest gear when approaching the short climb, I know if I went one higher I could manage it.


Yes, it can be very tricky, and requires a bit of a balancing act - lean forwards a bit to keep the front down; lean forwards too far and the back wheel slips!


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Has nobody ever bought something they want rather than need?


No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.


----------



## Gunk (17 May 2020)

Grant Fondo said:


> I went from 21 gears to 30 on my rigid MTB, could have had 33 of course but not losing sleep over it. 26 chainwheel/32 cassette is fairly useless unless you live in the Himilayas. Which I don't.



I’m running 3x10 on my MTB, only time I use the smallest front chain ring is when I’m climbing off road. For trail stuff the two larger rings are all you need.


----------



## Blue Hills (17 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> I used 11-32 on an 8 speed with a triple chainring, and I kind of noticed the jumps between gears, but was never that fussed about it. But on a new road bike with 2x10 speed and 11-28 cassette, when I'm trying to time trial or just go as fast as I can I can feel the steps between gears and wish I had something in between. So I guess the faster you want to go and the more efficient you want to be with your cadence, the closer spaced cogs of an 11 speed will help you do that.


Fair comment but as you say it"s for competitive racers


----------



## davidphilips (17 May 2020)

Apart from my single speed, would find it very hard to tell the difference between my bikes 8,9,10 and 11 speeds when cycling on them (gear wise)?
Maybe have to change gears more often on bikes with more gears and pay more for replacement parts?
Some club members and friends spend lots on upgrading from 10 to 11 etc and all say how well the money was spent and if it makes them happy then indeed money well spent but is there any difference to there speed on there bike?


----------



## Twilkes (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Fair comment but as you say it"s for competitive racers



I'm not racing competitively, this is just for my own entertainment, but there's no reason amateur cyclists shouldn't try to push themselves to see what their limits are, most other sports get to do that. A closely spaced cassette can help with that, I'd get frustrated trying to ride the way I'm riding now on an 8 speed, because the jumps in cadence would be too jarring. If I was doing JogLe or riding with friends it wouldn't matter.


----------



## screenman (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.



I disagree.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 May 2020)

Venod said:


> If your not using 11 put a smaller chainring on the front, I run a 46 and use all my gears, this gets you 30 mph at 90 cadence, you could run out of gears going downhill, but there is nothing wrong with freewheeling.



I have a mtn bike chain set on my recumbent. It came off my old mtn bike whose frame died. The big ring on front is 44t. I hit 31 mph on Friday when seeing what I could hit on a village speed sign. My smart turbo indicates my cadence typically averages 95-102 rpm. So yes, a big ring around 44-46 is not a limiter on the max speed you can hit on the flat. I’m going to try and hit a higher speed this week.


----------



## CXRAndy (17 May 2020)

You dont need the extra, but its really nice to have the smaller incremental steps.


----------



## Venod (17 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> So yes, a big ring around 44-46 is not a limiter on the max speed you can hit on the flat. I’m going to try and hit a higher speed this week.



I have mentioned this on numerous occasions, the biggest gear most people rode when I was a lot younger was 104 inch, 52 front 13 rear which is a smaller gear than 46/11.


----------



## JPBoothy (17 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Has nobody ever bought something they want rather than need?





Blue Hills said:


> No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.


I agree but, I think that part of your brain only kicks-in once your teenage years are behind you and before those mid life crisis years begin


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 May 2020)

My recumbent has 3x9 my road bike 3x10. In rolling terrain the perfect gear shift is middle ring to big ring, leaving the rear alone. So big ring flat or slightly downhill, middle ring on the uphill. With a compact I can see you’d be messing around with multiple gear shifts as you pass through the rolling terrain.


----------



## JPBoothy (17 May 2020)

vickster said:


> There isn’t a massive difference if you have the same top and bottom gears. Marketing...more must be better right
> 
> oops typo


I would agree with the Marketing BS being the driver in the main but, I'm sure that the terrain where you live/ride will be a big decision maker too. I live in a relatively flat(ish) area of the Wirral/Cheshire border so personally have no need for many gears and often ride my SS or use no more than 2 on my CX bikes. However, if I lived in the hills then obviously I would have to think again but, I think I would rather experiment with different chain-ring & cassette combinations on a 9/10spd than fork out more for 'stock' 11/12spd set-ups which will have thinner chains that are more likely to stretch, and closer together cassettes which are more likely to skip unless you keep on top of your maintenance.


----------



## rustyroger (17 May 2020)

When I was 13 years old I yearned to upgrade my single speed to a Sturmey Archer 3 speed or (sheer heaven) a 5 speed derailleur. When I finally saved enough from paper rounds/summer jobs I thought I had all I could want. but I always wanted the next step, from steel rims to alloys, a double clanger chainset - an alloy cotterless one was simply out of reach. Now I have recently returned to cycling for fun and fitness my 5 and 6 speed rear blocks and double chain ring is all I need for the relatively flat roads of east Kent. If I lived in Wales like my sister no doubt I would want much steeper low gears, but I doubt if I have the reactions to deal with the speeds I might achieve spinning tall gears. So in my case I don't need a big range of gears. 
The van I drive for work has a 7 speed automatic, some of the latest cars have more. I believe the Jeep Cherokee has 11. the argument for this multiplicity is it helps keep the engine at optimum speed for fuel economy and low emissions. My hobby car, a 5.2 litre V8 Chrysler gets along just fine with 3 speeds. but the huge amount of torque available at all engine speeds makes any more unnecessary, the obvious downside is a healthy appetite for unleaded.
My legs no longer have vast reserves of torque (if they ever really did) so while I'm happy with 10 or 12 speeds a 3 speed wouldn't cut it for me.

Roger.


----------



## mjr (17 May 2020)

rustyroger said:


> My hobby car, a 5.2 litre V8 Chrysler gets along just fine with 3 speeds. but the huge amount of torque available at all engine speeds makes any more unnecessary, the obvious downside is a healthy appetite for unleaded.
> My legs no longer have vast reserves of torque (if they ever really did) so while I'm happy with 10 or 12 speeds a 3 speed wouldn't cut it for me.


I just gear it down and accept I'm going to be freewheeling lots and walking occasionally. A cyclist having a healthy appetite for fuel is not without its compensations!


----------



## DCBassman (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Tis a thing of wonder isn't it?
> I have several 9 speed bikes but only realised that that cassette existed recently when it came already fitted to my Ridgeback Expedition 26inch wheel bike. I have carried a mega amount of junk on that and can I think get up pretty much anything. Costs between £10 and £15 I think.
> 
> Or folks could pay pretty much £100 by hopping to chain reaction for a 12 speed Deore (Deore FFS!) cassette.


Yup, it's an Alivio cassette, therefore has no cachet, therefore is cheepy-cheap. One on the heavier Trek with a 48-38-28 up front, one on the Scott road bike (really!), with a 52-42-30 up front. Biggest cassette you ever did see on a road bike...


----------



## DCBassman (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Tis a thing of wonder isn't it?
> I have several 9 speed bikes but only realised that that cassette existed recently when it came already fitted to my Ridgeback Expedition 26inch wheel bike. I have carried a mega amount of junk on that and can I think get up pretty much anything. Costs between £10 and £15 I think.
> 
> Or folks could pay pretty much £100 by hopping to chain reaction for a 12 speed Deore (Deore FFS!) cassette.


The other thing about this cassette is that it is very evenly spaced, whereas the 11-34t 8-speed has much more uneven steps. Come to that, the 11-36t version of the same 9-speed is much more uneven, for whatever reason...


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Has nobody ever bought something they want rather than need?


Excellent point. 

Given that all my cycling is recreational, I don't _need_ to do it at all. My road bike is just a toy. I only use it because I want to, and I only bought it because I wanted it. The whole cycling thing is a pointless endeavour, so I may as well get one I like.

When my Sram Apex shifter died at the same time the big ring wore out I treated myself to replacement 105 gearing. Now, I didn't really need that. I could have stripped off the derailleurs and run it as a single speed, but I wanted gears, because I'm foolish and vain. I went for the new 105 because it had a 34T big sprocket - it's also 11 speed. Now, I didn't _need_ that. 34T gives a nice low gear but I could easily get off and walk up the steepest hills, or just pedal a bit harder, or choose flatter routes, so it's just indulgent frippery.


----------



## screenman (17 May 2020)

I think there is some on here who would rather not spend any money, or in the least as little as possible, they seem of the opinion that anyone different is wrong.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (17 May 2020)

davidphilips said:


> Some club members and friends spend lots on upgrading from 10 to 11 etc and all say how well the money was spent and if it makes them happy then indeed money well spent but is there any difference to there speed on there bike?



They are hardly likely to admit to anyone else that they spent a shedload of cash changing bits so they could gain two extra ratios that haven't actually made a blind bit of difference, are they?
When people have spent a lot of money on a supposedly better/upgraded version of something, they will try to convince themselves it really is much better and was worth it, even if the real difference was so marginal so as to be hardly noticeable. Once they have convinced themselves, then they will sell the same story to others. No-one wants to admit that they bought something on a whim or due to fashion, it gained them virtually nothing, and by any rational analysis, was a waste of money..


----------



## Rusty Nails (17 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.



Oh I dunno. I want a full head of hair, but in practical terms it will not make any difference to my life.


----------



## Venod (17 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No-one wants to admit that they bought something on a whim or due to fashion, it gained them virtually nothing, and by any rational analysis, was a waste of money..


I have just bought a new bike on a whim, I don't need it, I have two others, it will gain me nothing, you could say it was a waste of money, but I will ride it and be happy doing so, I have also bought a couple of watches, I have six, I could wear them all at once I suppose, but I only wear one at a time, life is a journey to be enjoyed along the way, not when you reach your destination.


----------



## davidphilips (17 May 2020)

Well said John, tbh i am constantly surprised at how much money some spend on cycling, from pedals with ceramic bearings costing hundreds of pounds and just before the lockdown one guy told me he was buying new bottle cages when i said i had lots of them and would give him a pair he told me he had already ordered 2 carbon cages delivered and all for about £120. Know they must be light but what a waste of money.


----------



## Ian H (17 May 2020)

My bikes are: two at 10x3; one at 8x3; one at 9x2; one at 8x2; one at 1x1. They all fulfill a purpose.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (17 May 2020)

Have a look at Hambini's YouTube cycling channel if you want to dispel all the BS concerning ceramic bearings! Warning, his videos are often a bit sweary - well actually very sweary...


----------



## davidphilips (17 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Have a look at Hambini's YouTube cycling channel if you want to dispel all the BS concerning ceramic bearings! Warning, his videos are often a bit sweary - well actually very sweary...



Yes watch Hambini and usually agree with him and find his videos great, only one that i think is not so good is part 3 of the cheap aero bike build, first 2 where great and looked like an aero bike would be built for very little but on part 3 he then said about buying Di2 and aero wheels starting to look like it will cost thousands?


----------



## Mike_P (17 May 2020)

The number of gears available is preferably limited through avoiding cross chaining with, on a bike with a double chainwheel, the smaller parts of a cassette being used with the largest chainwheel and the bigger parts of a cassette being used with the smaller chainwheel.

On a 11 speed 11-32 with a 50-34 chainwheel combo, the larger chainwheel has gear ratios of between 4.55 (smallest cogs) and1.56 (largest cogs) while the smaller chainwheel has gear ratios between 3.09 and 1.06 so not using the three biggest cogs with the bigger chainwheel and not using the four smallest cogs with smaller chainwheel gives a continuous run of gear availabilities dropping off the 50 chainwheel to the 34 and from the fourth set of cogs read from the biggest end to seventh set.


----------



## Aravis (17 May 2020)

I hope to see out my days with a 3x8 setup, which I'm very happy with, even if I've arrived there largely by chance. As has already been pointed out, replacement components at that level are inexpensive and it's often convenient to add them to an online purchase to reach the level for free delivery. When replacing chain and cassette it's a comfort to know I already have at least the next two of each.

It might be worth looking a bit more closely at what happens when you add a sprocket at the back. Being specific, I currently have 42/32/24 rings with an 8-speed 11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette. A 9-speed 11-28 would very likely have the same plus a 12-tooth, which wouldn't change my life. Instead of four sprockets ideally positioned for the middle chainring there would be five; the same four as now, plus the 13, and there are times when that would be nice to have. But the 32/13 ratio is very nearly the same as 42/17 which I already have in the ideal range for my big ring. I'm seeing nothing to indicate that moving to 3x9 would be worthwhile.

My most dispensable sprocket is undoubtedly the 11, even with a mere 42-tooth big ring, so I could probably be just as happy with 3x7. But I already have the 3x8 brifters.

I've never looked seriously at anything beyond a 9, but I see that an 11-speed cassette with the same range would probably give me 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28. So I'd still have double tooth progressions in the midrange where closer ratios could benefit me the most.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (17 May 2020)

Aravis said:


> I've never looked seriously at anything beyond a 9, but I see that an 11-speed cassette with the same range would probably give me 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28. So I'd still have double tooth progressions in the midrange where closer ratios could benefit me the most.



My most common gearing set up on both hybrid and MTB is 28/38/48 on the front and a 6 speed 14-28 on the back with 14-16-18-21-24-28 sprockets. These gears suit me fine, but even so I rarely ever use the 48/14 combination unless I have a strong tailwind and a good clear stretch of road. 99% of the time I will be in a 48/16 or lower gear. If I look at the 11 speed sprockets you've just quoted, the smallest 3, the 11, 12, and 13T would be utterly pointless for my usage as they would never ever be selected whilst on the big ring. Therefore, any more than 8 speeds would not actually give me any extra gears that I would want to use. In real world utility & leisure cycling, you really don't need gears higher than about 90", and the ones that matter are the low and mid-range ones because they are what you actually ride on for the vast majority of the time.


----------



## Tigerbiten (18 May 2020)

Close spaced gears tend to come into their own if you do a lot of group riding.
If you ride by yourself it doesn't matter if you cannot ride at exactly 16 mph.
One gear has a slightly too high a cadence that speed and the next gear up has a slightly too slow one.
So you'll tick along at 15.5 or 16.5 depending on which gear you use.
But what happens if a group ride is ticking along a 16 mph.
It's no fun/hard work to ride in that half gear situation.

As for gears, I'm an outlier ..... 
My old 3x9 setup didn't have enough range to suit me.
So for this new-ish setup I went for the maximized range that was easily possible.
A 3x3x9 setup was halfway there but I looked around something better.
I now run 2x2x14 which gives me 24 unique gears out of 56 with 13.6% between each gear.
My top gear is 19X larger than my first gear.
I tend not to use the bottom 3 gears (sub 4 mph) or the top 3 (over 35 mph) but they are there if I want/need to use them.

YMMV ..........


----------



## steveindenmark (18 May 2020)

Gunk said:


> Same here, my Brompton only has 3 and I don’t seem to miss the other 29 that my MTB has.


That obviously depends where you ride. I had 6 Brompton gears in Bulgaria and would love to have had the other 24 from my Koga. 

I have a mtb with 1x11 and that is great. I am now looking for a titanium gravel bike with the same gearing.


----------



## screenman (18 May 2020)

What is the fun in having money if you do not spend it?


----------



## mustang1 (18 May 2020)

Another problem with too many gears is the chain is thinner and therefore wear out sooner. At least that's what I read a few years ago.

I think if you have 8 or 9 speeds, k wouldn't go out of my way to get more but having said that, when climbing strep hills, it's nice to have a smaller change in gear ratio between each gear, but certainly not a requirement.


----------



## screenman (18 May 2020)

mustang1 said:


> Another problem with too many gears is the chain is thinner and therefore wear out sooner. At least that's what I read a few years ago.
> 
> I think if you have 8 or 9 speeds, k wouldn't go out of my way to get more but having said that, when climbing strep hills, it's nice to have a smaller change in gear ratio between each gear, but certainly not a requirement.




Again, it is coming back to how much a person spends. You lot sound like my late dad when I got my first 5 speed in 1967.


----------



## mustang1 (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Again, it is coming back to how much a person spends. You lot sound like my late dad when I got my first 5 speed in 1967.


My dad says you only need 3 speeds. A few of my friends say single speed is the way to go. I think 8 speeds are fine. Others want more!

I have 10 and 11 speed bikes and while riding on flats or downhills, i usually change 2 or 3 gears at a time but on uphills, I sure appreciate the closer ratios when there are more gears to choose from.


----------



## chriswoody (18 May 2020)

I live in a very flat area and as such two of my bikes are single speed, the Bamboo bike and the Folder, which is my commuter/dogsbody bike. I find a single cog more than sufficient for the road riding around here. However, I also have a Gravel/Adventure/Call it what you will, bike and on here I have a SRAM 1 x 11 set up which runs from 10 - 42 coupled with a 36 tooth chainring up front. It's a great set up and off-road I use the full range of the cassette, wether it's for riding through mud or sand on the 42 tooth cog, or blasting down perfect gravel forest roads in the 10 tooth cog. I've yet to see how it will perform with a fully loaded up bike on an extended off road tour, but I'm hoping it should still perform fine. Looking at a gear Inch table, the top and bottom gears are comparable to the top and bottom of my old 3 x 9 set up on the Dawes.

As for cost, well this is not my day to day bike, so if I end up buying a cassette every so often, then so be it. I can pick up a direct replacement for €80, which whilst not cheap, is a small price to pay for the fun and enjoyment this bike gives me. As for how often I'll need to change it, well don't believe the hype on this one. The current chain on the bike, has over 2000km of muddy and sandy riding, yet the chain wear indicator is still showing barely any stretch over a new one. I'll probably use 3 chains before the cogs need replacement.


----------



## DCBassman (18 May 2020)

Basically, one could say that, assuming close-ratio-ness isn't a must-have,
Don't make a change
Unless needing more range!
Certainly, if I'd been able to get a 12-36t 8-speed, I'd have got that and saved the expense of new shifters. But I couldn't find one...


----------



## winjim (18 May 2020)

mustang1 said:


> My dad says you only need 3 speeds. A few of my friends say single speed is the way to go. I think 8 speeds are fine. Others want more!
> 
> I have 10 and 11 speed bikes and while riding on flats or downhills, i usually change 2 or 3 gears at a time but on uphills, I sure appreciate the closer ratios when there are more gears to choose from.


With 11sp you're getting close to a continuous transmission. I rarely change only one gear at a time, and with UltraShift, or even PowerShift, my thought process is not 'how many sprockets do I need to change' but rather 'how far do I need to push this lever'.


