# Why so many gears?.....



## Marazzi Mick (31 Mar 2018)

just done what must be my tenth ride on my new bike. Puzzled by having 22 gears I only used a handful of them and usually exerting myself until breathless and really red in the face.

I watched a YouTube video about making full use of them and constant adjustment which would mean easy cycling and ideally pedalling between 80 and 100 rpm. I’m still unsure as to how you measure this, perhaps there is something you fit to the bike but the point is I got home after covering the biggest distance I had done before and felt ok. When I looked at Strava I had also done my highest average speed. Ok 22 miles and 16.4 mph isn’t setting the world alight but it is progress I am pleased with.

I’m hoping to do the 30 mile mark soon but really can feel the benefits of cycling already.

I’m really puzzled about rpm though and would love to know if I’m hitting the mark.....


----------



## I like Skol (31 Mar 2018)

It isn't critical, but avoid the extremes through sensible use of the gears. Try to avoid bogging down to low rpms when climbing, so if you go much below approx 50rpm it really is time to change gear (unless you are already in your easiest gear and can't pedal any faster up the steep son of a B**** ). High rpm is also not good because it is difficult to generate much torque, so ideally a cadence of anywhere from 60-90 is probably pretty sufficient for the average, non-competitive cyclist.


----------



## Brandane (31 Mar 2018)

In practice, most everyday cyclists don't have any need for any more than about 5 or 6 cogs on the rear cassette and 2 rings at the front. However that doesn't sell bikes to the Tour de France wannabes, and it doesn't help Shimano and others when it comes to making money from us replacing thin chains and cassettes every 20 miles. Then there comes a point when old systems become obsolete so you have to "upgrade" to a modern groupset, which rarely makes financial sense so you just replace the bike.......


----------



## Slick (31 Mar 2018)

Everyone's different, the guy I ride with is always getting on to me for adjusting my gears to suit but I tend to ignore him. He likes to pick a gear and get out the saddle and go for it. The words of another guy who was more a runner than a cyclist stick in my mind as well. He reckoned that you only need to get one mile wrong and your plans for the day could be ruined. Probably a bit dramatic but I understood the sentiment. Find your own balance.


----------



## Profpointy (31 Mar 2018)

Brandane said:


> In practice, most everyday cyclists don't have any need for any more than about 5 or 6 cogs on the rear cassette and 2 rings at the front. However that doesn't sell bikes to the Tour de France wannabes, and it doesn't help Shimano and others when it comes to making money from us replacing thin chains and cassettes every 20 miles. Then there comes a point when old systems become obsolete so you have to "upgrade" to a modern groupset, which rarely makes financial sense so you just replace the bike.......



Never been to mid wales then?


----------



## ianrauk (31 Mar 2018)

Most people would dream of having a 16.4mph average


----------



## Heltor Chasca (31 Mar 2018)

Wahoo do a neat little cadence sensor. You can clip it to the crank as is common, or (like I do) you can also clip it to a strap on your shoe.

Your average speed is impressive btw.


----------



## Brandane (31 Mar 2018)

Profpointy said:


> Never been to mid wales then?


No; but I do live in Ayrshire a stone's throw away from this: (and a more gentle, but 5 mile climb in the other direction). 



I was careful to point out that for "most everyday cyclists" we don't need so many gears. Yes, we need a low gear for climbs and a high gear for descents, plus a few for those in between. But 22 ?? Completely unnecessary FOR MOST!


----------



## Slick (31 Mar 2018)

Brandane said:


> No; but I do live in Ayrshire a stone's throw away from this: (and a more gentle, but 5 mile climb in the other direction).
> 
> 
> 
> I was careful to point out that for "most everyday cyclists" we don't need so many gears. Yes, we need a low gear for climbs and a high gear for descents, plus a few for those in between. But 22 ?? Completely unnecessary FOR MOST!



I was wondering which one of the "Ayrshire Alps" you were going to mention, although the Haylie Brae would be enough for me.


----------



## I like Skol (31 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> In my humble opinion, the important aspects of a gearing setup are, most important first, in descending order of importance.
> 
> 1. Is the bottom gear low enough for the hills you're likely to regularly encounter. If it isn't this can ruin your enjoyment of riding.
> 2. Is changing gear simple and reliable (NB - for me that puts friction shifters right at the top of the list, for others that puts DI2 at the top) Again, difficult or clunky gears can spoil the experience.
> ...


Surely point 5 is irrelevant if 1-4 are satisfied?


----------



## dave r (31 Mar 2018)

I rarely use more than one chainring out of the two on my geared bike, the 42 tooth inner ring, and rarely use more than three or four gears on the cassette. Half the year I'm riding a single speed fixed.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Mar 2018)

I have ridden about 1,500 miles on my singlespeed bike in the past 18 months and that includes a few moderate hills here and there. So, I can get away with one gear a lot of the time. When I go for the longer, steeper hills though I choose to ride another bike which has 30 gears and I use all of them!

In theory, I could get away with a very low gear for grovelling up steep hills into headwinds, a very high gear for bombing down hills with a tailwind, and a middling gear for everything else.

The thing with a restricted choice of gears is that you often end up feeling like you are pedalling too quickly or too slowly. Fixed gear fans may be ok with it, but most riders prefer 20 rpm < cadence < 120 rpm and a lot of them more like 60 rpm < cadence < 100 rpm. Having lots of gears gives you lots of choice so you always have your perfect gear available (except for hills so steep that you couldn't get up them in ANY gear). Changing between gears soon becomes a reflex, except for when you have to change chainring, which requires slightly more thinking about (hence the rise in popularity of single chainring systems 1x10, 1x11 etc.)