----------



## Aravis (18 May 2020)

mustang1 said:


> I think if you have 8 or 9 speeds, k wouldn't go out of my way to get more but having said that, when climbing strep hills, *it's nice to have a smaller change in gear ratio between each gear*, but certainly not a requirement.





winjim said:


> *With 11sp you're getting close to a continuous transmission.* I rarely change only one gear at a time, and with UltraShift, or even PowerShift, my thought process is not 'how many sprockets do I need to change' but rather 'how far do I need to push this lever'.


The point I tried to make a bit further up: the idea that more sprockets on your cassette gives closer ratios is to a certain extent an illusion.

Again looking at a specific, my 8-speed 11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28, which has sensible gaps throughout. If I upgraded to a comparable 10-speed, Shimano in their wisdom would give me a 12 and a 14 in addition to what I already have, which to a low-power rider like myself would be little help. An 11-speed would additionally give me a 23 and a 25 in place of the 24, and at times that would be a real help - but at the price of upgrading my entire system to 11-speed. And I would still have the same double tooth gaps throughout the midrange.

I think the counter-argument to this may be that with more sprockets there are more available in the "sweet" range for each chainring. With appropriate choice of rings you should then be able to achieve closer ratios throughout the range. But to take full advantage you'd need to make a lot of simultaneous front/back changes, perhaps?


----------



## JPBoothy (18 May 2020)

chriswoody said:


> I live in a very flat area and as such two of my bikes are single speed, the Bamboo bike and the Folder, which is my commuter/dogsbody bike. I find a single cog more than sufficient for the road riding around here. However, I also have a Gravel/Adventure/Call it what you will, bike and on here I have a SRAM 1 x 11 set up which runs from 10 - 42 coupled with a 36 tooth chainring up front. It's a great set up and off-road I use the full range of the cassette, wether it's for riding through mud or sand on the 42 tooth cog, or blasting down perfect gravel forest roads in the 10 tooth cog. I've yet to see how it will perform with a fully loaded up bike on an extended off road tour, but I'm hoping it should still perform fine. Looking at a gear Inch table, the top and bottom gears are comparable to the top and bottom of my old 3 x 9 set up on the Dawes.
> 
> As for cost, well this is not my day to day bike, so if I end up buying a cassette every so often, then so be it. I can pick up a direct replacement for €80, which whilst not cheap, is a small price to pay for the fun and enjoyment this bike gives me. As for how often I'll need to change it, well don't believe the hype on this one. The current chain on the bike, has over 2000km of muddy and sandy riding, yet the chain wear indicator is still showing barely any stretch over a new one. I'll probably use 3 chains before the cogs need replacement.


It is more about simplicity than cost to me (honest ) which is why I ditched my 3x* set-up because, I always seemed to be having to tinker around to stop any rub on the front mech. The introduction of a 1x* set-up has always had my interest as a potential future 'simplistic' purchase and I'm always interested the opinions of real users (like yourself) rather than that of the marketing people. I am not a fast rider and tend to ride my CX bikes on the road at no more than 20mph using mainly the 36t up front. Do you think a 1x* would suit me ? To be honest, I think I am confusing the word simple with the word lazy, as pottering about on my SS with no chain slap or additional noise from a derailleur is music to my ears but obviously has its limited use.


----------



## BigMeatball (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> What is the fun in having money if you do not spend it?



I know people who get great pleasure from seeing their savings account balance grow month by month.

Might sound weird, but who are we to judge.


----------



## avecReynolds531 (18 May 2020)

GoatBeard said:


> Having made the jump from 8 spd to 11, I'm struggling to see the massive benefit of having more, can someone enlighten me? Both cassettes were of a similar range (11-26) I still don't use the smaller end apart from stopping spin out on drops. Even then, never 11t. Gear changes are smooth but the difference is not really perceptible and 26t to the next one down still goes as CLUNK as ever



Thanks for an interesting thread - enjoyed it a lot. 
As many here have said, I've found the closer ratios of more sprockets (within the same range) are beneficial for faster group riding on the roads, or long days out in the mountains. 
It helps keep your cadence around the same rpm. For me, this makes your legs less tired, as the larger gaps in the gears are disruptive - you'll feel that the next sprocket is too high or too low, and your muscles will tell you about it!
Having said that, my road bike is still running Campagnolo 10 speed (from 8 speed) - it works flawlessly and I'm happy with the range of gearing.

...but, in my experience, that's the only benefit. Parts are more expensive and chains don't last as long. People have also said that 11 & 12 speed set ups need more adjustment. 

The majority of my cycling is not on the road bike - so, the close ratios & cadence don't matter. I like single speeds, Sturmey Archer 3 speeds, and the classic 2 x 5 derailleurs of older bikes.

My everyday bike (shopping, commuting, etc) has 3 x 8 with a smaller MTB chainset. It's a great set up and I wouldn't change it. The inner ring of the triple allows very low gears without the need for a 'dinner plate' cassette. Parts are less expensive, chains have lasted well. For the many people who may not be in the privileged postion to have money to spend, it's a consideration. 

As the posts in this thread show, everyone's different: someone's progress is another's unnecessary. 
The love of the bike is the one thing we can agree on.


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 May 2020)

avecReynolds531 said:


> As the posts in this thread show, everyone's different: someone's progress is another's unnecessary.


Yes indeed


avecReynolds531 said:


> The love of the bike is the one thing we can agree on.


Yes but it's got to be the right kind of bike  If it's the wrong kind of bike, or too expensive, well ...


----------



## JPBoothy (18 May 2020)

avecReynolds531 said:


> Thanks for an interesting thread - enjoyed it a lot.
> As many here have said, I've found the closer ratios of more sprockets (within the same range) are beneficial for faster group riding on the roads, or long days out in the mountains.
> It helps keep your cadence around the same rpm. For me, this makes your legs less tired, as the larger gaps in the gears are disruptive - you'll feel that the next sprocket is too high or too low, and your muscles will tell you about it!
> Having said that, my road bike is still running Campagnolo 10 speed (from 8 speed) - it works flawlessly and I'm happy with the range of gearing.
> ...


Absolutely right, each to their own and with no judging.. You like what you like end of


----------



## mustang1 (18 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> It is more about simplicity than cost to me (honest ) which is why I ditched my 3x* set-up because, I always seemed to be having to tinker around to stop any rub on the front mech. The introduction of a 1x* set-up has always had my interest as a potential future 'simplistic' purchase and I'm always interested the opinions of real users (like yourself) rather than that of the marketing people. I am not a fast rider and tend to ride my CX bikes on the road at no more than 20mph using mainly the 36t up front. Do you think a 1x* would suit me ? To be honest, I think I am confusing the word simple with the word lazy, as pottering about on my SS with no chain slap or additional noise from a derailleur is music to my ears but obviously has its limited use.


Someone told me once that a certain company introduced 1x front ring because their dual chainring gear change was pathetic, so they directed it and marketed the heck out of it.


----------



## Ian H (18 May 2020)

Mike_P said:


> The number of gears available is preferably limited through avoiding cross chaining...



Does this mean that, using a single chainring, you can only use the middle of the cassette?


----------



## JPBoothy (18 May 2020)

mustang1 said:


> Someone told me once that a certain company introduced 1x front ring because their dual chainring gear change was pathetic, so they directed it and marketed the heck out of it.


I am always curious about the spacing/gapping between the sprockets and how the chain manages to 'mesh' faultlessly everytime (or does it?)..


----------



## screenman (18 May 2020)

BigMeatball said:


> I know people who get great pleasure from seeing their savings account balance grow month by month.
> 
> Might sound weird, but who are we to judge.



Not me, just bring some balance. I can see it from both ways.


----------



## Venod (18 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Do you think a 1x* would suit me ?



I had a MTB with 1x it had 32 front and 11- 42 rear (11 speed), the 32 -11 was a bit low, so I fitted a 34, this meant the 34-42 was a bit high in rough steep terrain, I ended up fitting a 36-24 up front, that I could climb a wall with, I had a spell off the MTB last year with a bad back, so sold it.
I have replaced it this year with with a new MTB with 10-50 (12 speed) it had a 30 up front that I have replaced with a 34, I am happy with this gearing.

I don't know if I would be happy with 1x on my CX I have 46-34 up front with 11-32 on one set of wheels and 11-36 on another, again I am happy with this.

My lad runs 44 or 46 single ring with I think 11-42, he seems to like it.

If you like simplicity 1x would suit you.


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> I am always curious about the spacing/gapping between the sprockets and how the chain manages to 'mesh' faultlessly everytime (or does it?).


When there is tension on the (top run of the) chain (ie force is being applied to the pedals), the resistive force is applied (from the rear) by the top few teeth of the sprocket the chains on (say 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock).
[Btw the number of teeth where even a small force is applied reduces as the chain elongates.]
When the rider shifts and the guide jockey wheel moves across, the chain (helped by sprocket design/ramps) starts engaging with the bottom (and subsequent) teeth on the 'new' sprocket. And by the time those engaged teeth get round to 9 o'clock there's enough resistance to take the tension as that's released by the 'old' sprocket's teeth (as the transfer of chain gets to 11 o'clockish).
'Faultless meshing'.
Larger tooth count deltas make this process a tad less 'faultless', but not so a rider would notice.
HTH


----------



## chriswoody (18 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> It is more about simplicity than cost to me (honest ) which is why I ditched my 3x* set-up because, I always seemed to be having to tinker around to stop any rub on the front mech. The introduction of a 1x* set-up has always had my interest as a potential future 'simplistic' purchase and I'm always interested the opinions of real users (like yourself) rather than that of the marketing people. I am not a fast rider and tend to ride my CX bikes on the road at no more than 20mph using mainly the 36t up front. Do you think a 1x* would suit me ? To be honest, I think I am confusing the word simple with the word lazy, as pottering about on my SS with no chain slap or additional noise from a derailleur is music to my ears but obviously has its limited use.



Simplicity is definitely one advantage. People often grumble about the spacing between ratios on a 1x cassette, however, in order to maintain perfect cadence on a 2x or 3x you would need to change gear on the front at the optimum point and I could rarely manage that. 1x removes that from the equation, spinning out? then change down, going is getting hard, then change up, simple. My riding is mostly 80% off road and to be honest, off road or on, I really don't notice any large jumps in gear ratio or gaps. I don't use Strava or slavishly record my times, I ride to enjoy my self and explore, so for me 1x is perfect.

Another point that others have bought up is the quality of gear changes, well I've ridden the bike all through the winter in the forest and yet to adjust or touch the drivetrain aside from cleaning it. The rear mech is clutched, so no chain chatter and no front mech cage for the chain to rub against, just a lovely silent drivetrain. I've also experienced no thrown chains either, no matter how rough the terrain. SRAM double tap aside, every gear change is crisp and precise, the problem comes in changing up. I'm a bit ham fisted and double tap requires a slightly more delicate touch, so changing up the cassette I often over changed through pushing the lever too far, I'm getting there though! Down shifting is really nice though, one click and down the chain pops, no over shifting or delay, just a nice, crisp down change.


----------



## derrick (18 May 2020)

I will stick with 11 speed. I use them all. Close ratio is good helps keep cadence steady. I ride 11 x32 52 x36 up front. as i like hills. So works for me. With 8 speed i could never find a comfatable cadence.


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 May 2020)

derrick said:


> Close ratio is good helps keep cadence steady. I ride 11 x32


11-32 is not 'close ratio' though, even with 11 sprockets. Obviously it's closer than an 11-32 with 8 sprockets.


----------



## derrick (18 May 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> 11-32 is not 'close ratio' though, even with 11 sprockets. Obviously it's closer than an 11-32 with 8 sprockets.


Its close enough for me.


----------



## MichaelW2 (18 May 2020)

For commuters, tourists and leisure riders, 8x3 is probably the optimum gear system ( unless you prefer hub gears).
The parts are durable in cheaper groupsets, the design does not rely on advanced and expensive metallurgy. Thinner sprockets, chains and rings are durable in high end groupsets but dont trickle down so well.
The precision required for accurate positioning of the derailleur increases with thinner, closer sprockets. 8 speed can go longer without adjustment and requires less precise adjustment.
Thinner chains require much more care when breaking and joining and you cannot re rivet normal links. With 8 speed you have the choice to use quick links or a chaintool .
8 speed parts are available globally in small town bike shops. 8 spd dominated the market for many years, whereas 9 spd was a stepping stone/ gateway drug to high sprocket counts.


----------



## screenman (18 May 2020)

Can you remember a time when even 6 speed was not so available, funny how things progress and get better.


----------



## JPBoothy (18 May 2020)

chriswoody said:


> Simplicity is definitely one advantage. People often grumble about the spacing between ratios on a 1x cassette, however, in order to maintain perfect cadence on a 2x or 3x you would need to change gear on the front at the optimum point and I could rarely manage that. 1x removes that from the equation, spinning out? then change down, going is getting hard, then change up, simple. My riding is mostly 80% off road and to be honest, off road or on, I really don't notice any large jumps in gear ratio or gaps. I don't use Strava or slavishly record my times, I ride to enjoy my self and explore, so for me 1x is perfect.
> 
> Another point that others have bought up is the quality of gear changes, well I've ridden the bike all through the winter in the forest and yet to adjust or touch the drivetrain aside from cleaning it. The rear mech is clutched, so no chain chatter and no front mech cage for the chain to rub against, just a lovely silent drivetrain. I've also experienced no thrown chains either, no matter how rough the terrain. SRAM double tap aside, every gear change is crisp and precise, the problem comes in changing up. I'm a bit ham fisted and double tap requires a slightly more delicate touch, so changing up the cassette I often over changed through pushing the lever too far, I'm getting there though! Down shifting is really nice though, one click and down the chain pops, no over shifting or delay, just a nice, crisp down change.


Good information thank you.. Pure pleasure riding for me too so no need for any super quick gear changes or stress through a drop in speed when/if I do


----------



## Blue Hills (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> I think there is some on here who would rather not spend any money, or in the least as little as possible, they seem of the opinion that anyone different is wrong.


I don't see that in this thread at all - I see most folk addressing the question of numbers of gears, which is what the OP was musing about.
Some, a fair few, have given higher numbers of gears a plus because of the ultra-close ratios their style of riding makes welcome. And I have not seen anyone slagging them off.
You seem to be on a single track (single-speed?) with your comments and have barely addressed the question at all.
As I am not a racer (pretty serious cyclist but got back into bikes a bit late for that) I have no need of such a large number of gears/very close ratios and I fancy many are the same and would be best advised to resist the siren call.
As for close ratios, I am maybe a bit perverse(again I stress I am no racer - pro or amateur and don't ride in close groups) in that I sometimes like one or two changes having a certain clunky feel.
My single 8 speed is like that. Riding loaded on that down a slight incline or a good flat with a good momentum I really like changing up a fair clunk - feels like going into overdrive 
I also associate that certain slight clunkiness with dependability and lack of faff - I can't remember the last time I had to tinker with the indexing on that bike.
Of course if I was riding in a tight group, by the time I had made that satisfying upwards clunk the peloton would be off in the distance and let loose from the draughting I would most likely never catch them.


----------



## Blue Hills (18 May 2020)

Ian H said:


> Does this mean that, using a single chainring, you can only use the middle of the cassette?


excellent question - I seem to remember someone who is way more techy than me suggesting that those dinnerplate rear cassettes twinned with a single front ring are far worse for chainstrain than a triple married to a decent rear cassette, where a certain near duplication of ratios can have real benefits for trouble free running, lifetime of bits, lack of faff, economy.


----------



## Blue Hills (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> funny how things progress and get better.


I can't say I'd fancy reading any (non cycling) history book you might write. History as a straight-line devoted simply to things being better and better for folk.
(I'd also look very closely at the small print to see who financed/commissioned such a history)


----------



## Shearwater Missile (18 May 2020)

I used to manage on a 3x5 set up on my 1980 Motobecane. It became a 2x5 when the middle chain ring got bent from a fall and I never replaced it. I managed Ditchling beacon twice on it doing the London to Brighton ride, 2002 and 2008. Sure, there were gaps between gears but I did`nt know anything else. The crux of the matter though is that I had younger legs then and I would almost certainly struggle with that set up today. My two bikes are 9 speed 12-26 (53/39) and 11 speed 11-28 (50/34) and I use most of the gears, perhaps not the 12 or 11 as I don`t go that fast as I bail out before then.


----------



## Blue Hills (18 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> It is more about simplicity than cost to me (honest ) which is why I ditched my 3x* set-up because, I always seemed to be having to tinker around to stop any rub on the front mech.


Do you by chance use flat bars?
If so there are trimmable rapidfires you can get which solve this problem. No problem to do a simple little click to stop an occasional rub due to the demands of triples (or maybe my dodgy set-up abilities).
They don't really sacrifice any of the convenience of indexing. Not actually sure if shimano still makes any but quality ones are easily obtained at decent prices. I have stocks laid up but they are so dependable that I have only needed to raid my stocks for new builds.


----------



## mustang1 (18 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> I am always curious about the spacing/gapping between the sprockets and how the chain manages to 'mesh' faultlessly everytime (or does it?)..


I have a bike with 12-28 (or it might be 12-27) 10 speed and another bike with 11-32 11-speed. Both bikes change gears flawlessly as long as everything is set up correctly. I do a reasonable job of setting up the gears (when I can be bothered) otherwise the work is entrusted to bike mechanics who this kind of thing day in/day out.

When I bought the 11-32 bike, I was concerned about the gear ratio spaces but I found them to be perfectly fine. On that bike, I usually change 1-2 gears at a time. On the 12-28 bike, I change 2-3 gears at a time. But I've not used the 11-32 bike to climb a lot recently.


----------



## JPBoothy (18 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Do you by chance use flat bars?
> If so there are trimmable rapidfires you can get which solve this problem. No problem to do a simple little click to stop an occasional rub due to the demands of triples (or maybe my dodgy set-up abilities).
> They don't really sacrifice any of the convenience of indexing. Not actually sure if shimano still makes any but quality ones are easily obtained at decent prices. I have stocks laid up but they are so dependable that I have only needed to raid my stocks for new builds.


I converted one of my CX bikes to flat bars 'which my lanky legged teenage son has now commandeered' and, I agree that the rapid fire shifters are pretty good and rarely require any attention. They are 2x10 though not 3x10..


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 May 2020)

I think the evils of cross chaining on a double chainset are a bit overstated. The manufacturers (well SRAM at least) advertise that all gears are usable.

That said it's not something I actively advocate - just as I wouldn't actively advocate walking round with your flies undone, but if I do it by mistake then it is the work of a moment to rectify. And unlike an undone fly, you can normally hear when you are cross chaining as the transmission begins to mutter. 