When I was cycling in a much flatter area (Coventry, like @dave r) I was fine with singlespeed most of the time and could have easily got away a much narrower range of gears. Once I started riding a lot of 15-25% climbs in Yorkshire and Lancashire I soon found out that I needed my low gears!


----------



## Ticktockmy (31 Mar 2018)

As I understand about having many gears, it is so we can maintain a constant cadance whilst riding. Different cyclist will have different cadance which suits their style of riding. This will mean that we mostly only use the chainwheel and casstte spockets that suit that style of riding.


----------



## gavroche (31 Mar 2018)

If you compare it to a car, back in the 60s, 70s, cars only had 3 or 4 gears. Now most cars have 6 gears and some even more. Why do you think that is? Efficiency.


----------



## Profpointy (31 Mar 2018)

When I had a 10 speed back in the day, even after lowering the gearing a bit it was still bloody hard work up hills never mind with panniers as well. Changed it to a 15 speed some years later and it was still not low enough. Later still finally got a 27 speed which had oodles of gears and finally low enough gears to get up anything. Maybe 27 is more than needed I did use both extremes.


----------



## Marazzi Mick (31 Mar 2018)

ianrauk said:


> Most people would dream of having a 16.4mph average



It was a very flat route, I’m not fit and a newbie but got to admit hearing the hum of the tyres on tarmac was very satisfying.


----------



## Marazzi Mick (31 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Re cadence/rpm. Ride at a cadence that feels natural to you. You can get cadence meters that integrate with GPS units. Also some people say it's easy to estimate by counting (I disagree on that point, I keep losing count). I've come to the conclusion that it's an unimportant measure (for me, at least) Others my differ.
> 
> There are theories that a higher cadence is more efficient, but having looked in to the matter I think they are probably hokum. Your legs will soon let you know if your hearing is too high or low.



Thanks for your comments DT but I think the important bit is I did more distance than previously done and wasn’t knackered when I did the final climb up to where I live. Oh and I really enjoyed myself which is a first for me when doing anything to do with keeping fit!


----------



## Marazzi Mick (31 Mar 2018)

gavroche said:


> If you compare it to a car, back in the 60s, 70s, cars only had 3 or 4 gears. Now most cars have 6 gears and some even more. Why do you think that is? Efficiency.



I think the choke is missing on my bike!


----------



## Marazzi Mick (31 Mar 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I have ridden about 1,500 miles on my singlespeed bike in the past 18 months and that includes a few moderate hills here and there. So, I can get away with one gear a lot of the time. When I go for the longer, steeper hills though I choose to ride another bike which has 30 gears and I use all of them!
> 
> In theory, I could get away with a very low gear for grovelling up steep hills into headwinds, a very high gear for bombing down hills with a tailwind, and a middling gear for everything else.
> 
> ...



I agree Collin, the chainring thing certainly does require some thought. It’s so easy to get caught in totally the wrong gear when you swop the big cogs but I’m learning.

Just out of interest by the end of the summer I intend to do Fairburn North Yorkshire (my home) to my partners home in Ramsbottom. I guess by the time I get to Todmorden it will have been the best idea in the world or the worst!


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 Mar 2018)

Of course the real answer is "because we can"


----------



## GuyBoden (31 Mar 2018)

If you want to keep to your preferred cadence range (pedalling rate) over differing terrains you need to use more gears, the advantage is that this allows old men to spin up hills they used to walk up on less gears.


----------



## Racing roadkill (31 Mar 2018)

Think of the gearing in terms of ‘gear inches’, or ratios rather than discrete ‘gears’. There is a fair bit of overlap throughout the range, where combinations of front and rear ‘gears’ result in the same ratio / gear inches. Gear inches are essentially how many inches forward the bike moves ( with a given diameter wheel) for every rotation of the cranks. The accepted ‘sweet spot’ is when you can produce your peak power at a cadence of 90 rpm. Power is the product of Torque and cadence, and it’s been proven that it’s bio mechanically most efficient to aim at a torque output at 90 rpm, to give your peak power there. The choice of ‘gears’ is there to allow as many people as possible to make their peak power at 90 rpm.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Mar 2018)

Marazzi Mick said:


> I agree Collin, the chainring thing certainly does require some thought. It’s so easy to get caught in totally the wrong gear when you swop the big cogs but I’m learning.
> 
> Just out of interest by the end of the summer I intend to do Fairburn North Yorkshire (my home) to my partners home in Ramsbottom. I guess by the time I get to Todmorden it will have been the best idea in the world or the worst!


I hope you don't have to ride up Ramsbottom Rake at the end - it half killed me when I did it, many years ago! 

Are you doing it the 'scenic' (tough!) way (West Yorkshire Cycle Route) or the 'easy' way (valley roads and cycle paths)? (If you haven't heard of the WYCR, your local Tourist Information Centre should have the free guide leaflet for it and lots of websites give details.) 

If you haven't found it yet, lots of us recommend cycle.travel to help in planning rides.


----------



## bpsmith (31 Mar 2018)

I disagree that 90 is the scientifically proven most efficient cadence for every single rider. From personal experience I find 83 rpm is where I am naturally most efficient. I believe everyone has their own natural ideal cadence.

With respect to having 22 gears, I think it’s not the best way to think about it. I look at it as having a number of gears for the inner chainring and a number of gears for the outer chainring, to allow them to work efficiently. The number of gears depending on the rider as to how far they like to cross over, which can vary depending on the ride.