It seems that cross chaining is mainly a thing used by those who like to be judgmental about others.


----------



## screenman (18 May 2020)

In honesty I have no idea of the sizes on any of my bikes, or in fact how many gears each have, I just jump on and ride them as the fancy takes me.


----------



## Mike_P (18 May 2020)

Ian H said:


> Does this mean that, using a single chainring, you can only use the middle of the cassette?


No because cross chaining issues should not arise with a single chainwheel.


----------



## RoadRider400 (18 May 2020)

Didnt even know how many gears my road bike had when I picked it up. Everybody knows the colour and how light it is much more important.


----------



## Sharky (18 May 2020)

ChrisEyles said:


> What gets me is how high the gearing is as stock on most bikes. I swapped out the triple on my tourer for a MTB 42/34/24 crankset and can honestly say 42/11 is as high a gear as I ever need.
> 
> My 1960s racer has a top gear of 52/14, which isn't even quite as high as that - again I never need a higher gear, and back in the 60's I assume the pros would have managed to go pretty darn fast with this gearing.
> 
> Anyone ever spin out 53/11?! What speed does that work out to, must be around 50mph+!


Same here. My racer in the 60's had a 52/42 with a 14-18 block and was more than adequate. Through the years, have had doubles and triples (and SS) and have now gone back to a 10 speed, with a 1x10 set up. Single 40T chainwheel and a cassette something like a 13-26.

My current real racer has a 50x14 or 15(Fixed) - which hasn't been used unfortunately since last August and for this last winter have been riding mostly my 44x17 SS.


----------



## a.twiddler (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> In honesty I have no idea of the sizes on any of my bikes, or in fact how many gears each have, I just jump on and ride them as the fancy takes me.


My most recent touring style bikes have had 3X9 gearing, which I initially thought was rather excessive. The first was a Claud Butler Dalesman circa 2006 bought new. I enjoyed this bike very much, and found that the gearing was pretty well spot on for me, with a usefully low "granny gear" and a good high gear which allowed for pushing along with a tailwind. There was a useful selection of gears in between. I was not too enamoured of the Shimano 105 brifters, with their brake lever plus an additional smaller lever, but learned to live with them. They worked well enough. Despite having a modern compact geometry frame, I always had to have the stem at its full height. As the years went by I developed a stiff neck and despite fitting an adjustable stem I found I needed a bike which would allow me to sit up more. 

After a lot of pondering and searching I came across a used Revolution Country Explorer in a suitably small frame size which fitted the bill, 2011 model which I bought in 2016. I found this bike extremely comfortable, despite on paper being merely Cro-Mo rather than 631 tubing as in the Dalesman. This also had BB5 discs, which after a little fettling I have found to be fine, certainly not as dreadful as some posters have experienced. 

Anyhow, this bike had a Shimano Sora 3X9 set up. I liked the Sora changers much better than the 105 ones, with their "mouse ear" change button. The gears work fine, and I haven't needed to make any adjustments since I bought it, even though it seems to have had a lot of use previously. The lowest gear is not as "granny friendly" as the Dalesman's and I have wondered about changing the block for something with a larger bottom sprocket. This then raises the problem of replacing the chain as well due to wear rates, maybe a longer one needed, and possibly the rear derailleur if it exceeds its capacity. Still, I might just learn to live with it, and face the prospect of getting off and walking if I have a load on. Meanwhile, I ought to go and count some gear teeth (for the first time in years) so I know what I might be dealing with!


----------



## ColinJ (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Can you remember a time when even 6 speed was not so available, funny how things progress and get better.


Yes - 1967!

I got a 5-speed bike for my combined Christmas/birthday present. That really _WAS _a 5-speed because it only had one chainring.


----------



## winjim (18 May 2020)

Aravis said:


> I think the counter-argument to this may be that with more sprockets there are more available in the "sweet" range for each chainring. With appropriate choice of rings you should then be able to achieve closer ratios throughout the range. But to take full advantage you'd need to make a lot of simultaneous front/back changes, perhaps?


The Campagnolo double-shuffle.


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 May 2020)

ChrisEyles said:


> Anyone ever spin out 53/11?! What speed does that work out to, must be around 50mph+!


I just did some sums to answer this. Unfortunately I did them for 50/11. Then I read that you'd said *53*/11 and deleted my post.

So here are the answers: 53/11 at 120rpm would be about 46 mph. To get to 50mph you'd need about 130rpm.

But 90rpm on 53/11 would be about 35mph. Which I don't suppose is a big deal for some fit racing types. In fact with a tailwind and a bit of a downhill even I could probably manage it. Not that I have a 53T chainring, I hasten to add.


----------



## JPBoothy (18 May 2020)

winjim said:


> The Campagnolo double-shuffle.


I can't make my mind-up whether that sounds like a Wrestling hold, a Strictly Coming Dancing move or, a position from the Kama Sutra


----------



## Ian H (18 May 2020)

Mike_P said:


> No because cross chaining issues should not arise with a single chainwheel.


That is an assertion, not an explanation.


----------



## Sharky (18 May 2020)

Ian H said:


> That is an assertion, not an explanation.


The issues I found with "cross chaining" were that the chain could possibly rub against the large ring, when in the Small/small gears and also rub against the front changer. And when in the small/small there is a lot of chain slack to be taken up by the RD.

Converting to a single 40T and removing the FD, eliminates any chain rub at the front and taking out a few links from the chain, allowed the RD to cope with chain length without the top jockey wheel rubbing against the cassette.

If not changing the BB length, you have to decide whether to put the single ring on the inside or outside of the spider, which gives the best alignment for the type of riding you do. I used the inside position on my training bike as I figured I would need the best alignment on the hills, but on my TT bike (with a 50T), I used the outer position as I rarely used the bottom gears. The latter has been withdrawn from TT action and now has a 40T inner chainring.

The actual angle that the chain has to work across is not really an issue. I used narrow/wide chain rings at the front and not had one derailment so far.

I like this 1x10 set up. It eliminates the "Campag Double Shuffle" or in my case the Shimano Double Shuffle and gives you a simple click up or down when you want to change gear.

In spite of all this, my ride for the last six months has been my SS, which doesn't seem to suffer any issues when changing gear.


----------



## Ian H (18 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> The issues I found with "cross chaining" were that the chain could possibly rub against the large ring...


Yes, that can happen if you get the alignment wrong, though I believe the traditional issues are supposed to be chain wear and efficiency, neither of which are actually a noticeable problem.

But my question was tongue-in-cheek. I run a triple on two bikes & use the full cassette range in the middle ring. So am I cross-chaining? And if so, how is it different from using the inner ring on a double?


----------



## a.twiddler (18 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I just did some sums to answer this. Unfortunately I did them for 50/11. Then I read that you'd said *53*/11 and deleted my post.
> 
> So here are the answers: 53/11 at 120rpm would be about 46 mph. To get to 50mph you'd need about 130rpm.
> 
> But 90rpm on 53/11 would be about 35mph. Which I don't suppose is a big deal for some fit racing types. In fact with a tailwind and a bit of a downhill even I could probably manage it. Not that I have a 53T chainring, I hasten to add.


All this is far, far away on the island of dreams for me, though downhill with a following gale even I with my chicken legs can appreciate the joys of pushing a relatively big gear. Even in my prime (whatever that was ) I had a pretty slow cadence, combined with not being a masher which was a bit limiting. Add to that an irrational urge to go cycle touring, and I had a problem to solve. Pre the mountain bike revolution you had to travel a bit to find suitable parts to make that possible, especially if you lived in rural West Wales. 

Solution: Stronglight 49D cranks (I65s I think) with Cyclotouriste chain rings, 14-34 rear freewheel and a suitable Sun Tour long arm rear derailleur. Hence comments like "That boy's floating up that hill" and "That's because he's a twiddler". I was also asked "How big is your small ring?" numerous times. The answer to that of course is "Would you care to rephrase that question sir/madam?". Tiny chainrings were not common in my part of the world at that time. Since I liked to have the big ring as big as the capacity of the changers could manage, big jumps between gears were the order of the day, on the 5 speed rears available then. So I suppose the point of all this is, it's good to have a big ring, and it's easy nowadays to have a decent high/low range set up.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I just did some sums to answer this. Unfortunately I did them for 50/11. Then I read that you'd said *53*/11 and deleted my post.
> 
> So here are the answers: 53/11 at 120rpm would be about 46 mph. To get to 50mph you'd need about 130rpm.
> 
> But 90rpm on 53/11 would be about 35mph. Which I don't suppose is a big deal for some fit racing types. In fact with a tailwind and a bit of a downhill even I could probably manage it. Not that I have a 53T chainring, I hasten to add.



Bit of a downhill you’d be well beyond 50 mph. Who can manage 38mph or 46mph on the flat for any length of time?


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 May 2020)

a.twiddler said:


> Since I liked to have the big ring as big as the capacity of the changers could manage, big jumps between gears were the order of the day, on the 5 speed rears available then. So I suppose the point of all this is, it's good to have a big ring, and it's easy nowadays to have a decent high/low range set up.


In my penniless touring days in the 80s I can't for the life of me remember what my gearing was, but it was a double chainring and 5 speed screw on freewheel at the back, with the biggest sprocket I could find in the shops. The end result was: _Still too bloody high._ Tours in Wales were always filled with mixed emotions. Maybe I could have fitted a triple or something exotic but I'm not sure I even knew if that was possible (pre internet days info wasn't easy to come by, all I had was Richard's Bicycle Book)

It was only when I'd given up cycling and misguidedly taken up running in the 90s that I stumbled across a weird thing called a mountain bike and discovered that really low gearing could even exist. It was a revelation.

So to those complaining how high top gears are these days remember - ranges have just got wider. They are lower at the bottom as well as higher at the top (as well as having more gears in the middle)


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Bit of a downhill you’d be well beyond 50 mph. Who can manage 38mph or 46mph on the flat for any length of time?


I personally have never been anywhere near 50mph, downhill or not. And never will.

As to who could manage 46mph at 120 rpm on the flat for any length of time ... well, it's nobody I know for sure! 

I was just doing the sums out of interest.


----------



## avecReynolds531 (18 May 2020)

winjim said:


> The Campagnolo double-shuffle.


Nicely described! 
Yes, from big chain ring to small, & at the same time, dropping down two sprockets of the cassette. Works a treat.


----------



## ColinJ (18 May 2020)

winjim said:


> The Campagnolo double-shuffle.





avecReynolds531 said:


> Nicely described!
> Yes, from big chain ring to small, & at the same time, dropping down two sprockets of the cassette. Works a treat.


I have been using Campagnolo on several of my bikes for over 30 years. I have got so used to their system that I had forgotten that I actually do this - my hands make the necessary shifts without me even thinking about them!

I found the Shimano STI on my CX bike a bit hard to get my head round at first but eventually (forgive pun!) got to grips with it...


----------



## a.twiddler (18 May 2020)

a.twiddler said:


> Great isn't it. When I first started adult cycling I couldn't understand why the sportier element would pedal _downhill_. I just love the simple pleasure of the freewheel. With a set of free rolling tyres, the slightest excuse and I'm zizzing along.


Well, I went out for a ride yesterday and was soundly punished by the wind for posting the above post. It didn't _seem_ very windy but as soon as I made a right turn into the direction it was coming from I was struggling to maintain 10mph. 

To add to this, I had fitted a cycle computer as I was interested in finding out my average speed while moving. I have a Huawei sports tracker (a Christmas present -I am not really into battery hungry gadgets) which lets you see your route and other details on your phone after your ride but apart from giving all speeds and distances in km, it only seems to divide the total time by distance which gives a very slow average if you stop at all.

Trundling along into the relentless wind I was passed by a few roadies who waved as if to acknowledge a fellow sufferer while even family groups with small children appeared to hurtle by in the opposite direction. The computer was indicating 7mph at times. The wind continued to be against me virtually all the way to my turning point. I thought I might get some wind power on the way back but at best it died away, or was still in my face. After pedalling up hill and down dale for about 28 miles I finally got on to the reverse route for the last few miles home with the wind behind me. Wanting the little tyrant on my handlebar to show a less embarrassing average speed by the time I got home (Yes, that means you, cycle computer!) I kept pedalling and surprised myself by exceeding 20mph for over half a mile before dropping back to 16-17mph. Soon after, about 13mph which I managed to maintain. It never dropped below 10mph but total average was 10.4mph. Distance was 32.6 miles. Max speed shown was 28mph somewhere.
I am beginning to remember why I gave up on these gadgets. Well, next time can only be better. To add insult to injury, the Huawei tracker battery died about halfway round. Maybe this should be in the "My ride today" thread but I just wanted to include it as I made much of my enjoyment of freewheeling in a previous post, and to show how hubris can bite you in the ar*e. I didn't freewheel at all! (well, just a few yards).


----------



## a.twiddler (18 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> In my penniless touring days in the 80s I can't for the life of me remember what my gearing was, but it was a double chainring and 5 speed screw on freewheel at the back, with the biggest sprocket I could find in the shops. The end result was: _Still too bloody high._ Tours in Wales were always filled with mixed emotions. Maybe I could have fitted a triple or something exotic but I'm not sure I even knew if that was possible (pre internet days info wasn't easy to come by, all I had was Richard's Bicycle Book)
> 
> It was only when I'd given up cycling and misguidedly taken up running in the 90s that I stumbled across a weird thing called a mountain bike and discovered that really low gearing could even exist. It was a revelation.
> 
> So to those complaining how high top gears are these days remember - ranges have just got wider. They are lower at the bottom as well as higher at the top (as well as having more gears in the middle)


First time I saw a mountain bike was in 1981 on a club run to Haverfordwest Castle when we came across a bunch of Americans. They looked like aliens. They had cycling gear but it was strangely casual. They all wore helmets which were a strange and exotic thing to see in those days. Every bike had a long fibreglass whip aerial with a triangular dayglo pennant. And the tyres! we looked at them like someone who had never seen a fat bike would today. How strenuous they must be to ride, we thought. That must be why they have those tiny chain rings, we thought. And being Americans, they were BIG. Not just tall, but broad, too.
These strange machines were going to be the salvation of the cycling industry though we didn't know it then. 

I remember going into a local branch of Halfords looking for a chainset with less teeth than the monstrous 48-52 that came with my bike (I had already got hold of a 14-34 and matching derailleur for the back which was still not low enough). "Train set? Oh no sir, we don't sell train sets. Try Woolworths." Somehow this spotty youth while being such an idiot, made me feel even more idiotic for asking. That was about the standard of advice I was getting used to.
Nowadays you can buy the most basic of mountain bikes and it has a range of gears that you could only dream of then, change the tyres, fit a rack and mudguards, and you have usable tourer.
I remember "The Penguin Book of the Bicycle", "Adventure Cycling" (by Tim Hughes I think) and certainly "Richard's Bicycle Book" which I read avidly at that time. (No internet, obviously). The early edition of RBB had a section on how to deal with aggressive dogs which so offended dog lovers that it had to be removed in later editions. I still have my early edition somewhere. All that quaint old fashioned advice has been overtaken by changes in technology but still interesting to read


----------



## Mike_P (18 May 2020)

Ian H said:


> That is an assertion, not an explanation.


A properly set up single chainwheel should be in line with the middle of the cassette hence why spacers are sold to achieve such i.e.
https://wickwerks.com/products/1x-chainline-spacers/ With a double chainwheel set each chainwheel will be marginally off centre while a triple chainwheel ought to have its centre chainwheel in line with the middle of a cassette. Consequently cross chaining should not be an issue on single chainwheels or the centre chainwheel of a triple but can be an issue on double chainwheels and the outer and inner chainwheels on a triple.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 May 2020)

screenman said:


> What is the fun in having money if you do not spend it?



I can think of many things to spend money on that would give me a lot more enjoyment than an 11 speed bike transmission!


----------



## screenman (18 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I can think of many things to spend money on that would give me a lot more enjoyment than an 11 speed bike transmission!



That is great, many may not be so enthusiastic about whatever it is.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 May 2020)

Venod said:


> I have replaced it this year with with a new MTB with 10-50 (12 speed) it had a 30 up front that I have replaced with a 34, I am happy with this gearing.
> 
> I don't know if I would be happy with 1x on my CX I have 46-34 up front with 11-32 on one set of wheels and 11-36 on another, again I am happy with this.
> 
> ...



So how much is it going to cost you in maintenance when you find yourself needing a new 10-50 cassette and a 12-speed compatible chain? I reckon on a tenner for a 6-speed freewheel and under a tenner for a chain if on special offer.


----------



## Ian H (18 May 2020)

Mike_P said:


> A properly set up single chainwheel should be in line with the middle of the cassette hence why spacers are sold to achieve such i.e.
> https://wickwerks.com/products/1x-chainline-spacers/ With a double chainwheel set each chainwheel will be marginally off centre while a triple chainwheel ought to have its centre chainwheel in line with the middle of a cassette. Consequently cross chaining should not be an issue on single chainwheels or the centre chainwheel of a triple but can be an issue on double chainwheels and the outer and inner chainwheels on a triple.



Except that it is impossible to get that perfect alignment with cassettes of 9 or more cogs. The chainset has to clear the chainstay and larger cassettes have expanded inwards, increasing wheel-dish and moving the centre line of the cassette inwards.


----------



## roley poley (18 May 2020)

Hub gears have no weakening dishing or duplication and have also gained in range and number of gears I use the full range on my nexus 8 ,a rohloff with 14 well a man can dream cant he?


----------



## Venod (18 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> So how much is it going to cost you in maintenance when you find yourself needing a new 10-50 cassette and a 12-speed compatible chain? I reckon on a tenner for a 6-speed freewheel and under a tenner for a chain if on special offer.


I will spend what it costs.
I do like the the old MTBs that are your bike of choice I have had a few and being a Yorkshire man I can see the appeal of cheap running, but you have to realise not everybody wants to spend as little as possible on their bikes.
I built my first bike with a frame from the tip and some old wheels of dad's, mam and dad ran old bikes, we never had a car, times change and I have no reason to want to go back to them days.
Have you ever had a modern bike? IMO things have improved.


----------



## faster (18 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I can think of many things to spend money on that would give me a lot more enjoyment than an 11 speed bike transmission!



Is one of them a 12 speed transmission?


----------



## Rusty Nails (18 May 2020)

faster said:


> Is one of them a 12 speed transmission?