----------



## Randomnerd (31 Mar 2018)

@Marazzi Mick good to hear you're enjoying the new bike. I'm just east of you, in the Vale of York, and can happily get around on a three speed most of the time in this neck of the woods. I wouldn't worry too much about cadence yet, until you get a bit further down the road with cycling. You'll spend a little while going through the gears till you learn what you feel good with for which hill etc. As your legs get stronger, you may find you don't change gear so often, and just decide to push a bigger ring further. 
A more useful thing to concern yourself with for cycling efficiency is chainline (more critical on a triple front ring but still important for a compact double) - pick the better, straighter chainline if you can, to help reduce component wear and drivetrain friction.
Eventually, you'll be such a strong rider you'll sell your Willier and buy a fixed or singlespeed, and drone on here about how you did Midhopestones with one leg tied to the crossbar.
In hilly country, in a headwind, with a tent and a crate of beer on board, you never have too many gears. it's not gears you need, it's lungs. 
If you want to measure your cadence, i was told a method which seems to work, when checked against a Garmin with a sensor. Count one knee reaching apex for 19 seconds - on your stopwatch function on your Casio watch or whatever - and multiply by pi. For training I like to reach and stick to 90 if I can; it's where I seem to be able to sustain power for longest (which isn't that long!) And fool myself into thinking I'm at 90 the whole run, burst back into the house and declaim to anyone listening what an athlete I am.


----------



## Aravis (31 Mar 2018)

I think all the points have been made, but in answering the original "Why so many gears?" question I wonder if some specific numbers will help.

When I had my new 12-speed in 1985, it came with 52/36 on the front and 13-15-18-21-26-32 on the back. When I had my earlier 10-speed it never occurred to me that counting teeth was a useful thing to do so I don't know what I had then. The 12-speed gave me the range to get up almost anything, even when touring, but at the cost of bigger gaps than was comfortable. As I became more knowledgeable I started switching cogs between rides according to what I expected to tackle on the next ride. I'd usually pick a biggest of 24 or 28, allowing a closer spread in the critical mid-range. Using a 14 instead of the 13 was often a good idea as well. The 32 was still available if I was going touring in seriously hilly areas.

So 12 gears was never really enough. There were ways round it, but in those days I couldn't carry more than 12 at once. With a 22-speed setup you're much more likely to be able to carry every gear you'll ever need.


----------



## Racing roadkill (31 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Close, but no cigar. Out by a factor of pi.
> 
> Gear inches describes the diameter of an equivalent wheel with a 1:1 connection to the cranks. That is, the diameter of the wheel of a notional ordinary (penny farthing) bike of the same gearing.
> 
> ...


True. But as I said ( to try and not confuse too much) the gear inch measurement is used to work out how far the bike moves forward per revolution of the crank.


----------



## Alan O (31 Mar 2018)

For what it's worth, I usually ride an old Raleigh touring bike with a triple front (28/38/48) and six-speed rear (14-28) with friction shifting.

I'd say for around 80% of the time, I'm on the middle 38 chainwheel and use mostly the middle four at the rear, though I do use the full six. So I'd mostly get away with a six-speed bike.

But on occasions when I'm riding anywhere hilly, I really appreciate having the 28 front, and I do use right down to 28/28.

And when I'm on mostly open flat road with good surface (which tends to be not that often), I like having the 48 front too.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Mar 2018)

Alan O said:


> For what it's worth, I usually ride an old Raleigh touring bike with a triple front (28/38/48) and six-speed rear (14-28) with friction shifting.
> 
> I'd say for around 80% of the time, I'm on the middle 38 chainwheel and use mostly the middle four at the rear, though I do use the full six. So I'd mostly get away with a six-speed bike.
> 
> ...


That's very close to what I have on my best road bike. I have 28/36/48 rings and a 10-speed 12-30 cassette. I do a lot of my riding on the 36 because it goes low enough for many smaller hills and high enough for 20+ mph. The 28/30 bottom gear is a luxury on the really steep stuff, and when I actually do use the 48, I can stay on it much longer than the 53 that used to be on the bike. It is a really versatile setup. The only time I'd lose out would be chasing someone down a really long steady descent where I would spin out before them but I don't race so I would normally be freewheeling anyway in that situation.

It is nice having 10-speed rather than 6-speed because of the much smaller steps between sprockets.


----------



## Marazzi Mick (1 Apr 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> Think of the gearing in terms of ‘gear inches’, or ratios rather than discrete ‘gears’. There is a fair bit of overlap throughout the range, where combinations of front and rear ‘gears’ result in the same ratio / gear inches. Gear inches are essentially how many inches forward the bike moves ( with a given diameter wheel) for every rotation of the cranks. The accepted ‘sweet spot’ is when you can produce your peak power at a cadence of 90 rpm. Power is the product of Torque and cadence, and it’s been proven that it’s bio mechanically most efficient to aim at a torque output at 90 rpm, to give your peak power there. The choice of ‘gears’ is there to allow as many people as possible to make their peak power at 90 rpm.



Beautifully explained Sir!


----------



## Marazzi Mick (1 Apr 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I hope you don't have to ride up Ramsbottom Rake at the end - it half killed me when I did it, many years ago!
> 
> Are you doing it the 'scenic' (tough!) way (West Yorkshire Cycle Route) or the 'easy' way (valley roads and cycle paths)? (If you haven't heard of the WYCR, your local Tourist Information Centre should have the free guide leaflet for it and lots of websites give details.)
> 
> If you haven't found it yet, lots of us recommend cycle.travel to help in planning rides.



Hi Collin,

I have never heard of Cycle Travel but just had a look and it looks very interesting. I note it’s 66 miles and indeed does go through Todmorden and I would prefer to keep away from cycle paths if possible. It’s my goal for 2018 but I’m already feeling the benefits from the modest rides I have done so far.

Thanks for the info.....


----------



## Marazzi Mick (1 Apr 2018)

woodenspoons said:


> @Marazzi Mick good to hear you're enjoying the new bike. I'm just east of you, in the Vale of York, and can happily get around on a three speed most of the time in this neck of the woods. I wouldn't worry too much about cadence yet, until you get a bit further down the road with cycling. You'll spend a little while going through the gears till you learn what you feel good with for which hill etc. As your legs get stronger, you may find you don't change gear so often, and just decide to push a bigger ring further.
> A more useful thing to concern yourself with for cycling efficiency is chainline (more critical on a triple front ring but still important for a compact double) - pick the better, straighter chainline if you can, to help reduce component wear and drivetrain friction.
> Eventually, you'll be such a strong rider you'll sell your Willier and buy a fixed or singlespeed, and drone on here about how you did Midhopestones with one leg tied to the crossbar.
> In hilly country, in a headwind, with a tent and a crate of beer on board, you never have too many gears. it's not gears you need, it's lungs.
> If you want to measure your cadence, i was told a method which seems to work, when checked against a Garmin with a sensor. Count one knee reaching apex for 19 seconds - on your stopwatch function on your Casio watch or whatever - and multiply by pi. For training I like to reach and stick to 90 if I can; it's where I seem to be able to sustain power for longest (which isn't that long!) And fool myself into thinking I'm at 90 the whole run, burst back into the house and declaim to anyone listening what an athlete I am.



That’s a lot to think about W
The chain line thing you mention is interesting and I guess the worst thing you can do is be on a large cog at the front and large at the back or have I got that completely wrong?
Good luck on the three speed and the Wilier is going nowhere just yet - I love it!


----------



## Racing roadkill (1 Apr 2018)

Marazzi Mick said:


> That’s a lot to think about W
> The chain line thing you mention is interesting and I guess the worst thing you can do is be on a large cog at the front and large at the back or have I got that completely wrong?
> Good luck on the three speed and the Wilier is going nowhere just yet - I love it!


On a modern bike, with a quality chain and gearing, it’s not the issue it once was. It’s still inefficient, because of the added friction, but if you can avoid wonky chain lines, it’s better. SRAM 22 groupsets have a ‘yawing’ front mech, which helps with this.


----------



## raleighnut (1 Apr 2018)

Marazzi Mick said:


> That’s a lot to think about W
> The chain line thing you mention is interesting and I guess the worst thing you can do is be on a large cog at the front and large at the back or have I got that completely wrong?
> Good luck on the three speed and the Wilier is going nowhere just yet - I love it!


Yep, try to avoid big/big and small/small too.


----------



## Paul_Smith SRCC (1 Apr 2018)

What you need to do is work out what gear ratios you like to use and then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket.

By way of an example that is all I have done on my current tour bike, I use a 13t-29t Campagnolo 10 speed cassette set up with a chainset that 26-36-46t chainrings to give the the gear ratios I am after​






I like gears of around 60”, you will see that I have got those on both middle and outer ring. I have done this essentially because this is a bike I use for two roles, solo rides of 15-20mph and touring rides of 12-15mph, to save repeated chain ring changes I can essentially use the big ring mainly for solo rides and the middle ring for more sociable rides. Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out, for 15-20mph cruising I have ratios that I like available mid cassette on the 46 ring, this I find is the perfect set up for me. Of course everyone is different, some prefer a lower low gear and a higher high gear, horses for courses as they say

It does take a bit of thought as to what you need both in terms of ratios and then equipment choices to achieve them, but it can nearly always be done. In my case for example I did invest in a high quality chainset to get the ring combinations I wanted, as for me personally I find many road specific triples have ring choices too large yet the ATB chainsets too small for what I wanted. Note I said 'wanted' not 'needed', my tour bike is used for tours, often I want to climb a long mountain pass with little effort to take in the scenery, so I chose lower gear ratios on that bike. I bought this bike 10 years ago and my equipment choices were more valid at that time than they are now. These days a compact transmission will often offer a 34t ring and 34t sprocket and get much closer to my low gear than could be achieved back then. Note my bike is an Audax bike, I have mentioned it purely to illustrate the thought process that can go into deciding what gear ratios to go for.

Another important factor to take into consideration as to what gear ratios are required is the 'bike fit'. If you are set up incorrectly that often translates to less power, if you are less efficient than you could be, you will normally be slower than you could be, more tired than you should be and as such require a different set of gear ratios to accommodate these potential deficiencies.


----------



## Firestorm (1 Apr 2018)

Slick said:


> Everyone's different, the guy I ride with is always getting on to me for adjusting my gears to suit but I tend to ignore him. He likes to pick a gear and get out the saddle and go for it. The words of another guy who was more a runner than a cyclist stick in my mind as well. He reckoned that you only need to get one mile wrong and your plans for the day could be ruined. Probably a bit dramatic but I understood the sentiment. Find your own balance.


I agree with the runners comment. The only marathon I did was blown apart by an incorrect mile marker which ruined my pace judgement.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Apr 2018)

ianrauk said:


> Most people would dream of having a 16.4mph average



It was 22 miles downhill ;-)


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (1 Apr 2018)

Alan O said:


> , I usually ride an old Raleigh touring bike with a triple front (28/38/48) and six-speed rear (14-28) with friction shifting.
> 
> I'd say for around 80% of the time, I'm on the middle 38 chainwheel and use mostly the middle four at the rear, though I do use the full six. So I'd mostly get away with a six-speed bike..