With Di2 on a carbon frame.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I just did some sums to answer this. Unfortunately I did them for 50/11. Then I read that you'd said *53*/11 and deleted my post.
> 
> So here are the answers: 53/11 at 120rpm would be about 46 mph. To get to 50mph you'd need about 130rpm.
> 
> But 90rpm on 53/11 would be about 35mph. Which I don't suppose is a big deal for some fit racing types. In fact with a tailwind and a bit of a downhill even I could probably manage it. Not that I have a 53T chainring, I hasten to add.


How fast for a gear of 229"?


----------



## roley poley (18 May 2020)

Could do with a drafting special on my commute down the salt flats


----------



## Tigerbiten (19 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> How fast for a gear of 229"?


Well a 100" gear spun at 100 rpm is 30 mph.
So a 229" gear spun at X rpm is 0.687X mph.
Pick your value of X.

Easy ......


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (19 May 2020)

faster said:


> Is one of them a 12 speed transmission?



12 speed transmissions are fine - so long as they are six on the back two on the front.



Rusty Nails said:


> With Di2 on a carbon frame.



I can safely say the answer to that is no on both counts!


----------



## HMS_Dave (19 May 2020)

Depends what you want out of cycling... My Fat bike is a generic Chinese stamped 3x Crank set and 7 on the back and i got about at 25 stone albeit, slowly... I am thinking of getting a mega range freewheel for it (tis cheap) because i plan on taking it up hillier terrain. I also recently brought an elephant bike and have been out on it a few times and that has a 3 speed SA hub. That is fine too! I can ride it perfectly fine! Will i keep up with the roadies? No. But i don't want to.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 May 2020)

screenman said:


> In honesty I have no idea of the sizes on any of my bikes, or in fact how many gears each have, I just jump on and ride them as the fancy takes me.


Classic. After all your somewhat sneery posts not even addressing the technical topic. I know we are still in semi lockdown, but less screentime more cycling i think.


----------



## screenman (19 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Classic. After all your somewhat sneery posts not even addressing the technical topic. I know we are still in semi lockdown, but less screentime more cycling i think.



My point being that it is not just about money and how much you can save. I have 3 mtb's and 3 road bikes here, I ride them not count teeth.


----------



## GuyBoden (19 May 2020)

5 speed cogs lasted a lot longer than 10 speed and the chains too.............


----------



## JPBoothy (19 May 2020)

screenman said:


> My point being that it is not just about money and how much you can save. I have 3 mtb's and 3 road bikes here, I ride them not count teeth.


I don't think the OP's question was ever referring to cost saving, but merely is there a definitive advantage of having more gears. As the thread progressed there was inevitably going to be a list of pros & cons forming 'as there is in any debate/discussion' because they are required before an informed decision can be made on what suits each individual. Some of us are driven by cost, others by their love of tech, and those interested only in function. If there is a subject that doesn't interest me (or as in a lot of cases goes over my head ) then I simply don't read it!


----------



## davidphilips (19 May 2020)

What would be interesting would be to have a vote on the question of a definitive advantage of having more gears? Know i spin out on club runs and some times miss Having gears on a very step hill when using a SS, but my vote would be No, Reason is for me any bike i have with 8 gears is just as good as my 11 speeds but thats only me and perhaps i can adjust my cadence more that some others?


----------



## faster (19 May 2020)

davidphilips said:


> What would be interesting would be to have a vote on the question of a definitive advantage of having more gears? Know i spin out on club runs and some times miss Having gears on a very step hill when using a SS, but my vote would be No, Reason is for me any bike i have with 8 gears is just as good as my 11 speeds but thats only me and perhaps i can adjust my cadence more that some others?



There is no question - there is a definitive advantage of having more gears.

If the extra gears are ones that you don't use, or if like one unusual person has posted, you usually change gears two at a time, you're just misusing/squandering that advantage.

It's not a big advantage, granted, but it's there.


----------



## winjim (19 May 2020)

faster said:


> There is no question - there is a definitive advantage of having more gears.
> 
> If the extra gears are ones that you don't use, or if like one unusual person has posted, you usually change gears two at a time, you're just misusing/squandering that advantage.
> 
> It's not a big advantage, granted, but it's there.


You haven't defined your objectives.


----------



## faster (19 May 2020)

winjim said:


> You haven't defined your objectives.



I'm not sure they need to be defined.


----------



## winjim (19 May 2020)

faster said:


> I'm not sure they need to be defined.


Then you can't say there's an advantage. 'Advantage' is meaningless in that context.


----------



## faster (19 May 2020)

winjim said:


> Then you can't say there's an advantage. 'Advantage' is meaningless in that context.



I'm not sure what my objectives have to do with this, and I'm not sure in which context the 'advantage' is meaningless, but my post should be considered in the context of the original post.

Apologies for not making myself more clear.


----------



## Rusty Nails (19 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> 12 speed transmissions are fine - so long as they are six on the back two on the front.
> 
> *I can safely say the answer to that is no on both counts*!



My flabber is totally gasted.


----------



## hobo (19 May 2020)

7 speed 11 -28t
8 speed added 32t
9 speed added 34t
10 speed added 36t
11 speed added 42t
12 speed added 10t 
Where's the benefits?


----------



## Blue Hills (19 May 2020)

winjim said:


> Then you can't say there's an advantage. 'Advantage' is meaningless in that context.


Good to see an analytical mind at work, especially in these times 
Congrats.
Of course some folk just want more more MORE I tell you.
Don't care what it is - give me MORE.
and then some MORE


----------



## Twilkes (19 May 2020)

hobo said:


> 7 speed 11 -28t
> 8 speed added 32t
> 9 speed added 34t
> 10 speed added 36t
> ...



You can buy an 11 speed 12-25, with closer spacings than an 8 speed 12-25, allowing the rider to maintain closer to their optimum cadence.

Whether that's worth the cost and maintenance etc to any particular rider is up to them.


----------



## guitarpete247 (19 May 2020)

Over the years I've gone up from 3 speed (Moulton), 5, 6, 8 and now 10 speed Tiagra.
From 6 to 8 was from friction to indexed. Claris to Tiagra the big difference is the intermediate gearing and the smoother changing.
At 63 I don't know if I will ever justify spending on another gear or two. SWMBO thinks 3 road and 1 (1982) 3x6 speed MTB are enough. 


I think I need something newer and shinier but will need more room in garage.


----------



## gbb (19 May 2020)

Perhaps already said, I havnt read a lot of the replies, 11 speed will simply allow you to maintain a steadier cadence than 8 speed...whatever the terrain or conditions (if that's important to you), simply by virtue of the smaller steps between sprockets.
Hills are the only time i can think of when you should really benifit, smaller steps allowing you to maintain a steady work rate as the hill progresses.


----------



## Gunk (19 May 2020)

I’m running 10 speed on my MTB and 11 on my road bike, the advantage with the newer style shifters is just ease of use, you can select to change one, two of three gears in one go and it’s just seamless.


----------



## Once a Wheeler (19 May 2020)

When I see a pro riding a flat time trial with multiple chainrings I often wonder if the purpose of the front gearing is not just to make sure the bike exceeds the minimum weight restrictions. In my opinion, beyond 12 is finessing, beyond 20 risks impracticality. However, gears to cyclists are like the weather to ordinary mortals — a fascinating and never-ending topic of conversation.


----------



## DCBassman (19 May 2020)

After the last couple of days fighting with the 9-speed 36t setup on the Scott, I'm giving up and reverting to a flat-bat 8-speed 34t setup. I'll address the lack of the 36t sprocket by attempting to fit new chainrings, if I can get the right ones (50 and 39 outer and middle) to fit the Ritchey triple I have., So, I will have a spare HG400 12-36t cassette going, with under 200 miles on the clock.


----------



## silva (19 May 2020)

With getting older I'm dropping gears, currently at 1 so future looks bleak.


----------



## winjim (19 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Good to see an analytical mind at work, especially in these times
> Congrats.
> Of course some folk just want more more MORE I tell you.
> Don't care what it is - give me MORE.
> and then some MORE


You say analytical, some might say tediously pedantic.

Personally, I fell in love with 2014 Campagnolo 11sp and nobody's going to convince me that anything else is necessary or better*. Athena compact on the commuter, Chorus standard double on the Ti fighter. This was when they still had the five arm spider, before they ruined the look of the crankset. It's lovely, and just works straight out of the box.

*Don't tell anyone, but the cargo bike's got a mixture of Shimano & SRAM 10sp triple.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> You can buy an 11 speed 12-25, with closer spacings than an 8 speed 12-25, allowing the rider to maintain closer to their optimum cadence.



Is there any evidence that we all have an optimum cadence and what do you mean by optimum. Optimum in what way? Plus if it is optimal how much can it vary before it becomes sub optimal? I.e. Is it a range or a tightly controlled value?


----------



## JPBoothy (19 May 2020)

silva said:


> With getting older I'm dropping gears, currently at 1 so future looks bleak.


Or possibly an ebike.. It would be better than giving up the chance to still get out there


----------



## Ian H (19 May 2020)

I like my 3x10 gearing, close-ratio and something extra for that vertical road when you're knackered. And I like my fixed-wheel, simple, direct, no-nonsense, and indefinably zen. I've ridden both over substantial distances and even some substantial hills. 

So my answer is yes, or possibly, no.


----------



## marzjennings (19 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Is there any evidence that we all have an optimum cadence and what do you mean by optimum. Optimum in what way? Plus if it is optimal how much can it vary before it becomes sub optimal? I.e. Is it a range or a tightly controlled value?


 I would assume that the reference to optimum cadence is the cadence one is spinning prior to any gear change. Every ride is different, but in general we settle down to a preferred cadence and power band during a ride, for me that's generally around 90rpm/170w, and having as many gears as possible allows me to stay within my optimum cadence and power range.


----------



## Twilkes (19 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Is there any evidence that we all have an optimum cadence and what do you mean by optimum. Optimum in what way? Plus if it is optimal how much can it vary before it becomes sub optimal? I.e. Is it a range or a tightly controlled value?



I've been riding for years so have a pretty good feeling for what my legs can do and how sustainable it is, and on my eight speed I often find one gear too high and that my muscles will get tired so it's not sustainable but the next gear too low and that I'm not using as much of my energy to go forwards as I could be so it's sub-optimal. I don't really get those feelings very much with my ten speed, except when pushing hard, so maybe 'optimal' cadence is a range but that range gets smaller and smaller the closer you are to your max power output, or you can tolerate a wider cadence range if you're not fussed about going everywhere as fast as you can. When cycling with my wife my cadence sometimes drops below 60rpm as we're pootling down canal paths, rather than 85rpm+ when out on my own.


----------



## silva (20 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Or possibly an ebike.. It would be better than giving up the chance to still get out there


I don't see any point in ebikes except to get faster there.
Without an ebike, one can still get out, just slower that's all.
So if you bike for sport or tourism, lol @ ebikes. Sometimes I think ppl feel ashame if others ride faster than them.
An ebike is then like an ego prop up. 
Made me think about a case some weeks ago.
I was riding on a long lingering road with farms and open fields. There's a farmer that every evening drives his cows inside, crossing the road. So traffic has to wait some minutes. 
There is precisely at the farm a parallel road, but too small for cars to cross easily, but fine for bikes and it's just a minute longer.
I arrived there nearly simultaneous with an ebiker (not a speedbike). The farmer directed him to the parallel road, and the guy refused. He just went with his bike between the cows and the farmers woman yelled to him that it is on his own risk. 
Now, I'm used to this common cows crossing road event so I immediately took the parallel road. Guess what, I arrived like 10 sec before the ebiker at the further re-junction of the parallel road back to the main.
Now, that guy, it wasn't normal - the hate in his eyes when he passed me. See, that is what I ment with that "ego prop up". Some buy an ebike just to be able to pass other people. 

There is a similar story reoccuring in the city nearby. Some young migrants at a crosswalk. They have all the time to cross the road but they don't. They wait for cars arriving and THEN they cross, purposely to make the drivers stop. Then they cross the street alike Bosses, and when arrived at the other side, they repeat it from there...

There are normal people too, in the world.


----------



## Mike_P (20 May 2020)

silva said:


> I don't see any point in ebikes except to get faster there.
> Without an ebike, one can still get out, just slower that's all.


How about relatively short commutes up a steep hill in anything other than pretty cold weather where it would be pointless taking a shower as it would be quicker to walk and light load shopping trips - consequence of the current situation is that my ebike is getting little use as none of the former are occurring and the vast majority of shopping trips are bulky in order to cut down the number needed.


----------



## JPBoothy (20 May 2020)

silva said:


> I don't see any point in ebikes except to get faster there.
> Without an ebike, one can still get out, just slower that's all.
> So if you bike for sport or tourism, lol @ ebikes. Sometimes I think ppl feel ashame if others ride faster than them.
> An ebike is then like an ego prop up.
> ...


Oops sorry, I think I misinterpreted your comment as meaning you were struggling to get out any more 

I am not an ebike (moped) fan either but never like to think of a fellow cyclist having to hang-up their cleats


----------



## derrick (20 May 2020)

My ride today, i used all the gears going up hill into a headwind.changing them one at a time, keeping my cadence steady. I did have a nice bit of downhill just before the up. Coming down i reached 36 mph going right down to 9mph going up.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2020)

hobo said:


> 7 speed 11 -28t
> 8 speed added 32t
> 9 speed added 34t
> 10 speed added 36t
> ...


I don't think that's quite correct. There was a 7 speed megarange freewheel offering 34 teeth. Ugly and I think it needed a MTB derailleur at the time, but it existed. https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/technologies/component/details/megarange.html

As noted z the benefit is a smaller gap between your maximum power and the biggest sustainable gear.


----------



## Mike Ayling (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> I don't see any point in ebikes except to get faster there.
> Without an ebike, one can still get out, just slower that's all.
> So if you bike for sport or tourism, lol @ ebikes. Sometimes I think ppl feel ashame if others ride faster than them.
> An ebike is then like an ego prop up.
> ...


About 65 years ago when I had just entered high school in South Africa we had a what was referred to then as PT or Physical Training and one of the masters who took us used to refer to those who brought a letter from their mums asking to be excused as the sick, lame and lazy.
Far too many ebike riders fall into the third category!

I don't think that we have any crosswalks here in Melbourne Australia that are not protected bt traffic lights requiring the press of a button and usually a lengthy wait. The little scrotes would get bored pretty quickly.

Mike


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

Mike_P said:


> How about relatively short commutes up a steep hill in anything other than pretty cold weather where it would be pointless taking a shower as it would be quicker to walk and light load shopping trips - consequence of the current situation is that my ebike is getting little use as none of the former are occurring and the vast majority of shopping trips are bulky in order to cut down the number needed.


Isn't such case steep up hill just the same of what I said: to get faster somewhere?


----------



## Mike_P (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> Isn't such case steep up hill just the same of what I said: to get faster somewhere?


Yes but also without being soaked in sweat, it would be pretty pointless cycling purely pedal powered when the combined time including kit change, shower and drying exceeds the walking time. Equally their are people who have longer commutes whose work place has poor facilities so an ebike has a role there. Then there was the ebiker I spoke to at Halfords who had one because his knees were shot and he could not put much power through them.


----------



## Chris S (21 May 2020)

mjr said:


> My most-used bike has three gears...


So does mine, it's great for tearing around town.


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

Mike_P said:


> Yes but also without being soaked on sweat, it would be pretty pointless cycling purely pedal powered when the combined time including kit change, shower and drying exceeds the walking time. Equally their are people who have longer commutes whose work place has poor facilities so an ebike has a role there. Then there was the ebiker I spoke to at Halfords who had one because his knees were shot and he could not put much power through them.


See, sweat is the product of effort. Doing effort is what training / sport is.
If you take the car then it's even less sweat. Basically yet another wording of what I said before.
Ebikes serve to get faster somewhere and that's it/that's all.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> See, sweat is the product of effort. Doing effort is what training / sport is.
> If you take the car then it's even less sweat. Basically yet another wording of what I said before.
> Ebikes serve to get faster somewhere and that's it/that's all.


Cycling is not necessarily training/sport. It can be transport. We'd prefer even those to ride not drive, to reduce the amount they shoot in our lungs, so ebikes are good.

Do ebikes benefit more from close-spaced gears?


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

Chris S said:


> So does mine, it's great for tearing around town.



Not so great if the nearest town is 10 miles away, different horses for different courses, I like the fact we all have plenty of choice when it comes to cycling.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Not so great if the nearest town is 10 miles away, different horses for different courses, I like the fact we all have plenty of choice when it comes to cycling.


Why not so great? Works for me 5 miles out. Stick it in top and tick along for 25mins...

Yes to choice. No to shooting on other fine choices.


----------



## DCBassman (21 May 2020)

Had I the space to keep all three bikes at home, I'd do the shopping on the old Peugeot Mixte with its ludicrous 5-speed block with stem shifter.
Mind you, with the current steel rims, it effectively has no brakes...


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Why not? Works for me 5 miles out. Stick it in top and tick along for 25mins...



Fine, your choice.


----------



## Mike_P (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> See, sweat is the product of effort. Doing effort is what training / sport is.
> If you take the car then it's even less sweat. Basically yet another wording of what I said before.
> Ebikes serve to get faster somewhere and that's it/that's all.


Think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree, the simple fact is that since getting an ebike my use of a bicycle has risen significantly and use of the expensive 4 wheeled vehicle has dropped pro rata. Maybe your view might be influenced by where you live but a commute or shopping trip for me is typically 85ft/mile of climbing.


----------



## JPBoothy (21 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Cycling is not necessarily training/sport. It can be transport. We'd prefer even those to ride not drive, to reduce the amount they shoot in our lungs, so ebikes are good.
> 
> Do ebikes benefit more from close-spaced gears?


I can see both sides of the great ebike argument discussion and personally I am 'currently' not a fan because I like that feeling of being propelled along by my own effort and, the burn on the muscles as a result of my effort (sick eh!). I like the basic mechanics of chains, cables, bearings and sprockets that I can 'mostly' tinker about with myself and, I like the sleek lines of a bike with traditional looking tubes rather than having a 'boxy' sectional look to them (sorry Giant) BUT, when/if I get to a time in my life when the only choice that I have to get me out enjoying the outdoors without being trapped inside a car is an ebike, then that is probably the choice that I will make


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 May 2020)

Don't like ebikes ? Don't buy one.

That's the approach I take to things like chamomile tea. Seems to work


----------



## faster (21 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> Don't like ebikes ? Don't buy one.
> 
> That's the approach I take to things like chamomile tea. Seems to work



Chamomile Tea!!