Lately I've been knocking around on 2 bikes, an old 15 speed Apollo rigid 26" MTB and an even older 18 speed Raleigh hybrid. I weigh about 200 lbs dressed to ride and the Apollo weighs 34 lbs and the Raleigh 30 lbs, so neither me or the bikes are super-light. I've got 48/38/28 triple on the front and 14-17-20-24-28 on the back of the MTB This was a very common gearset chosen by manufacturers of mass-produced bikes, before 6-speed rear clusters became popular. The 28 tooth front ring might as well not be there - I haven't used it once!. Most of the time I use the 48T front and the middle 3 cogs on the back, which means I start off in a 52 inch gear, use a 62 inch gear to build up some speed, then change to a 73 inch gear for cruising along. I find the 89 inch top gear a bit heavy going, no doubt due to riding on knobbly 2" MTB tyres and lacking a bit of fitness. If I'm on gravel cycle paths or riding in muddy woods dodging branches, I tend to use the middle 38T ring, combined with the 24-20-17-14 rears. I don't use the 28T rear cog at all. I also tend to use the middle ring on the road if I've got gradients to climb. The middle ring gives me 41, 49, 58, 71 inch gears. I've not found anything yet I couldn't get up with a 41 inch ratio. So, on my 15 gear MTB, I only generally ever use 7 ratios.
The hybrid is a similar story, it also has 28/38/48 front but 14-16-18-21-24-28 on the back. Again, I never use the 28T front at all. I really like the 6-speed rear cluster though, because the high gear gaps are narrower. On my MTB, the gap between 4th and 5th means 4th sometimes feels a bit low, but 5th is a bit of a slog. On the hybrid's 6 speed rear, the 16T rear cog combined with the 48T front gives (on 700c wheels), gives a really useful 81 inch cruising gear, which is high enough to make decent progress but low enough to deal with gentle gradients without changing down. On this bike I tend to use the middle 4 rear cogs when on the big front ring, and all but the largest rear cog when on the middle ring, so generally only 9 out of a possible 18 ratios are actually used.
From this, I've concluded that unless you do heavily laden touring in a really hilly area (which I don't) a 12 speed bike with a 48/38 front and a 14-28 6 speed rear cluster is an ideal choice of gears, and any more is simply unecessary.


----------



## Aravis (2 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Lately I've been knocking around on 2 bikes, an old 15 speed Apollo rigid 26" MTB and an even older 18 speed Raleigh hybrid. I weigh about 200 lbs dressed to ride and the Apollo weighs 34 lbs and the Raleigh 30 lbs, so neither me or the bikes are super-light. I've got 48/38/28 triple on the front and 14-17-20-24-28 on the back of the MTB This was a very common gearset chosen by manufacturers of mass-produced bikes, before 6-speed rear clusters became popular. The 28 tooth front ring might as well not be there - I haven't used it once!. Most of the time I use the 48T front and the middle 3 cogs on the back, which means I start off in a 52 inch gear, use a 62 inch gear to build up some speed, then change to a 73 inch gear for cruising along. I find the 89 inch top gear a bit heavy going, no doubt due to riding on knobbly 2" MTB tyres and lacking a bit of fitness. If I'm on gravel cycle paths or riding in muddy woods dodging branches, I tend to use the middle 38T ring, combined with the 24-20-17-14 rears. I don't use the 28T rear cog at all. I also tend to use the middle ring on the road if I've got gradients to climb. The middle ring gives me 41, 49, 58, 71 inch gears. I've not found anything yet I couldn't get up with a 41 inch ratio. So, on my 15 gear MTB, I only generally ever use 7 ratios.
> The hybrid is a similar story, it also has 28/38/48 front but 14-16-18-21-24-28 on the back. Again, I never use the 28T front at all. I really like the 6-speed rear cluster though, because the high gear gaps are narrower. On my MTB, the gap between 4th and 5th means 4th sometimes feels a bit low, but 5th is a bit of a slog. On the hybrid's 6 speed rear, the 16T rear cog combined with the 48T front gives (on 700c wheels), gives a really useful 81 inch cruising gear, which is high enough to make decent progress but low enough to deal with gentle gradients without changing down. On this bike I tend to use the middle 4 rear cogs when on the big front ring, and all but the largest rear cog when on the middle ring, so generally only 9 out of a possible 18 ratios are actually used.
> *From this, I've concluded that unless you do heavily laden touring in a really hilly area (which I don't) a 12 speed bike with a 48/38 front and a 14-28 6 speed rear cluster is an ideal choice of gears, and any more is simply unecessary.*


Maybe 30 years ago I'd've said much the same, and I know I used to get very sniffy about triples, but today's reality is rather different. I don't have anything like the strength I used to have and the small ring (28) gets used quite a bit on most rides. My absolute bottom, 28/32, is rarely deployed but I'd feel vulnerable if it wasn't there. The 28/28 sees a lot more action.

At the other end I have little or no use for 48/12 and 48/14, let alone the 48/11 which the setup originally had. The days of hammering downwards on 52/12 are well and truly over. My next change will be a 42/32/22 triple instead of 48/38/28, which should enable me to split the effort more equally between the middle and outer rings. At the moment I reckon I'm on the middle ring at least 90% of the time. With those rings the most useful 8-speed cassette looks to be 11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30. I have the hardware ready but I'll eke out what life is left in my existing kit first. Another possibility which could work sensibly is 13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26.