I won't touch the stuff. Modern expensive rubbish and anyone who drinks it is an idiot.

Some nice steel tea is what you want.


----------



## vickster (21 May 2020)

faster said:


> C*hamomile Tea!!
> 
> I won't touch the stuff. Modern expensive rubbish and anyone who drinks it is an idiot.*
> 
> Some nice steel tea is what you want.


ummm... I realise you were trying to make a joke but....

Chamomile is old school. It’s been used since ancient times. Both the Egyptians and the ancient Romans used chamomile in tea, salves, creams, incenses and other beverages. In Egypt, chamomile was prescribed as a cold remedy. In the modern era, nighttime chamomile tea is a staple for inducing sleep. Recent studies have supported the efficacy of chamomile for cold prevention, sleep induction, and other ancient applications.


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Cycling is not necessarily training/sport. It can be transport. We'd prefer even those to ride not drive, to reduce the amount they shoot in our lungs, so ebikes are good.
> 
> Do ebikes benefit more from close-spaced gears?


I said ebikes sole benefit is get faster from A to B. Whether that is without rear rack, an empty rear rack or a rear rack with a bucket oisters on it, uphill, against wind, warm, cold, whatever, is irrelevant.
Without a motor, one can also transport, only less fast.
I ride without motor and with a single gear, and I had loads of 60 kg 30 km back. Both scattered and concentrated in weight.
It just takes more time than with an ebike, that's it, that's all.


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> I said ebikes sole benefit is get faster from A to B. Whether that is without rear rack, an empty rear rack or a rear rack with a bucket oisters on it, uphill, against wind, warm, cold, whatever, is irrelevant.
> Without a motor, one can also transport, only less fast.
> I ride without motor and with a single gear, and I had loads of 60 kg 30 km back. Both scattered and concentrated in weight.
> It just takes more time than with an ebike, that's it, that's all.



More time on the bike each day adds up to less time doing things important to them, family time and the suchlike.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> More time on the bike each day adds up to less time doing things important to them, family time and the suchlike.


Not if the whole family cycle together!


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> More time on the bike each day adds up to less time doing things important to them, family time and the suchlike.


That's with a walk, a car, a plane and a beam me up scotty also the case.
Life is a choice just like an ebike isn't a sport choice.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> That's with a walk, a car, a plane and a beam me up scotty also the case.
> Life is a choice just like an ebike isn't a sport choice.


There's an e-giro. Probably others.


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

mjr said:


> There's an e-giro. Probably others.


"e-giro" is what?


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> "e-giro" is what?


It came second place to "Tour de Yorkshire" in the naming contest.


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> It came second place to "Tour de Yorkshire" in the naming contest.


Its sports ratio is the inverted of its watt ratio.
A car driver for example, can also have a sports ratio, alike ticking the steering wheel with the thumb or stretch by scratching his back.


----------



## wafter (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> I think there is some on here who would rather not spend any money, or in the least as little as possible, they seem of the opinion that anyone different is wrong.


IMO the crucial difference is that between those who've done their homework and buy what best suits their needs (or wants) versus those who casually and unquestioningly buy whatever the marketing men happen to be pushing this week.

Usually whatever random, simplistic metric the marketeers seize upon to push as the measure by which their products should be judged (be this number of gears or mass of a bike, pixel count in cameras etc) holds little real world benefit and is often detrimental to the performance of the item in other, potentially more important areas.


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> Not if the whole family cycle together!



Commuting?


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> That's with a walk, a car, a plane and a beam me up scotty also the case.
> Life is a choice just like an ebike isn't a sport choice.




Sorry I did not know we had some how got onto sport.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Commuting?


Most of the people that I know who commute by bike average speeds higher than allowed for motor assistance on e-bikes anyway. The only time the e-bike would have a speed advantage would be when there was a lot of climbing involved. (25 kph/15.5 mph isn't quick on a flat road but it is _very _quick up any significant slope!)


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> Most of the people that I know who commute by bike average speeds higher than allowed for motor assistance on e-bikes anyway. The only time the e-bike would have a speed advantage would be when there was a lot of climbing involved. (25 kph/*15.5 mph isn't quick on a flat road* but it is _very _quick up any significant slope!)


There are some who would question that assertion.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> There are some who would question that assertion.


I admit that my rides do tend to average nearer to 20 kph/12.5 mph these days, but there are usually at least _some _hills involved!


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I admit that my rides do tend to average nearer to 20 kph/12.5 mph these days, but there are usually at least _some _hills involved!


When I have commuted my speeds have been down below even my recreational trundles and certainly below ebike speeds. Mainly because of the traffic. But partly because, well, it's a commute. I'm not going to thrash myself for the sake of getting home/to work gasping for breath a handful of minutes quicker. I don't think it's just me. There are a fair number of people who just ride to work. Yes there are a fair few who bomb along too but by no means all.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> When I have commuted my speeds have been down below even my recreational trundles and certainly below ebike speeds. Mainly because of the traffic. But partly because, well, it's a commute. I'm not going to thrash myself for the sake of getting home/to work gasping for breath a handful of minutes quicker. I don't think it's just me. There are a fair number of people who just ride to work. Yes there are a fair few who bomb along too but by no means all.


I can see that traffic and traffic lights wouldn't help average speeds. 

I only commuted by bike a few times a month (in good weather) about 30 years ago. I always wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. It was 15 miles each way and I used to try to average 20 mph but I only managed it a few times coming home. In that direction there was one steepish climb and a couple of long drags, but lots of gradual downhill. My record was 44 minutes that way. Going to work was a bit slower - my best time was 49 minutes. 

I timed myself again both ways a few years back and I took well over an hour in each direction. I can't see me ever getting back to the fitness that I had in those days!


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> Most of the people that I know who commute by bike average speeds higher than allowed for motor assistance on e-bikes anyway. The only time the e-bike would have a speed advantage would be when there was a lot of climbing involved. (25 kph/15.5 mph isn't quick on a flat road but it is _very _quick up any significant slope!)



How about strong headwinds on our fine Lincolnshire roads? Personally I have no problem at all with people having ebikes and I do not consider them lazy for doing so.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> How about strong headwinds on our fine Lincolnshire roads? Personally I have no problem at all with people having ebikes and I do not consider them lazy for doing so.


Ah, yes... I did one ride in the equally flat Vale of York and the wind that day was horrendous. No hills in sight, but I struggled to average 10 mph - give me hills and wind-free conditions any day!


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I can see that traffic and traffic lights wouldn't help average speeds.
> 
> I only commuted by bike a few times a month (in good weather) about 30 years ago. I always wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. It was 15 miles each way and I used to try to average 20 mph but I only managed it a few times coming home. In that direction there was one steepish climb and a couple of long drags, but lots of gradual downhill. My record was 44 minutes that way. Going to work was a bit slower - my best time was 49 minutes.
> 
> I timed myself again both ways a few years back and I took well over an hour in each direction. I can't see me ever getting back to the fitness that I had in those days!


 I don't think the kind of people who do commuting at those sorts of speeds are necessarily the market for ebikes.

My commute is/was about 12km. As it's central London traffic my #1 concern is being alive at the end. All other considerations, including speed are way down the list behind that. Normally about 17km/h on the Brompton. 

Not that this has anything whatever to do with gear counts.


----------



## Mike_P (21 May 2020)

I generally find little difference time wise between using the road bike and the ebike due to most routes spending all their time 
going up, ebike usually faster, or down, road bike usually faster but a big difference in that the ebike usually has the return journey accompanied by a heavy rucksack and I am wearing normal clothing with very trainer like SPD shoes.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> As it's central London traffic my #1 concern is being alive at the end


A perfectly reasonable concern! 

My commute was on the A646. Traffic wasn't so bad on that 30 years ago, and when I did those sunny summer commutes I used to go in an hour early to avoid most of what traffic there was. Coming home was busier unless I did another hour of overtime to come back _after _the rush.

Gears, oh yes, gears... I used a 2 x 9 speed bike for it. Most of that route is actually fine on singlespeed though except for the one hard little climb, which I would struggle on. (I almost feel like riding out there on the singlespeed to see if I can manage it...  Hmm, I just checked... 500 metres averaging 8%, including 160 metres at 12%; maybe not!)


----------



## Chris S (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Not so great if the nearest town is 10 miles away, different horses for different courses, I like the fact we all have plenty of choice when it comes to cycling.


3-speeds are basically town bikes but I've done a couple of 30 mile round trips on one in the past week. It depends on the gradient, they'll never be MTBs but a 60rpm cadence will give you 15mph on the flat.


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

Chris S said:


> 3-speeds are basically town bikes but I've done a couple of 30 mile round trips on one in the past week. It depends on the gradient, they'll never be MTBs but a 60rpm cadence will give you 15mph on the flat.



My legs do not go round well at 60rpm, 80 is comfortable for my advanced years which is 10 slower than they used to be and 44 slower than they avaeraged on my fastest 65inch 10tt.


----------



## Chris S (21 May 2020)

screenman said:


> My legs do not go round well at 60rpm, 80 is comfortable for my advanced years


Is that a typo? 60 rpm is just one crank revolution per second. Top gear on my bike is 84 inches which works out at 15mph.
gear inches x pi x cadence = inches per minute
84 x 3.142 x 60 = 15835.68 (inches per minute)
15835.68 x 60 = 950140.8 (inches per hour)
950140.8 / 63360 = 15 mph

3-speeds are a lot more flexible than people think. A good thing too, their popularity would increase and their prices would go up


----------



## screenman (21 May 2020)

No typo at all, 90rpm is considered a good number to pedal at for many people, not all I must add. I have owned 3 speed and it was suitable for the type of cycling I did back then and the area I lived in, mind you it was over 53 years ago.


----------



## silva (21 May 2020)

rpm is also a good way to recognize an e-bike, it's much lower, for a same speed they ride in a lower gear. A kinda slowmotion effect that's why I think about yoga when seeing it.


----------



## Mike_P (21 May 2020)

Assuming the ebike has the requisite sensor on it which on all honesty I would not think of putting on one. Road bike ride Strava is telling my average rpm is between 59 and 67 but then most rides involve trudging uphill for far too much of them.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 May 2020)

My cadence is around 95-100 rpm


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> My cadence is around 95-100 rpm


I wouldn't have known what my cadence is on my multi-geared bikes, but it is fairly obvious on my singlespeed because I am always in the same gear and I know what speeds I do. I can just about turn the cranks round at 20 rpm (8% climb, 7 kph). I am happiest doing 80-100 rpm (28-35 kph) and favourite is 90 rpm (31-ish kph). I can do short blasts of 110-120 rpm (37-41 kph) but my legs feel like they are going to fly off, and I need to be going downhill because I can't keep that kind of speed up on the flat for long anyway without a monster tailwind!

PS The numbers are not coincidences... I picked the 52/19 gear ratio to suit my favourite cadence at the maximum speed that I can sustain, and still allow me to climb moderately steep hills.


----------



## Twilkes (21 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> PS The numbers are not coincidences... I picked the 52/19 gear ratio to suit my favourite cadence at the maximum speed that I can sustain, and still allow me to climb moderately steep hills.



I've always wondered how people picked a single speed gearing, that makes a lot of sense, thanks.


----------



## ColinJ (21 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> I've always wondered how people picked a single speed gearing, that makes a lot of sense, thanks.


I made a point of doing a few rides on my multi-geared bike in one gear and after trying a few ratios I picked the one that I felt most happy with.

If I were not going to do any climbs steeper than (say) 5% I would probably increase the gear ratio to (say) 52/17.


----------



## classic33 (21 May 2020)

silva said:


> rpm is also a good way to recognize an e-bike, it's much lower, for a same speed they ride in a lower gear. A kinda slowmotion effect that's why I think about yoga when seeing it.


A 229" gear also means you don't have to pedal fast, low RPM/cadence, to keep a given speed. 

Not quite certain what the dislike of e-assist has to do with the number of gears on a bike though.


----------



## Tigerbiten (21 May 2020)

Chris S said:


> Is that a typo? 60 rpm is just one crank revolution per second. Top gear on my bike is 84 inches which works out at 15mph.


I've found that ~60 tends to be around the bottom edge of my cadence power band and ~85 rpm is the upper.
At 60 rpm I'm relying on the strength of my legs to generate a lot of the power, so more useful for short bursts of power out of the saddle.
More normal for me is 70-75 rpm, less strength and more stamina is needed so I'm able to keep going longer/faster as needed.
As I get fitter this may increase to the 80-85 rpm range, at which point I'm on a long tour and very cycling fit.
I tend not to spin much over 95 rpm as it's outside my power band and my efficiency drops, I get tired faster.

One advantage of my 1900% gear range is that I can keep cadence fairly constant over the whole range.
My gears are based of a Rohloff so mostly 13.6% steps.
This is to narrow are the bottom end of my range, sub 5 mph, I could do with roughly 20% steps.
It's about right for the mid range, ~10 mph to ~18 mph.
And to wide for the top of the range, +25 mph, but I do need to be going downhill to use these gears so it doesn't really matter.

Luck ........


----------



## rivers (22 May 2020)

silva said:


> I said ebikes sole benefit is get faster from A to B. Whether that is without rear rack, an empty rear rack or a rear rack with a bucket oisters on it, uphill, against wind, warm, cold, whatever, is irrelevant.
> Without a motor, one can also transport, only less fast.
> I ride without motor and with a single gear, and I had loads of 60 kg 30 km back. Both scattered and concentrated in weight.
> It just takes more time than with an ebike, that's it, that's all.



Errr I'm faster on any of my bikes than I am if I borrow my wife's e-bike.


----------



## silva (22 May 2020)

rivers said:


> Errr I'm faster on any of my bikes than I am if I borrow my wife's e-bike.


Because State capped it to 25 ?
Because your legs are too short ?
Because she slaps you everytime you "borrow" it... ?


----------



## silva (22 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> A 229" gear also means you don't have to pedal fast, low RPM/cadence, to keep a given speed.
> 
> Not quite certain what the dislike of e-assist has to do with the number of gears on a bike though.


21 instead of 3 gears.
Alu instead of steel bolts/nuts/parts.
Carbon instead of alu.
e-assist.
Speed increase not by sports/training but by tech.
Imagine tomorrow a bike weighting 500 grammes costing 500000.
Next week its rider wins Yorkshire Giro.

x x x Searching for "Sports", please wait ... x x x

That was my point, not more, not less.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/so-many-gears-pointless.261633/post-6003119


> I don't see any point in ebikes except to get faster there.
> Without an ebike, one can still get out, just slower that's all.
> So if you bike for sport or tourism, lol @ ebikes. Sometimes I think ppl feel ashame if others ride faster than them.
> An ebike is then like an ego prop up.


ebikes, gears, ... they all have points. Just outside sports, that's all. So don't make a strawman of my post - I'm not against ebikes...


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 May 2020)

silva said:


> ebikes, gears, ... they all have points. Just outside sports, that's all.


Depends which sport you're looking at. In some sports they are obviously excluded by the rules. But in others, not.

For example, MTB e-bike racing exists as a sport.


----------



## classic33 (22 May 2020)

silva said:


> 21 instead of 3 gears.
> Alu instead of steel bolts/nuts/parts.
> Carbon instead of alu.
> e-assist.
> ...


105 gears not 21, with a front triple of 42/52/62.
Used as a general bike, because at the time it was my only bike.
Throw away your 
inner tubes and tyres, tech to improve speed
Brakes, tech to improve overall speed
Chain

Bike weighing 1lb, wouldn't be allowed in any race due to weight limits. Assuming you could build an entire bike weighing only 1lb, for less than a 7 figure sum.


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Assuming you could build an entire bike weighing only 1lb, for less than a 7 figure sum.


Here you go. 2.7 kg, so still some way off your 1 lb target, but it still has brakes, gears* etc.
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/check-out-the-worlds-lightest-custom-road-bike

* to keep the thread tentatively on-topic


----------



## classic33 (22 May 2020)

@silva, one I've got my eye on, minus the advertising. E-assist, but I doubt I'd be getting anywhere faster than on a bike on it.




Some bikes are load haulers, which means gears make starting off from a standing start easier. Easier on the rider on a longer ride, when loaded.

I've set the speed cameras off* in a fifty zone, on the Brox, which means the speed was at least 57mph(speed limit 50 + 10% 5 + error of 2, means 57mph at least)

You were given an alternative means of allowing yourself to carry on cycling and you dismissed it out of hand. Most would have at least considered it, just to carry on cycling.


*It was down the central part of this though. Freewheeling, gears useless.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I wouldn't have known what my cadence is on my multi-geared bikes, but it is fairly obvious on my singlespeed because I am always in the same gear and I know what speeds I do. I can just about turn the cranks round at 20 rpm (8% climb, 7 kph). I am happiest doing 80-100 rpm (28-35 kph) and favourite is 90 rpm (31-ish kph). I can do short blasts of 110-120 rpm (37-41 kph) but my legs feel like they are going to fly off, and I need to be going downhill because I can't keep that kind of speed up on the flat for long anyway without a monster tailwind!
> 
> PS The numbers are not coincidences... I picked the 52/19 gear ratio to suit my favourite cadence at the maximum speed that I can sustain, and still allow me to climb moderately steep hills.



My cadence is pretty consistent so I can usually know what speed I’m going from the gear I’m in. I have bar end shifters and can equate position with speed. My peak cadence is around 131 rpm but I won’t hold that for long.


----------



## a.twiddler (22 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> @silva, one I've got my eye on, minus the advertising. E-assist, but I doubt I'd be getting anywhere faster than on a bike on it.
> View attachment 524083
> 
> 
> ...


Never mind the e-assist, you must have some serious brakes on that once you get rolling on a good hill! 

As for ebikes, not all bicycles are created for the exclusive use of the athletically inclined. There are other types of cyclists. We should consider ourselves fortunate to be among the Temporarily Able Bodied (TABs) and once we become less able, even a run of the mill bike can become a sort of mobility aid, allowing us to go to places we could not easily walk to, and to carry things that we no longer can on foot, letting us keep our minds and bodies active for longer. An ebike is just a logical extension of this, as well as encouraging people who might not otherwise cycle at all. 
They are no longer a novelty. I find it hard to understand the hate some have for them. As the technology improves, giving greater range and less weight, maybe even I would consider one at some time in the future.


----------



## Blue Hills (22 May 2020)

This thread has strayed hasn't it twiddler?
May return to gears later, but on ebikes, i think hate a strong word. I think some are a bit anti what they see as inappropriate use of the tech, which is a bit of a different point. If i live to need one i am pretty sure i will welcome the tech. Excellent point you make about bikes of all types as a mobility aid.