----------



## gaijintendo (2 Apr 2018)

It's not the gear inches, it's what you do with it.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Apr 2018)

I think the thing about cadence and efficiency is more about a higher cadence taxing the heart and lungs, and lower cadence putting more of a strain on the muscles. The heart and lungs recover quickly from a hard efforts, muscles take much longer to recover. So a higher cadence will allow you take tackle hill after hill after hill etc without your heart or lungs getting fatigued. But tackle enough hills at low cadence and muscles will eventually say no more. Of course some riders seem to have ridiculous leg strength and endurance and can keep grinding it out, though many need to get out the saddle to survive the ups, and even that action is not enough after a while.


----------



## Alan O (2 Apr 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I find the top end gears a nice to have, but not a necessity. For example yesterday I was charging down the A21 (slight downhill) in 52/11 in a desperate race to hit 161km before the batteries on my GPS ran out. (First world problem. It was jammed in the mount and I couldn't release it to replace them. I had a spare GPS running in the rack bag, but it was a bit of motivation to add to the thought of a sit down and coffee.) In circs like those I find it oddly easier to push a really big gear with tired legs.


My first proper bike was an Ernie Clements Falcon and it had a Campag road racing chainset. I can't remember the size of the big wheel, but it was big. So big that I think I only ever used my biggest gear once, overtaking cars going down here back when I was a 20-year-old student.

It's a route I used to ride regularly, though I was usually relatively cautious on it, especially as there's a right-hander at the bottom that you really need to slow for. But one nice sunny day I thought I just had to go for it and see if I could spin out my top gear.

And for that one ride that one day, it was well worth having that gear - the sheer terror really made it stick in my mind, and the memory is still quite fresh nearly 40 years later.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (2 Apr 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> I think the thing about cadence and efficiency is more about a higher cadence taxing the heart and lungs, and lower cadence putting more of a strain on the muscles. The heart and lungs recover quickly from a hard efforts, muscles take much longer to recover. So a higher cadence will allow you take tackle hill after hill after hill etc without your heart or lungs getting fatigued. But tackle enough hills at low cadence and muscles will eventually say no more. Of course some riders seem to have ridiculous leg strength and endurance and can keep grinding it out, though many need to get out the saddle to survive the ups, and even that action is not enough after a while.



I think your approach to gearing comes down to whether you are a grinder or a spinner. I don't like riding with a high cadence except in very short bursts, I would say I generally pedal at about 50-70 RPM. Most steep gradients tend to be fairly short duration in my neck of the woods, so my approach is to drop down a gear just before the start of the gradient, pedal like fury to get a bit of momentum to get me up the first bit, then grind out the remainder at an ever-decreasing cadence & road speed. I always remain in the saddle though, never stand on the pedals. Most of the time that works for me, although I have sometimes had to get off and walk up at least part of long climbs when I've been riding a Sturmey Archer 3-speed as the "Low" gear on those isn't actually very low - about 52"!.


----------



## Alan O (2 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I think your approach to gearing comes down to whether you are a grinder or a spinner.


Very much so, and I'm definitely a spinner. I'm not really able to measure my preferred cadence, as I don't have a suitable visible timing device when I'm riding, but it's probably around 90. The other thing is, I'm not sure how genuinely representative it would be if I knew my cadence was being measured - blind testing and all that. I think to be meaningful it would need to be measured without my knowing, and I've no idea how to do that.

I go out on group rides and I'm sometimes surprised to be behind someone who's in their top gear and pedaling really slowly, and it really looks painful to me - but they finish the same distance rides at the same pace as I do.


----------



## Aravis (2 Apr 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I find the top end gears a nice to have, but not a necessity. For example yesterday I was charging down the A21 (slight downhill) in 52/11 in a desperate race to hit 161km before the batteries on my GPS ran out. (First world problem. It was jammed in the mount and I couldn't release it to replace them. I had a spare GPS running in the rack bag, but it was a bit of motivation to add to the thought of a sit down and coffee.) In circs like those I find it oddly easier to push a really big gear with tired legs.
> 
> At the other end of the range, I spend lot of time in 34/32. * I'd go lower if I could, but BCD and rear derailleur constraints say that's what I have without major bodge work*, so I live with it.


Sounds like the perfect excuse for a new bike. 

Nowadays, if I had to make regular use of my lowest possible gear I'd feel vulnerable. If my earlier life I wouldn't've seen it that way - I'd've been more confident of being able to tough it out when I needed to. The ultimate gear - currently 28/32 - does get used, but usually as a pre-planned move to clear a particular obstacle.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (2 Apr 2018)

Another factor is the type of bike being ridden - particularly whether flat bar or drop bar. All my currently-owned bikes have flat bars, which means that realistically my top road speed is never going to exceed about 20 mph, as the aerodynamics would sap too much power to go much faster. Therefore there is no benefit to me in having a really big front ring and a really small top gear cog on the back. My top gears are 89" on my MTBs, 92" on my old SA 3-speed, and 93" on my 2 Raleigh hybrids. That's high enough for me. Even when I was younger and fitter than I am now, I wouldn't have wanted a bigger gear than the High gear on my SA hub.


----------



## steveindenmark (2 Apr 2018)

Mike. You now have 4 pages of answers with regards to your original question. Its a bike. Its supposed to be a simple form of transport. When it comes to riding it, what suits me, may not suit you. Get on it and ride it. play with the gears and find what suits you. After a while, as you get used to them and get fitter. What suits you now may not suit you later. Only by riding it will you know what gears you need to use when.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Apr 2018)

gaijintendo said:


> It's not the gear inches, it's what you do with it.