----------



## Sharky (22 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> This thread has strayed hasn't it twiddler?
> May return to gears later, but on ebikes, i think hate a strong word. I think some are a bit anti what they see as inappropriate use of the tech, which is a bit of a different point. If i live to need one i am pretty sure i will welcome the tech. Excellent point you make about bikes of all types as a mobility aid.


A few years ago, bikes and mopeds were in the same camp and our "comic" was even called "Cycling and Mopeds". Mopeds were seen as just a motorized bike. As mopeds evolved, they became their own identity and the connection between the two faded. I guess as ebikes get more sophisticated, the same will happen and the two types of transport will diverge.


----------



## avecReynolds531 (22 May 2020)

a.twiddler said:


> Never mind the e-assist, you must have some serious brakes on that once you get rolling on a good hill!
> 
> As for ebikes, not all bicycles are created for the exclusive use of the athletically inclined. There are other types of cyclists. We should consider ourselves fortunate to be among the Temporarily Able Bodied (TABs) and once we become less able, even a run of the mill bike can become a sort of mobility aid, allowing us to go to places we could not easily walk to, and to carry things that we no longer can on foot, letting us keep our minds and bodies active for longer. An ebike is just a logical extension of this, as well as encouraging people who might not otherwise cycle at all.
> They are no longer a novelty. I find it hard to understand the hate some have for them. As the technology improves, giving greater range and less weight, maybe even I would consider one at some time in the future.


A few years ago, we were cycling on one of the (many beautiful) climbs in Spain. A couple, who were easily into their 80s, maybe older, did the same climb too, on electric bikes. It was inspiring to see their continued enjoyment of the bike, and ability to tackle routes that would've been out of reach previously.


----------



## a.twiddler (22 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> A few years ago, bikes and mopeds were in the same camp and our "comic" was even called "Cycling and Mopeds". Mopeds were seen as just a motorized bike. As mopeds evolved, they became their own identity and the connection between the two faded. I guess as ebikes get more sophisticated, the same will happen and the two types of transport will diverge.


Yes, you are right there. There's a world of difference between a 98cc cyclemotor and a modern 50cc automatic scooter moped. No pedals or gears at all on the latter. And it's a motor vehicle with all that entails. How long before the government brings in some convoluted system with illogical exemptions to enforce taxation, insurance, number plates etc on ebikes too? I hope for the best, but fear the worst.

Anyway, enough thread drift, back to cycling and gears in my next post on this thread. A bicycle can be the equivalent of seven league boots for anyone. That was the almost magical thing I found when I got a little bit fit and started cycling any distance. (Back then I defined "a little bit fit" as losing the feeling that I was going to actually die before I reached the summit of whatever hillock I was climbing at the time). All with the appropriate gearing, of course.


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 May 2020)

a.twiddler said:


> A bicycle can be the equivalent of seven league boots for anyone.



Just quoted this sentence because I liked it so much


----------



## ColinJ (22 May 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> Just quoted this sentence because I liked it so much


I had never heard of seven league boots until that post!


----------



## Landsurfer (22 May 2020)

Single front ring, 36 tooth... 9 speed rear 12/40 .... climb every mountain ..... what else would i need ?
Well not an engine ...
When the time comes for it i will embrace it ... as my wife has ...
It's a long away for me yet ....
For now i go cycling on my bicycle ... and motorcycling on my motorcycle ...


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> what else would i need ?


A gear longer than 81": that's what else you'd need. If you tried an end-to-end with that 1x9 you'd be frustratingly spun-out by the end.


----------



## NotAsGoodAsMyBike (22 May 2020)

Aside from my fixed (48/18) , I have little idea or interest what gears are on my bikes. I have a 9-speed triple but no idea what the chainrings or cassette is. I have 10-speed and 11-speed bikes, each with 50/34 rings on the front but I can’t remember and don’t care what’s on the back. I just ride!


----------



## Blue Hills (22 May 2020)

NotAsGoodAsMyBike said:


> Aside from my fixed (48/18) , I have little idea or interest what gears are on my bikes. I have a 9-speed triple but no idea what the chainrings or cassette is. I have 10-speed and 11-speed bikes, each with 50/34 rings on the front but I can’t remember and don’t care what’s on the back. I just ride!


Er, am confused, isn't the 10 speed 10 on the back and the 11 speed 11 on the back? And about the mysterious cassette on the back of your triple bike, don't you ever renew the cassette?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 May 2020)

NotAsGoodAsMyBike said:


> Aside from my fixed (48/18) , I have little idea or interest what gears are on my bikes. I have a 9-speed triple but no idea what the chainrings or cassette is. I have 10-speed and 11-speed bikes, each with 50/34 rings on the front but I can’t remember and don’t care what’s on the back. I just ride!



That’s a lot of detail for someone who shows no interest.


----------



## Landsurfer (22 May 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> A gear longer than 81": that's what else you'd need. If you tried an end-to-end with that 1x9 you'd be frustratingly spun-out by the end.


Not sure when you did your LEJOG but i did mine in July 2018 .... 9 speed ... 13 / 36 cassette and a ...... (drum roll ).... 28 single front sprocket ....... 
I never spun out ... I freewheeled .... it's called cycling .....


----------



## a.twiddler (22 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I had never heard of seven league boots until that post!


Mythological magic boots. Seems to be a thing in European and English (and even American) folk lore. They give the wearer the ability to cover seven leagues with each stride. A metaphor for covering a large distance with just the effort needed to cover a much smaller distance by normal walking. Still, no magic required if you have got a bike!


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (23 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> I never spun out ... I freewheeled .... it's called cycling .....



This is the bit that I don't get with a lot of cyclists. They are obsessed with having gears that allow them to pedal at their max cadence _downhill_! The way I look at it, unless you ride a fixed gear, there's no such thing as spinning out. If you get to an uncomfortably fast cadence you simply slow down a bit, or in the case of descending, you stop pedalling altogether and let gravity do the work not your legs.


----------



## Sharky (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> This is the bit that I don't get with a lot of cyclists. They are obsessed with having gears that allow them to pedal at their max cadence _downhill_! The way I look at it, unless you ride a fixed gear, there's no such thing as spinning out. If you get to an uncomfortably fast cadence you simply slow down a bit, or in the case of descending, you stop pedalling altogether and let gravity do the work not your legs.


Yep, I think the scientists have proven that once over a certain speed, it's quicker to adopt an aero/tuck position, rather than trying to pedal.


----------



## ColinJ (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> This is the bit that I don't get with a lot of cyclists. They are obsessed with having gears that allow them to pedal at their max cadence _downhill_! The way I look at it, unless you ride a fixed gear, there's no such thing as spinning out. If you get to an uncomfortably fast cadence you simply slow down a bit, or in the case of descending, you stop pedalling altogether and let gravity do the work not your legs.


I once did 83 kph (52 mph) down this descent on my singlespeed bike... (not the bike in the photo)







... which corresponds to a cadence of about 240 rpm.

Yes, I _WAS _freewheeling at the time!


----------



## FrankCrank (23 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I once did 83 kph (52 mph) down this descent on my singlespeed bike... (not the bike in the photo)
> 
> View attachment 524237
> 
> ...


Did you enjoy the lovely view on the way down?


----------



## classic33 (23 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I once did 83 kph (52 mph) down this descent on my singlespeed bike... (not the bike in the photo)
> 
> View attachment 524237
> 
> ...


A58 into Littleborough, with the left then the sweeping right and left at the bottom?


----------



## classic33 (23 May 2020)

FrankCrank said:


> Did you enjoy the lovely view on the way down?


There's a nice Roman road off to the left, about halfway down. Assuming it is the A58.


----------



## ColinJ (23 May 2020)

Yes, it was the A58, as seen from near the White House car park. That's Hollingworth Lake in the distance.



FrankCrank said:


> Did you enjoy the lovely view on the way down?


I have been known to get distracted...! 



ColinJ said:


> I got those favourable wind conditions today but they almost led to me '_doing a Froome_'... (crashing on a high-speed descent).
> 
> There is a sweeping RH bend halfway down and you can carry a lot of speed into it. Normally there is a cross-headwind from the left which does 2 things - (1) It keeps the speed down a bit, and (2) It tends to blow you in the right direction to keep you on the road and take the bend. The wind today was in the _opposite _direction, which led to me going into the bend _MUCH _hotter than normal, and the wind was trying to blow me _off _the road!
> 
> ...


----------



## Blue Hills (23 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> Not sure when you did your LEJOG but i did mine in July 2018 .... 9 speed ... 13 / 36 cassette and a ...... (drum roll ).... 28 single front sprocket .......
> I never spun out ... I freewheeled .... it's called cycling .....


Didn',t know you could get a 13 to 36 9 speed cassette. Shimano?
(Haven't done the maths, but much as i like spinning/twiddling i think i'd find that gearing frustrating - each to their own)


----------



## Ajax Bay (23 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> i did mine [LEJOG] in July 2018 .... 9 speed ... 13 / 36 cassette and a ...... (drum roll ).... 28 single front sprocket .......
> I never spun out ... I freewheeled .... it's called cycling .....


I guess there are all sorts of ways you can make things hard for yourself. Adjust your brakes to drag a bit for additional value.
http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=...8,32,36&UF=2215&TF=100&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&DV=teeth
In 28/13 (58") at 100rpm cadence offers one 17mph.
The idea of riding 1000 miles limiting one's max speed to 17mph (except freewheeling short stretches on downhills) seems to me like ..... (drum roll ) .... self flagellation. Unless you were riding with 20" wheels, or 4 huge panniers or a trailer, or you had riding companions whose capabilities were much lower.
Gears offer massive benefits especially on _scenic_ routes and there are two defining parameters: range and ratio proximity. 28-13/36 offers neither.
For the record I (boringly, no drum roll) rode 52/42/30 and 12-27. For a hilly ride (Mille Pennines 16 and 17) I ran a 12-30 and substituted a 28t ring for the 30t to help me up the key climbs (Hardknott and Wrynose Passes, double chevron Dales ones, Rosedale Chimney). Your 28/36 option (20", assumes 700c wheels) would have been very welcome on those.


----------



## Landsurfer (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Didn',t know you could get a 13 to 36 9 speed cassette. Shimano?
> (Haven't done the maths, but much as i like spinning/twiddling i think i'd find that gearing frustrating - each to their own)


Your right ! it was a 12 / 36 ...


----------



## Landsurfer (23 May 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> I guess there are all sorts of ways you can make things hard for yourself. Adjust your brakes to drag a bit for additional value.
> http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=...8,32,36&UF=2215&TF=100&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&DV=teeth
> In 28/13 (58") at 100rpm cadence offers one 17mph.
> The idea of riding 1000 miles limiting one's max speed to 17mph (except freewheeling short stretches on downhills) seems to me like ..... (drum roll ) .... self flagellation. Unless you were riding with 20" wheels, or 4 huge panniers or a trailer, or you had riding companions whose capabilities were much lower.
> ...


17 MPH!!!! Our average was 9 mph .... 2 week Lejog .... and loads of fun and laughter ..... Cycling is Fun .....


----------



## a.twiddler (23 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> Yep, I think the scientists have proven that once over a certain speed, it's quicker to adopt an aero/tuck position, rather than trying to pedal.


Actually, in my case, over a certain speed, it's quicker to sit there like a blob, rather than trying to pedal.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> This is the bit that I don't get with a lot of cyclists. They are obsessed with having gears that allow them to pedal at their max cadence _downhill_! The way I look at it, unless you ride a fixed gear, there's no such thing as spinning out. If you get to an uncomfortably fast cadence you simply slow down a bit, or in the case of descending, you stop pedalling altogether and let gravity do the work not your legs.




Yes! 

Boo to enjoying blasting down hills on a bike! 

Down with this sort of thing!


----------



## roley poley (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> This is the bit that I don't get with a lot of cyclists. They are obsessed with having gears that allow them to pedal at their max cadence _downhill_! The way I look at it, unless you ride a fixed gear, there's no such thing as spinning out. If you get to an uncomfortably fast cadence you simply slow down a bit, or in the case of descending, you stop pedalling altogether and let gravity do the work not your legs.


In MY style of cycling I have worked hard uphill and invested that potential energy to enjoy later in a downhill,this for me is a joy when I sit up, freewheel, air the arm-pits and admire the view I don't need to race or time myself .LOW and easy up is where I need my gears and find a HIGH top of 90" ample. Too fast also scares the poop outa me cause its outside MY flight envelope


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I once did 83 kph (52 mph) down this descent on my singlespeed bike... (not the bike in the photo)
> 
> View attachment 524237
> 
> ...



I hit 56 mph on my mtn bike in 2005 on a descent to Kirkby Stephen. I was in my most aero position 🤔


----------



## Landsurfer (23 May 2020)

I'm a great fan of LSD training ........ Freewheeling is an essential aspect of my pursuit of excellence ..........


----------



## roley poley (23 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> I'm a great fan of LSD training ........ Freewheeling is an essential aspect of my pursuit of excellence ..........


you go steady on that rubber bike Mr.Hoffman


----------



## Blue Hills (23 May 2020)

wafter said:


> IMO the crucial difference is that between those who've done their homework and buy what best suits their needs (or wants) versus those who casually and unquestioningly buy whatever the marketing men happen to be pushing this week.
> 
> Usually whatever random, simplistic metric the marketeers seize upon to push as the measure by which their products should be judged (be this number of gears or mass of a bike, pixel count in cameras etc) holds little real world benefit and is often detrimental to the performance of the item in other, potentially more important areas.


Agree totally - a two or three years ago I went looking for a new expedition tourer.
Of course I checked out the Surly Long Haul Trucker as it is very well regarded as a tough beast and Surly seem to promote it as a non nonsense workhorse for serious use.
So I was shocked to see that it had gone to ten speed on the standard build available from shops.
I could see no reason at all for this.
A very friendly shop did look into building one up for me as a nine speed but in the end I went for the Ridgeback Expedition 2016 model.
Ridgeback know a thing or two about bikes.
This is it, though that spec does list the brakes incorrectly (actually they are Vs).
https://www.evanscycles.com/ridgeback-expedition-2016-touring-bike-EV258092

Key info on gears:
Front: 48/38/28
Rear 9 speed 12-36

The gearing is a joy. Fully loaded I have whizzed along a (fortunately flat) Norfolk road to get to a campsite before dark and have also been up the steepest hills with no need to walk.

If Surly, screenman or anyone else can tell me what on earth I would gain by going above 9 speed on that bike I'd love to know.

By the by, PlanetX sent me info this the other day - latest incarnation of the Cinelli steel tourer the other day.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FBCINHBL/cinelli-hobootleg-easy-travel-sora-bike

Saw an earlier model at a show a few years ago and was very impressed by the sensible spec, though I personally don't go for drops.

Also 9 speed.

In 2020 - well fancy that


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (23 May 2020)

roley poley said:


> In MY style of cycling I have worked hard uphill and invested that potential energy to enjoy later in a downhill,this for me is a joy when I sit up, freewheel, air the arm-pits and admire the view



That's exactly my approach. If I've had to slog my way to the top of a gradient I'm buggered if I'm going to put any more effort whatsoever into going back down the other side!. I just amble over the peak of any climb at barely more than walking pace then relax and the ride down comes for free. Normally there's more than enough potential energy stored up at the summit to go plenty fast enough down, often way too much. Pedalling down sounds like an act of lunacy.


----------



## DCBassman (23 May 2020)

Thread re-rail: we all need the number of gears we've got/are happy with.
Sorted.


----------



## Sharky (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Key info on gears:
> Front: 48/38/28
> Rear 9 speed 12-36



I'm mostly a 2x10 or a 1x10 or just a 1x1 rider, but I did have a spell riding a triple and found it really good to ride, but it had a relatively close ratio cassette. Probably a 13-25 9 speed. What puzzles me is that using a triple gives you a very wide gear range choice, but using a wide cassette as well, this introduces a huge over lap. Apart from any chain alignment issues, you could remove the middle chain ring completely and have a double and still enjoy the same wide range.
On the 28 - range is 20" - 61"
On the 38 - range is 27" - 83"
On the 48 - range is 34" - 105"

So what is the benefit of having a wide range at the front and at the rear?


----------



## screenman (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Agree totally - a two or three years ago I went looking for a new expedition tourer.
> Of course I checked out the Surly Long Haul Trucker as it is very well regarded as a tough beast and Surly seem to promote it as a non nonsense workhorse for serious use.
> So I was shocked to see that it had gone to ten speed on the standard build available from shops.
> I could see no reason at all for this.
> ...



Well obviously you have nothing to gain in your opinion which is great, however the whole population does not live and cycle in Norfolk, nor are they you.


----------



## Shearwater Missile (23 May 2020)

I have never spun out on a ride. I have occasionally gotten into the 12 tooth gear going down hill and that is not for long and not putting effort in. 30mph is about max around these parts (for me) and besides I am too cautious, never knowing what wild animal or bird is going to commit suicide at my expense. However the lower gears I use all of them, not always for hills though. I have used lower gears plenty of times this year with the winds we have had. That sudden gust, just when you think you are going along quite nicely and then, whoosh, a gust and speed drops and then a lower gear to keep the cadence going. Whether it is my 9 speed or 11 speed it does not matter as I will find the gear that suits the job, saving ones knees. I will just add that if there comes a point in my life when I struggle to cycle because of fitness or health then yes I would opt for an ebike, not for speed but to get me out and enjoying the countryside.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (23 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> On the 28 - range is 20" - 61"
> On the 38 - range is 27" - 83"
> On the 48 - range is 34" - 105"
> 
> So what is the benefit of having a wide range at the front and at the rear?



Not quite the true picture though, is it? If you avoid only the most extreme small/small and large/large combos, your highest small ring gear will likely be in the mid 50's and your lowest big ring gear will be in the low 40's. If you are really kind to your transmission and avoid the TWO most misaligned combos in both large and small rings, the situation is worse still. That means more double-changes are needed, which costs you momentum, and on a gradient momentum really matters. When I go up a gradient on a 2x or 3x transmission bike, I decide which ring I'm going to do the climb in at the bottom, and I stay in it until I mount the summit, only changing rear gears if absolutely necessary. Changing rings mid-climb, to me, means I made a bad choice of gearing at the start.
The middle ring of a triple is a good general purpose range, that will get you up must climbs and is fast enough on the flat for leisure cycling at an easy pace. Plenty of London riders only ever use their middle ring from my own observations!



screenman said:


> however the whole population does not live and cycle in Norfolk, nor are they you.



I've got news for you @screenman; Norfolk isn't dead flat. Granted, it's not the hilliest of counties, and Cornishmen will be saying "call them hills? " - but it does have a few steep bits nonetheless, both rural and urban. Go into the centre of Norwich and check for yourself!


----------



## Blue Hills (23 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> I'm mostly a 2x10 or a 1x10 or just a 1x1 rider, but I did have a spell riding a triple and found it really good to ride, but it had a relatively close ratio cassette. Probably a 13-25 9 speed. What puzzles me is that using a triple gives you a very wide gear range choice, but using a wide cassette as well, this introduces a huge over lap. Apart from any chain alignment issues, you could remove the middle chain ring completely and have a double and still enjoy the same wide range.
> On the 28 - range is 20" - 61"
> On the 38 - range is 27" - 83"
> On the 48 - range is 34" - 105"
> ...


Partly because it allows you to stay in the same front ring longer and partly because i like a certain overlap/repetition. I do have a single chainring bike (21 gears in all, sram dualdrive, but when that chainring gets worn/starts to slip, there's not much you can do)


----------



## Blue Hills (23 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Well obviously you have nothing to gain in your opinion which is great, however the whole population does not live and cycle in Norfolk, nor are they you.


Suggest you reread my post. I referred to big hills. And heavy loading. I don't live in norfolk, didn't say i did. I live in london as my avatar says. Up a dirty big hill in london. A dead end. Every time i come home on any bike i have no choice but to go up it. I do all my shopping by bike so very often go heavily loaded up it. And more loaded with camping gear. I also regularly cycle in the decidedly non flat lancs and yorks.
Have also ridden that bike fully loaded across the fens - flat as hell but with fearsome headwinds at times - lower gears kinda handy there.


----------



## JPBoothy (23 May 2020)

NotAsGoodAsMyBike said:


> Aside from my fixed (48/18) , I have little idea or interest what gears are on my bikes. I have a 9-speed triple but no idea what the chainrings or cassette is. I have 10-speed and 11-speed bikes, each with 50/34 rings on the front but I can’t remember and don’t care what’s on the back. I just ride!


Ha Ha, I am of the same mind.. When folk start talking about Gear Inches, Watts, Cadence and RPM all I hear is blah blah blah 

I am not knocking anybody for discussing those things though, it is just a bit too in depth for my own interest level. It's always good to know you techy folk are out there though for when I am in need of help


----------



## JPBoothy (23 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> Yes, it was the A58, as seen from near the White House car park. That's Hollingworth Lake in the distance.
> 
> 
> I have been known to get distracted...!


Did you manage to get your cycling shorts clean afterwards or did you just bin them


----------



## ColinJ (23 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Did you manage to get your cycling shorts clean afterwards or did you just bin them


It _WAS _one of those moments! I go down there a lot and 90+% of the time the wind helps keep me safe. I just hadn't considered the different conditions that day.

Getting back to gears... If I had a high enough gear, I would just get up to my descending speed more rapidly, but no way would/could I be pedalling at over 50 mph no matter what top gear I had at my disposal! I'm quite happy with a 48/12 top gear. 

I like having a 28/30 bottom gear and smallish steps in between gears.

If I didn't have the tough hills of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire to tackle on a regular basis then I wouldn't want/need many of the extra gears that I enjoy now.


----------



## screenman (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Not quite the true picture though, is it? If you avoid only the most extreme small/small and large/large combos, your highest small ring gear will likely be in the mid 50's and your lowest big ring gear will be in the low 40's. If you are really kind to your transmission and avoid the TWO most misaligned combos in both large and small rings, the situation is worse still. That means more double-changes are needed, which costs you momentum, and on a gradient momentum really matters. When I go up a gradient on a 2x or 3x transmission bike, I decide which ring I'm going to do the climb in at the bottom, and I stay in it until I mount the summit, only changing rear gears if absolutely necessary. Changing rings mid-climb, to me, means I made a bad choice of gearing at the start.
> The middle ring of a triple is a good general purpose range, that will get you up must climbs and is fast enough on the flat for leisure cycling at an easy pace. Plenty of London riders only ever use their middle ring from my own observations!
> 
> 
> ...



I have been to Norfolk many times and often cycled there, I would have taken a bike with more gears that some I guess. Choice you see, nothing else. As you may Know I am a Londoner living and cycling it Lincolnshire and we have hill here as well.


----------



## wafter (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Agree totally - a two or three years ago I went looking for a new expedition tourer.
> Of course I checked out the Surly Long Haul Trucker as it is very well regarded as a tough beast and Surly seem to promote it as a non nonsense workhorse for serious use.
> So I was shocked to see that it had gone to ten speed on the standard build available from shops.
> I could see no reason at all for this.
> ...


Both look like nice bikes; especially the Cinelli (I think you're missing a trick with the flat bars  ) 

To be fair it seems that touring bikes "lag" considerably behind the trends found in road bikes; I'd hazard a guess that this is for three reasons:

- Tourers are potentially older and hence more "traditional" in their choices; plus possibly more learned on account of their advancing years and less taken in by the marketing dross
- Touring riders are perhaps less likely to be concerned by the key selling points of higher-end road-focussed groupsets - i.e. weight
- Touring bikes are likely to be used in "less developed" parts of the world, where old-tech is more likely to be the available standard
- Touring bikes potentially need a lower, wider gearing range considering the greater loads they're expected to lug up hills
- Reliability and lognevity are likely to be of greater concern for mile-munching touring bikes than road cycles that see many relatively short journeys; both two facets that tend to be sacrificed in the name of "performance" in higher-end road groupsets
- Touring bikes often come with a lot more kit so at a given price point have lower-end groupsets to compensate; opening up the lower end of the road groupset market which still offers triples


While I don't really have a problem with the 2x10 and 2x11 groupsets on my current bikes, I'd not have an issue running a decent triple on either and tbh do miss the closer-chainring spacing of my old triple (which required fewer changes on the cassette to compensate for the swap on the front) as well as the closer ratios on the cassette. 

I do hate all this touting of 1x drivetrains (with their massive ratio jumps, expensive wear parts and inferior transmission efficiency) however can to an extent appreciate their benefits for off-road use where simplicity is a bonus and consistant cadence is much less of a concern. I doubt it'll happen but if 1x ever makes any significant in-roads into road biking; it will truly be a victory for marketing rubbish over sanity IMO. 



SkipdiverJohn said:


> That's exactly my approach. If I've had to slog my way to the top of a gradient I'm buggered if I'm going to put any more effort whatsoever into going back down the other side!. I just amble over the peak of any climb at barely more than walking pace then relax and the ride down comes for free. Normally there's more than enough potential energy stored up at the summit to go plenty fast enough down, often way too much. Pedalling down sounds like an act of lunacy.


In addition to that, if average speeds are of concern the most efficient place to expend your energy is on the uphill where aero drag is the least. 

I must admit though, often my descents are made down on the drops with my chin as close to the stem as possible, to wring as much speed as possible out of my potential energy investment!



Sharky said:


> So what is the benefit of having a wide range at the front and at the rear?


For one, a greater range overall; regardless of the overlap (which would most likely be less than with a comparable double I'd guess).


----------



## JPBoothy (23 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> It _WAS _one of those moments! I go down there a lot and 90+% of the time the wind helps keep me safe. I just hadn't considered the different conditions that day.
> 
> Getting back to gears... If I had a high enough gear, I would just get up to my descending speed more rapidly, but no way would/could I be pedalling at over 50 mph no matter what top gear I had at my disposal! I'm quite happy with a 48/12 top gear.
> 
> ...


I only ever touched 50mph once on a descent in North Wales with a few mates. As we approached the top of a lung busting ascent I remembered something that I'd read from Dave Lloyd (I think) about digging deep for a final sprint over the top rather than wasting all of that effort by letting the person who has drafted you all the way up suddenly whizz by while you pause for a breath at the top. In theory that is probably good advice if you are racing, in reality when you are just out with mates in unfamiliar hills it is not! After launching myself down what felt like a loose gravelly Welsh version of the Cresta Run I could just make out 'through the tears in my eyes' that a cattle grid lay in wait at the bottom but, because of the gravel I was too scared to brake and decided to just hold on tight and take my chances. I remember having enough time to think "oh ####, where will the Air Ambulance be able to land?" before feeling a quick buzz through my seat post and it was all over and I had survived.. Never have I ever gone over 30mph since.


----------



## Twilkes (23 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> I only ever touched 50mph once on a descent in North Wales with a few mates. As we approached the top of a lung busting ascent I remembered something that I'd read from Dave Lloyd (I think) about digging deep for a final sprint over the top rather than wasting all of that effort by letting the person who has drafted you all the way up suddenly whizz by while you pause for a breath at the top. In theory that is probably good advice if you are racing, in reality when you are just out with mates in unfamiliar hills it is not! After launching myself down what felt like a loose gravelly Welsh version of the Cresta Run I could just make out 'through the tears in my eyes' that a cattle grid lay in wait at the bottom but, because of the gravel I was too scared to brake and decided to just hold on tight and take my chances. I remember having enough time to think "oh ####, where will the Air Ambulance be able to land?" before feeling a quick buzz through my seat post and it was all over and I had survived.. Never have I ever gone over 30mph since.



If you were going fast enough, you could probably have bunny hopped the cattle grid. 53/11 all the way down.


----------



## simongt (23 May 2020)

Saw a dual susser in the bike shed at work last week. Was much amused that the transmission appeared to have been reversed. The single chainwheel was about a 38 tooth and the biggest cog on the cassette looked around a 50 tooth - !


----------



## Tigerbiten (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> This is the bit that I don't get with a lot of cyclists. They are obsessed with having gears that allow them to pedal at their max cadence _downhill_! The way I look at it, unless you ride a fixed gear, there's no such thing as spinning out. If you get to an uncomfortably fast cadence you simply slow down a bit, or in the case of descending, you stop pedalling altogether and let gravity do the work not your legs.


One reason I like my 179" top gear is that I don't spin out.
I'm only at about 70 rpm at 40 mph downhill.
At that cadence and speed it's more about keeping the leg muscles warm and shifting any lactic acid of them rather than trying to get the last mph out of the descent. 
But I am on a low recumbent trike with a front fairing so it makes very little difference to my aero resistance if I pedal or not. 

Luck ...........


----------



## avecReynolds531 (23 May 2020)

With regard to gearing at the top end, my road bike has 50/12. I haven't missed the previous taller gears that the 53 chain ring offered (but definitely preferred the lower gears that a 34 chain ring provides). The cassette is 10 speed 12-25.

There are four kilometres, in the middle of the Ventoux descent into Malaucene, where you can achieve crazy speeds. There's no way I would attempt to pedal that section: we bottled out and touched the brakes around 54mph, when it was clear the bike would freewheel well beyond that speed.

Cyclists with more skill & courage than me, could enjoy 53/11 (or more!) on that magical route. For those interested, here's an idea of what it's like:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09j2MJyZjcE


----------



## Venod (23 May 2020)

simongt said:


> Saw a dual susser in the bike shed at work last week. Was much amused that the transmission appeared to have been reversed. The single chainwheel was about a 38 tooth and the biggest cog on the cassette looked around a 50 tooth - !



Thats an high geared one, my latest MTB had 30 up front and 10-50 rear, it now has 34 up front.


----------



## Twilkes (23 May 2020)

Tigerbiten said:


> One reason I like my 179" top gear is that I don't spin out.
> I'm only at about 70 rpm at 40 mph downhill.
> At that cadence and speed it's more about keeping the leg muscles warm and shifting any lactic acid of them rather than trying to get the last mph out of the descent.



That resonates with me, I would rather reduce my cadence going downhill in a bigger gear than have to descend at 100rpm+, feels much more smooth and stable. I was surprised to find my 48/11 hybrid is a bigger gear than my 50/12 road bike.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Agree totally - a two or three years ago I went looking for a new expedition tourer.
> Of course I checked out the Surly Long Haul Trucker as it is very well regarded as a tough beast and Surly seem to promote it as a non nonsense workhorse for serious use.
> So I was shocked to see that it had gone to ten speed on the standard build available from shops.
> I could see no reason at all for this.
> ...



I agree fully that for a tourer, that's an ideal set up. We have something very similar on the tandem.

But for a fast day bike, 50/34 and 11-28 11 speed is perhaps optimal. Maybe 11-32 depending on strength and hills.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (23 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> That resonates with me, I would rather reduce my cadence going downhill in a bigger gear than have to descend at 100rpm+, feels much more smooth and stable.



Unless you're on a fixed wheel, there's no need to descend at any RPM whatsoever. That's what freewheels were invented for!


----------



## Twilkes (23 May 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Unless you're on a fixed wheel, there's no need to descend at any RPM whatsoever. That's what freewheels were invented for!



There's also no need to ride a bike whatsoever. You really seem to struggle to understand/tolerate that other people have different views/likes/dislikes to your own, and not just on this thread.

/out


----------



## SGG on a bike (23 May 2020)

Since we’re talking gears here, what are peoples views on hub gears?

I’ve been browsing new bikes, not because I need one, but mainly because my trusty steed is a mid 90s rigid mountain bike and I was curious as to what I may be missing out on. I saw a few with Shimano Alfine hubs with variations of 5,8 and 11 speeds with a spread roughly equivalent to the current crop of 1x rear cassettes.


----------



## Venod (23 May 2020)

SGG on a bike said:


> Since we’re talking gears here, what are peoples views on hub gears?
> 
> I’ve been browsing new bikes, not because I need one, but mainly because my trusty steed is a mid 90s rigid mountain bike and I was curious as to what I may be missing out on. I saw a few with Shimano Alfine hubs with variations of 5,8 and 11 speeds with a spread roughly equivalent to the current crop of 1x rear cassettes.


The Rohloff is the best hub gear IMO, I had one on a MTB, a fantastic well engineered piece of kit, just a bit heavy compared to a deraileur set up, but no mud problems.


----------



## SGG on a bike (23 May 2020)

I should think they’d be quite well suited to touring bikes too in that case. From what I read, the Shimano gears are compatible spline wise with Sturmey Archer hubs, so I guess they’re very similar in design?


----------



## Blue Hills (23 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Ha Ha, I am of the same mind.. When folk start talking about Gear Inches, Watts, Cadence and RPM all I hear is blah blah blah
> 
> I am not knocking anybody for discussing those things though, it is just a bit too in depth for my own interest level. It's always good to know you techy folk are out there though for when I am in need of help


I assure you that I'm not techie jp - have never sat down and tabulated gear inches for my bikes - has always struck me as a barmy imperial system. The very odd time I have looked at this I used metres development or whatever it's called - I can get my head round that. I just know what works for my non competitive (amateur or pro) riding. I used to have a fast bike - bigring something over 50 at the front but I can only recall one bit of road on the run to brighton where I ever managed to get it in top gear (front and back) - that too was 9 speed.


----------



## Ian H (23 May 2020)

I've ridden an ordinary, so I know what inches feel like  .

Checking my track from yesterday I was pedalling downhill at a not terribly high cadence (for me, anyway) and reaching 40mph. That's on a 48x12 top gear. It might be that riding fixed regularly makes a difference.


----------



## itboffin (23 May 2020)

I’ve just ordered an 11-34 8 speed cassette for my on one inbred mtb which is a triple atm but once the cassette arrives I’m aiming to turn it into a 1x8 for the few times I ride off road I think I’ve only need 3 or 4 gears at most


----------



## Blue Hills (23 May 2020)

itboffin said:


> I’ve just ordered an 11-34 8 speed cassette for my on one inbred mtb which is a triple atm but once the cassette arrives I’m aiming to turn it into a 1x8 for the few times I ride off road I think I’ve only need 3 or 4 gears at most


1x8 has always seemed a good setup for a gettin round london bike (as long as you don't live in one of the rare hilly bits like me) - I think Edinboro Bike Co-Op used to do such a thing before they stopped doing their own bikes.


----------



## NotAsGoodAsMyBike (23 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> That’s a lot of detail for someone who shows no interest.



Fair point. I suppose I know what they’ve got when I buy them and the knowledge then fades (but my memory isn’t so bad it goes completely).

I bought the 9 speed in 1999 so have forgotten that completely. Fixed ratio is in my mind because I’ve been thinking about changing and/or adding a sprocket to make it easier to get myself up hills (it has a flip/flop hub so can be single speed as well as fixed). Decided to just push harder instead!


----------



## itboffin (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> 1x8 has always seemed a good setup for a gettin round london bike (as long as you don't live in one of the rare hilly bits like me) - I think Edinboro Bike Co-Op used to do such a thing before they stopped doing their own bikes.



I live in Wiltshire it’s super hilly so it’s either a low low gear going up then an avg followed by steep downhills so about 4 gears


----------



## JPBoothy (23 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> I assure you that I'm not techie jp - have never sat down and tabulated gear inches for my bikes - has always struck me as a barmy imperial system. The very odd time I have looked at this I used metres development or whatever it's called - I can get my head round that. I just know what works for my non competitive (amateur or pro) riding. I used to have a fast bike - bigring something over 50 at the front but I can only recall one bit of road on the run to brighton where I ever managed to get it in top gear (front and back) - that too was 9 speed.


The only ring/sprocket combo that I know for certain I'm using is on my SS bike (46/17). I didn't use any calculations to arrive at that choice though just trial and error. I started with an 18t sprocket which had my legs spinning too quickly, then dropped to a 16t which I found a bit too hard for my knees if any climbing was required and so finally settled on the 17t which is just about right for me.


----------



## Tigerbiten (23 May 2020)

SGG on a bike said:


> Since we’re talking gears here, what are peoples views on hub gears?
> 
> I’ve been browsing new bikes, not because I need one, but mainly because my trusty steed is a mid 90s rigid mountain bike and I was curious as to what I may be missing out on. I saw a few with Shimano Alfine hubs with variations of 5,8 and 11 speeds with a spread roughly equivalent to the current crop of 1x rear cassettes.


Longtime Rohloff user here, so I like them ........ 

The ability to change gear while not pedaling is both a good and bad point. Coming into a junction, you don't need to preselect a gear just in case you stop, but you lose a lot more momentum changing gears going up a hill.
You tend to go further with less maintenance so lower running costs, but when thing go wrong it tends to be more terminal.

Luck ............