And _where _you try to do it ...

Local metric century elevation profile:


----------



## Lozz360 (2 Apr 2018)

woodenspoons said:


> @Marazzi Mick
> If you want to measure your cadence, ...Count one knee reaching apex for 19 seconds - on your stopwatch function on your Casio watch or whatever - and multiply by pi.


Why not just count the revs for 30 seconds then double it?


----------



## DCBassman (2 Apr 2018)

On all of the three multi-gear bikes I've owned, I use the middle ring mainly, across the whole cluster, then the small ring in the lower half of the cassette. Big ring strictly for downhill. 
Being old and unfit, I want breadth of gearing, and when I've completed my mods, top will be 52-11t, bottom will be 30-34t. That should keep me from getting off on the hills.


----------



## Tim Hall (2 Apr 2018)

Marazzi Mick said:


> hearing the hum of the tyres on tarmac was very satisfying.


This is the most important bit.


----------



## Marazzi Mick (2 Apr 2018)

Tim Hall said:


> This is the most important bit.


----------



## Brandane (2 Apr 2018)

woodenspoons said:


> Count one knee reaching apex for 19 seconds - on your stopwatch function on your Casio watch or whatever - and multiply by pi.





Lozz360 said:


> Why not just count the revs for 30 seconds then double it?



I was wondering this too @Lozz360 . Especially since multiplying by pi would give a false reading as revs after 19 seconds would have to be multiplied by 3.1578947 to give the correct answer . You could always wait an extra second and treble it....


----------



## Racing roadkill (2 Apr 2018)

bpsmith said:


> I disagree that 90 is the scientifically proven most efficient cadence for every single rider. From personal experience I find 83 rpm is where I am naturally most efficient. I believe everyone has their own natural ideal cadence.
> 
> With respect to having 22 gears, I think it’s not the best way to think about it. I look at it as having a number of gears for the inner chainring and a number of gears for the outer chainring, to allow them to work efficiently. The number of gears depending on the rider as to how far they like to cross over, which can vary depending on the ride.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989856/


----------



## Tim Hall (2 Apr 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989856/


A quick read of the summary doesn't seem to support your assertion that 90rpm is the optimum cadence for every single rider.


> Optimal cadences are yielded for two of the four riders in the study (83 and 70 rpm, respectively).



I find it hard to believe that there's One True Cadence for every rider anyway, given that we're not identical to each other. I'm willing to be corrected though.


----------



## Racing roadkill (2 Apr 2018)

Tim Hall said:


> A quick read of the summary doesn't seem to support your assertion that 90rpm is the optimum cadence for every single rider.
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that there's One True Cadence for every rider anyway, given that we're not identical to each other. I'm willing to be corrected though.



https://www.torqfitness.co.uk/news/optimal-pedal-cadence


----------



## Tim Hall (2 Apr 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> https://www.torqfitness.co.uk/news/optimal-pedal-cadence


So a different article to the one that you first linked to suggests 90 rpm is "about right", rather than


> proven that it’s bio mechanically most efficient to aim at a torque output at 90 rpm.


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

Tim Hall said:


> So a different article to the one that you first linked to suggests 90 rpm is "about right", rather than



http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html?m=1


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Apr 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's a bit like asking Goldilocks what is the one universal optimum porridge temperature for bears.


Temperature for beers you say? First there's the yellow/brown question to be taken into account.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

Tim Hall said:


> Temperature for beers you say? First there's the yellow/brown question to be taken into account.



No, it's not the colour that matters - what matters is if it's fizzy gassy stuff or proper stuff. Fizzy stuff best kept cold so you can't actually taste it, proper stuff around 12 deg C. Now, back to gearing....


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

User said:


> The conclusion in your link
> "In short, you should choose a cadence that mirrors your power output; unless you’re an elite rider, it’s unlikely you’ll benefit from using cadences exceeding around 80rpm. However, world-class athletes can push into 100 rpm range for the most efficient cadence that will produce the greatest performance."​Would appear to contradict your original assertion


Not at all. I just said 90 is the proven most efficient cadence, I didn’t say for whom.


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

https://www.bikecalculator.co.uk/cadencespeed.htm


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's a bit like asking Goldilocks what is the one universal optimum porridge temperature for bears.


It’s 90 degrees, or the bear is wrong.


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Whoosh. Straight over my head.


Fits All = Fitz Hall


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

User said:


> I tend to find that dealing with nonsensical pseudo science via humour beats trying to engage with it. I regret that I have no peer reviewed evidence to back this up though.


Or actual data based on numbers garnered through experimental science, as normal people (not keyboard warriors ) know it.



User said:


> I tend to find that dealing with nonsensical pseudo science via humour beats trying to engage with it.



And you failed there as well.


----------



## Salty seadog (3 Apr 2018)

User said:


> Having started from the premise that
> View attachment 402800
> 
> Is a valid thing.



Very good, that'll go whoosh over a few heads....


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> Not at all. I just said 90 is the proven most efficient cadence, I didn’t say for whom.



I can't see how you can make a generalised statement like that. It's like saying car engines are most efficient at a particular RPM. In reality, how efficient any sort of engine is at a particular speed, mechanical or human, depends on how it was designed and made. Cyclists tend to ride at the cadence they find most efficient for themselves (assuming they don't have defective gears so no ratio choice etc). You jump on a bike and start pedalling. When you build up speed and your legs are going round uncomfortably fast, you change up a gear to slow your legs down. You don't think "I'm not up to 90 RPM yet, so I'll keep in this low gear"! Ask yourself, why would anyone deliberately pedal at a speed they find tiring/difficult to sustain? You might as well say that the most efficient speed for humans to walk at is 4 mph. It may well be for someone like me close to 6ft with long legs but it won't be for someone who is 5ft 2in and short legs to match.