----------



## classic33 (23 May 2020)

Tigerbiten said:


> Longtime Rohloff user here, so I like them ........
> 
> The ability to change gear while not pedaling is both a good and bad point. Coming into a junction, you don't need to preselect a gear just in case you stop, but you lose a lot more momentum changing gears going up a hill.
> You tend to go further with less maintenance so lower running costs, but when thing go wrong it tends to be more terminal.
> ...


Put the two systems together and you can have the best, and worst, of both worlds.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (24 May 2020)

Tigerbiten said:


> . Coming into a junction, you don't need to preselect a gear just in case you stop, but you lose a lot more momentum changing gears going up a hill.



With a basic SA 3-speed, you don't have that problem. You just select Low at the bottom of the hill, pedal like fury, and hope for the best.


----------



## simongt (24 May 2020)

Aye, and back in t'day when we whippersnappers would think now't of a weeks loaded touring on't five speed - !


----------



## Mike_P (24 May 2020)

Latest GCN News 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSICONudXdE
has a feature (22:46 onwards) on the latest Sram ETAP groupset promoting a 43-30 with a 10-36 which the 43-10 gives a top gear midway between what would can be achieved with a 50-11 and 50-12 while giving better low gearing of 30-10 compared to a normal compacts offering of 34-11 or 34-12.


----------



## Tigerbiten (24 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Put the two systems together and you can have the best, and worst, of both worlds.


I have up front with a Schlumpf HSD and twin chainrings.
A Rohloff is really a 7 speed with a 2.45x step down, which gives you the 14.
The HSD is a 2.5x step up which gives me 21 gears and the twin chainrings are spaced 1.466x apart or another 3 gears.
The extra drag from the HSD in overdrive mode is overcome by setting the shifting at +20 mph, at which point I'm going downhill.


----------



## ilcaccillo (24 May 2020)

I've tried a lot of different bikes, and personally I don't need more than 7 speeds


----------



## SGG on a bike (24 May 2020)

My old GT has 21 and I certainly don't use all of them. I could probably lose the middle ring without really noticing too much and even then, I doubt I'd be using all of the remaining 14.


----------



## faster (24 May 2020)

ilcaccillo said:


> I've tried a lot of different bikes, and personally I don't need more than 7 speeds



Absolutely - agree 100%.

Having 11 at the back is miles better though.


----------



## ilcaccillo (24 May 2020)

I guess it depends on your uses and also the type of terrain you cycle.
For me 7 is more than enough, probably if I was riding more hills 11 would be more than enough. I would be happy with that


----------



## JPBoothy (25 May 2020)

I appreciate that the OP's question is more of a hypothetical one but, I think we are possibly overlooking the fact that unless we are building a bike from scratch, and/or have a nice fat box of spare bits, then the chances are that our next purchase will have 10/11 at the rear whether we like it or not. What we want/need and what we will get are probably not going to be the same thing.


----------



## classic33 (25 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> I appreciate that the OP's question is more of a hypothetical one but, I think we are possibly overlooking the fact that unless we are building a bike from scratch, and/or have a nice fat box of spare bits, *then the chances are that our next purchase will have 10/11 at the rear whether we like it or not. * What we want/need and what we will get are probably not going to be the same thing.


If it's not what I'm after, it'll stay in the shop. And I'll be headed elsewhere.


----------



## JPBoothy (25 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> If it's not what I'm after, it'll stay in the shop. And I'll be headed elsewhere.


Absolutely but, my point was that we (or those of us less mechanically minded) are 'probably' going to end-up with the number of gears that come as standard on the bike as opposed to leaving the shop with the precise number/ratio of gears that we want. I can't imagine that many shops will accommodate somebody saying to them "I'll take that lovely looking Trek Domane please but, I only want a 7/8 speed cassette on the back".


----------



## classic33 (25 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Absolutely but, my point was that we (or those of us less mechanically minded) are 'probably' going to end-up with the number of gears that come as standard on the bike as opposed to leaving the shop with the precise number/ratio of gears that we want. I can't imagine that many shops will accommodate somebody saying to them "I'll take that lovely looking Trek Domane please but, I only want a 7/8 speed cassette on the back".


If it didn't match what I wanted, I'd walk away. Getting something that did, or at least came closer elsewhere. It'd be unfair to expect the staff to change a functioning item and then set the replacement up.

The 11 on the rear, with the single, often small, chainring on the front just doesn't look right longterm. Especially when the rear is larger than the front.

14 on the rear would look plain odd.






https://patents.google.com/patent/US5954604


----------



## a.twiddler (25 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> If it didn't match what I wanted, I'd walk away. Getting something that did, or at least came closer elsewhere. It'd be unfair to expect the staff to change a functioning item and then set the replacement up.
> 
> The 11 on the rear, with the single, often small, chainring on the front just doesn't look right longterm. Especially when the rear is larger than the front.
> 
> ...


But surely, for someone for whom the set up does what they want, the looks will be irrelevant? There is resistance to every new thing. The first time I saw a bike with derailleur gearing I could not believe that it would work. All those cogs exposed to the wind and rain? They should be indoors, in a nice oil bath. And pre indexing, when you knew that you had changed gear successfully when the sounds of mass destruction from the rear stopped? It was an accepted thing. So this too could become a new normal.

As someone who is happy for someone else to be the test pilot for new ideas, until they become affordable to everyone, even I might buy one at some unspecified time in the future. Or It might not be the success that the marketing men hope, and it could become another design dead end.

It depends on enough riders buying them for long enough, and proving the reliability and durability.


----------



## classic33 (25 May 2020)

Given that Shimano didn't follow up on the 14 speed cassette patent from 1999, I'd say they knew early on that it might be a passing fancy/fad.


----------



## a.twiddler (25 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Given that Shimano didn't follow up on the 14 speed cassette patent from 1999, I'd say they knew early on that it might be a passing fancy/fad.


Well, there you go, perhaps it's just a last gasp attempt to reclaim the cost of their 1999 research. It does seem to be a lot of unbalanced metal to hang on one side of a hub, and as for what it must do to the wheel dishing....?


----------



## Archie_tect (25 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> View attachment 524768


Lovely drawing though.


----------



## JPBoothy (25 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> If it didn't match what I wanted, I'd walk away. Getting something that did, or at least came closer elsewhere. It'd be unfair to expect the staff to change a functioning item and then set the replacement up.
> 
> The 11 on the rear, with the single, often small, chainring on the front just doesn't look right longterm. Especially when the rear is larger than the front.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, and fortunately I have a bit of knowledge to be able to tinker myself these days. However, there has been the rare occasion in my 'pre-tinkering past' when I've seen a bike that has made my jaw drop and I've thought "wow, I'd like one of those" and, I'm pretty certain that the number of gears that it came with as standard would not have put me off as my youthful uneducated eyes were probably not looking beyond the nice shiney colour


----------



## JPBoothy (25 May 2020)

I removed the cassette from one of CX bikes yesterday to give it a thorough 'and long overdue' cleaning and it had me thinking as to why it is that only the last 2/3 sprockets that are separate on a cassette and the larger ones are in a 'block'? Surely separate sprockets would enable you to tailor your gears to suit your own personal needs. Although, I suppose if that option was available to us then the manufacturer/LBS would end up with a stack of the less popular sizes.


----------



## Blue Hills (25 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Absolutely but, my point was that we (or those of us less mechanically minded) are 'probably' going to end-up with the number of gears that come as standard on the bike as opposed to leaving the shop with the precise number/ratio of gears that we want. I can't imagine that many shops will accommodate somebody saying to them "I'll take that lovely looking Trek Domane please but, I only want a 7/8 speed cassette on the back".


Compton cycles in south london (more precisely the very helpful Jim) were happy to spec/build up a 9 speed surly LHT for me. From memory it wouldn't have cost any more/much more than the 10 speed which, perversely, seemed to have become standard.


----------



## JPBoothy (25 May 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Compton cycles in south london (more precisely the very helpful Jim) were happy to spec/build up a 9 speed surly LHT for me. From memory it wouldn't have cost any more/much more than the 10 speed which, perversely, seemed to have become standard.


It's a real find when you discover a helpful/skilful bike mechanic but sadly they tend to be in the smaller shops that struggle to survive. I was quite fortunate that the one from my LBS continued to operate from his house when the shop closed. It is also good when you can go in and chat to them whilst they work rather than having to drop your bike off at the front desk and then have no idea who is actually working on it. I suppose the bigger 'soulless' stores just want to shift bikes rather than be helpful like the little oily gems you would find in the past though


----------



## Blue Hills (25 May 2020)

May have it wrong, but my understanding is that chrís compton retired and that jim now owns or part owns the shop.
I cycled past a couple of days ago and there was a small queue outside, folk waiting to get bikes seen to i assumed.
I wish them well.
https://www.comptoncycles.co.uk/


----------



## ColinJ (25 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> I removed the cassette from one of CX bikes yesterday to give it a thorough 'and long overdue' cleaning and it had me thinking as to why it is that only the last 2/3 sprockets that are separate on a cassette and the larger ones are in a 'block'? Surely separate sprockets would enable you to tailor your gears to suit your own personal needs. Although, I suppose if that option was available to us then the manufacturer/LBS would end up with a stack of the less popular sizes.


I reckon that using a block might be about spreading the load out over a longer length of splines on the freehub?

Trying to avoid what happened to @colly on one of my forum rides when he comically lost transmission when trying to power up a steep ramp from a little valley - see THIS POST.


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 May 2020)

Just by chance, Jim at Compton's will be doing some work on my bike tomorrow. (Work that I'm too bone idle to do myself)


----------



## JPBoothy (25 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> I reckon that using a block might be about spreading the load out over a longer length of splines on the freehub?
> 
> Trying to avoid what happened to @colly on one of my forum rides when he comically lost transmission when trying to power up a steep ramp from a little valley - see THIS POST.


Blimey, that must have shocked poor @colly.. I hope that it didn't have that same horrible effect as when you snap a chain? That begs the question of whether or not converting a standard rear wheel to a SS using a spacer kit is a good idea at all then.


----------



## ColinJ (25 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Blimey, that must have shocked poor @colly.. I hope that it didn't have that same horrible effect as when you snap a chain? That begs the question of whether or not converting a standard rear wheel to a SS using a spacer kit is a good idea at all then.


His legs were spinning like crazy but his bike just slowed down and stopped. Fortunately, he was sitting down at the time so he didn't fall off.

I think we both expected that the pawls had failed to engage in his freehub, but then we discovered that all of the other gears still worked!

The SS question has worried me slightly because I have done a conversion using a standard sprocket and a handful of spacers. It is putting an awful lot of pressure on the splines. They _are _slowly getting damaged but so far the damage is not terminal. I have a spare freehub which I can swap in before failure looks likely!


----------



## Tigerbiten (26 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Surely separate sprockets would enable you to tailor your gears to suit your own personal needs. Although, I suppose if that option was available to us then the manufacturer/LBS would end up with a stack of the less popular sizes.


You can, look for the likes of "miche individual sprockets"
But single sprockets like that tend to sold at a premium.
It's often cheaper to start with two cassette with different ranges.
Split them and drill the rivets out.
Then recombine them to give you an ideal cassette and a lot of left over parts to make a less than ideal cassette.
The main downside is depending on how you mix and match sprockets, some of the shifting ramps may not line up and that can give you less than crisp shifting.

YMMV ............


----------



## JPBoothy (26 May 2020)

Tigerbiten said:


> You can, look for the likes of "miche individual sprockets"
> But single sprockets like that tend to sold at a premium.
> It's often cheaper to start with two cassette with different ranges.
> Split them and drill the rivets out.
> ...


Thank you and @ColinJ for your thorough explanations.. I have one of those annoying "what does that do?" and "how does that work" type minds I'm afraid so that was useful to know..


----------



## a.twiddler (26 May 2020)

JPBoothy said:


> Blimey, that must have shocked poor @colly.. I hope that it didn't have that same horrible effect as when you snap a chain? That begs the question of whether or not converting a standard rear wheel to a SS using a spacer kit is a good idea at all then.


I had a similar experience in the days of screw on freewheels. The chainline on my bike had always been a little awkward, as it was a Viscount Aerospace with press in sealed bottom bracket bearings. These were not a problem, they were commonly available motorcycle type wheel bearings. However, the bottom bracket spindle was a problem as it was hard to find replacements in different lengths. It was never a real issue with a 5 speed rear, but when I upgraded to a 6 speed for some reason I had to put an extra spacer between the freewheel and the hub. I was always a bit concerned about reducing the amount of threads that it screwed on to, but it worked well for several years and I suppose several thousand miles. Perhaps if I didn't have such low lower gears, it might have lasted even longer.

In a hangover from the days when I went far from home in the wilds of Wales (pre mobile phone era) the rear wheel had 40 spokes and a single speed threading on the other side, with a single gear in place. I was always a belt and braces kind of fellow. I tried to make things as disaster proof as possible. I was out on a ride one day, following the towpath of the Trent and Mersey canal near Northwich, Cheshire. I came to Barnton tunnel, changed down, and merrily twiddled up the track that went up and over it. Near the top it steepened so I put a bit of extra effort into it, suddenly finding it ridiculously easy to pedal, and then having no resistance at all. It took a few seconds to realise what had happened by which time my legs were still automatically going round but the bike starting to roll backwards. I grabbed the brakes and stopped. I found I could turn the rear freewheel in both directions by hand. The threads were well and truly stripped. Once I'd got the wheel off and removed the spacers there were a few threads left, so I gingerly screwed it back on, and it held. All I had to do was adjust the rear derailleur stops and I was able to carefully pedal the 10 miles or so home, using just the higher gears. It could have been a lot worse.

A bit off thread maybe, but I thought it might be of interest.


----------



## JPBoothy (26 May 2020)

a.twiddler said:


> I had a similar experience in the days of screw on freewheels. The chainline on my bike had always been a little awkward, as it was a Viscount Aerospace with press in sealed bottom bracket bearings. These were not a problem, they were commonly available motorcycle type wheel bearings. However, the bottom bracket spindle was a problem as it was hard to find replacements in different lengths. It was never a real issue with a 5 speed rear, but when I upgraded to a 6 speed for some reason I had to put an extra spacer between the freewheel and the hub. I was always a bit concerned about reducing the amount of threads that it screwed on to, but it worked well for several years and I suppose several thousand miles. Perhaps if I didn't have such low lower gears, it might have lasted even longer.
> 
> In a hangover from the days when I went far from home in the wilds of Wales (pre mobile phone era) the rear wheel had 40 spokes and a single speed threading on the other side, with a single gear in place. I was always a belt and braces kind of fellow. I tried to make things as disaster proof as possible. I was out on a ride one day, following the towpath of the Trent and Mersey canal near Northwich, Cheshire. I came to Barnton tunnel, changed down, and merrily twiddled up the track that went up and over it. Near the top it steepened so I put a bit of extra effort into it, suddenly finding it ridiculously easy to pedal, and then having no resistance at all. It took a few seconds to realise what had happened by which time my legs were still automatically going round but the bike starting to roll backwards. I grabbed the brakes and stopped. I found I could turn the rear freewheel in both directions by hand. The threads were well and truly stripped. Once I'd got the wheel off and removed the spacers there were a few threads left, so I gingerly screwed it back on, and it held. All I had to do was adjust the rear derailleur stops and I was able to carefully pedal the 10 miles or so home, using just the higher gears. It could have been a lot worse.
> 
> A bit off thread maybe, but I thought it might be of interest.


It's always a nice feeling when you can fix it in situ and get going again without having to make the call of shame to get a lift home


----------



## mjr (27 May 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Gears offer massive benefits especially on _scenic_ routes and [...]


How do you figure that? Does nice things to look at make it more difficult to pedal away so you need to do it more slowly or something?


----------



## matticus (27 May 2020)

mjr said:


> > Gears offer massive benefits especially on _scenic_ routes
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Does nice things to look at make it more difficult to pedal away so you need to do it more slowly or something?


I think he's using "scenic" as euphemism for "bloody hilly" - it's quite a common usage, though might be mainly an Audax thing?
HTH!


----------



## Mike_P (27 May 2020)

On the subject of whether cross chaining is an issue I mistakenly found myself on the large ring on a steep climb on Monday and so ended up on a 50-34 combination. Subsequently a clicking noise developed which have I found out to be caused by a slightly bent quick link.


----------



## ColinJ (27 May 2020)

matticus said:


> I think he's using "scenic" as euphemism for "bloody hilly" - it's quite a common usage, though might be mainly an Audax thing?
> HTH!


I did a short 'scenic' ride last night - 411 metres of ascent in only 16.8 km. I was heading for greater scenic stats tonight by the time I got to the final summit, but then I ruined the numbers with the descent and a longer flattish ride back.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

matticus said:


> I think he's using "scenic" as euphemism for "bloody hilly" - it's quite a common usage, though might be mainly an Audax thing?
> HTH!


Yes, it does. 40+ years in and still the need of some for elitist jargon baffles me.


----------



## Landsurfer (28 May 2020)

Just remember "There is no hill so steep that i cannot push a bicycle up it" ......


----------



## screenman (28 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> Just remember "There is no hill so steep that i cannot push a bicycle up it" ......



Why would you take a bike with you for a walk?


----------



## Landsurfer (28 May 2020)

screenman said:


> Why would you take a bike with you for a walk?


On my LEJOG there where a number of hills .... Berriedale for instance, that i was quite happy to push the bike up .... though i rode up Helmsdale straight after a substantial Scotch breakfast .... slowly ... but i'm a member of the RSF so pushing bikes over mountains comes naturally.


----------



## ColinJ (28 May 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> Just remember "There is no hill so steep that i cannot push a bicycle up it" ......


White cliffs of Dover?


----------



## Sharky (28 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> White cliffs of Dover?


I read a book about that - written by Eileen Dover


----------



## JPBoothy (28 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> I read a book about that - written by Eileen Dover


 I never tire of those jokes


----------



## ColinJ (28 May 2020)

Sharky said:


> I read a book about that - written by Eileen Dover





JPBoothy said:


> I never tire of those jokes


But some fools DO actually lean over white cliffs!!!


----------



## JPBoothy (28 May 2020)

ColinJ said:


> But some fools DO actually lean over white cliffs!!!


You can't teach an old fool new tricks!

If people are stupid enough to do stupid things (small children and those with mental issues excluded) then they shouldn't be surprised when it all goes horribly wrong. I don't want to see anybody get hurt but, the money being spent on signage and fencing in this country to prevent 'accidents' is ridiculous! My pet hate is when a lovely ancient Castle/Fortress has to have yellow/black hazzard tape or paint spoiling it for 'safety' reasons. 

Oops sorry, you touched a nerve


----------