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I can't see how you can make a generalised statement like that. It's like saying car engines are most efficient at a particular RPM. In reality, how efficient any sort of engine is at a particular speed, mechanical or human, depends on how it was designed and made. Cyclists tend to ride at the cadence they find most efficient for themselves (assuming they don't have defective gears so no ratio choice etc). You jump on a bike and start pedalling. When you build up speed and your legs are going round uncomfortably fast, you change up a gear to slow your legs down. You don't think "I'm not up to 90 RPM yet, so I'll keep in this low gear"! Ask yourself, why would anyone deliberately pedal at a speed they find tiring/difficult to sustain? You might as well say that the most efficient speed for humans to walk at is 4 mph. It may well be for someone like me close to 6ft with long legs but it won't be for someone who is 5ft 2in and short legs to match.



https://www.bikecalculator.co.uk/cadencespeed.htm

Click on the calculate for gears tabs.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Apr 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> Fits All = Fitz Hall


Ah - I thought it was Cockney Rhyming Slang for F All!


----------



## MichaelW2 (3 Apr 2018)

I like to have a low gear for my worst case scenario, the steepest rough road I could possibly expect, with the luggage load I carry. I am not too bothered about the high end spinning out on big descents.

Any notion of "optimum cadence" needs to take into account the size of the rider, big legs being harder to shift than little legs, and the size of the cranks, big cranks having a longer circumference per rotation. Ideally big legs should be combined with long cranks and a slower rotation pushing bigger gears for optimum transfer of power from muscle to chain. Visa versa for little legs and short cranks, spinning rapidly.

The gear wars are similar to pixel wars where more is always better until it is not.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

MichaelW2 said:


> . I am not too bothered about the high end spinning out on big descents.......The gear wars are similar to pixel wars where more is always better until it is not.



No sane person is bothered about cadence on descents unless they are racers in a competition - if you've just slogged your guts out to get up a hill why the hell would you even want to pedal on the way down the other side when you can get gravity to do the job for you? That's why bikes have freewheel, so you can coast when you do not need to provide any motive power.
Adding pointless numbers of gears is just marketing hype gone mad. You know the "our bike sells at the same price point as bike X, but our bike has 27 gears and bike X only has 21, so you get 6 extra gears free with ours" nonsense. Half the bikes being sold today are all made in the same far-east factories and the only difference is the decals and the paint schemes and advertising. Many of the bikes themselves are virtually identical. They're a commodity like the washing powder that washes whiter than all it's competitors!
From my observations of a lot of local cyclists (admittedly mostly youths and short distance commuters on crappy BSO quality MTB's) is that a lot of them seem to ride everywhere in ONE gear, despite the fact that even the cheapest BSO will have at least 18 to choose from. They just pick a mid-range ratio and clatter along, varying their cadence rather than using the gears. The marketing men should sell them single speeds and increase their profit margins...


----------



## HLaB (9 Apr 2018)

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/product-news/campagnolo-12-speed-2-374356

Somebody will be along with 13 in a minute


----------



## winjim (9 Apr 2018)

User said:


> Fitz Hall


----------



## Siclo (10 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> why the hell would you even want to pedal on the way down the other side when you can get gravity to do the job for you?



To keep generating heat? Miles of descending with no pedalling can really strip the warmth from your muscles.


----------



## Randomnerd (10 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No sane person is bothered about cadence on descents unless they are racers in a competition


. I must be insane


Siclo said:


> To keep generating heat? Miles of descending with no pedalling can really strip the warmth from your muscles.


 ...when you thought it was warm enough for shorts.....
My gearing allows me to push downhill at a good cadence, which is one way to save energy for the next uphill in rolling country. I’m not racing, but I rarely freewheel any distance. On a long ride, pedalling all the ride helps keep rhythm and momentum, and is less tiring for me than cooling off and starting again. Horses for courses.


----------



## bpsmith (10 Apr 2018)

What’s the point of climbing a hill, if you can’t hammer it down the other side!?!


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Apr 2018)

Tim Hall said:


> A quick read of the summary doesn't seem to support your assertion that 90rpm is the optimum cadence for every single rider.
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that there's One True Cadence for every rider anyway, given that we're not identical to each other. I'm willing to be corrected though.


I didn't even know what cadence was until i started reading CC. I did however know that if I turn the pedals at a comfortable RPM and use the gears to maintain that RPM, then the ride is easier. I can't put a figure on my cadence and have no desire to, but it feels right for me therefore it cannot be wrong.


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Apr 2018)

bpsmith said:


> What’s the point of climbing a hill, if you can’t hammer it down the other side!?!


...or, what's the point of climbing a hill if you don't get a rest on the other side? The freewheeling is my reward for tackling a biggie


----------



## bpsmith (10 Apr 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> ...or, what's the point of climbing a hill if you don't get a rest on the other side? The freewheeling is my reward for tackling a biggie


Each to their own. I love the descents, the faster the better. If it’s more enjoyable for you to freewheel then that’s cool too.


----------



## poemcycle (11 Apr 2018)

gears are the key to life. when difficult change. gets me up most hills or would have to get off and push.


----------



## Alan O (11 Apr 2018)

poemcycle said:


> gears are the key to life. when difficult change. gets me up most hills or would have to get off and push.


Name and avatar, knowing the key to life's gears, haiku almost is.


----------

