# What's the point of having lots of gears? (21, 24, 27, etc)



## Thursday guy (30 Dec 2014)

As a beginner, I'm genuinely baffled. I've done a few test rides with bikes that have over 16 gears (so they all had two gear shifters on each side of the handle) and then I tried this bike http://www.evanscycles.com/products/hoy/shizuoka-000-2015-hybrid-bike-ec059169#features which only has 8 gears with only one chain ring (so it only had one gear shifter for the rear sprockets). Apparently there are many other bikes with that feature as well. 

I've found the 8 gear bike was far easier to shift up/down to match my speed and the road incline, it's almost the same as shifting gears 1-5 in a car, only with this bike it's 1-8. And with only one shifter, it was far simpler to operate. Whereas with a 21 gear bike for example, I would have to adjust both shifters, and there's the problem that if I start off on gear 1 on the chainrings shifter (left handlebar side) and progress along the gears (1-7) on the sprockets shifter (right handlebar side), after I've reached 7 on that, I would then need to move to gear 2 on the chainring shifter, but I would have to move the sprockets shifter all the way back to 1, otherwise there would be a big jump and the gear wouldn't match my speed. Is this not an issue for other people as well?

I can climb up steep hills and go really fast on the way down just as effectively as with the bikes which had 16, 21, 24 or 27 gears, so it seems to me that the cons outweigh the pros with bikes that have many gears - not that I see any pros. And from talking to the bike shop people, they mentioned that the bikes with many gears (with more than one chain ring) are more difficult for maintenance and are more prone to faults in its lifetime due simply to having more moving components - is there any truth to this? And also, because they have more than one chainring, isn't there the issue of bending the chain diagonally with certain gear combinations?


----------



## Drago (30 Dec 2014)

They're there to impress the chicks.


----------



## biggs682 (30 Dec 2014)

Drago said:


> They're there to impress the chicks.



now you tell me @Drago


----------



## Mo1959 (30 Dec 2014)

I think the main advantage of more gears is the smaller increments between them which should help riders maintain a good cadence over varying terrain. Personally, I'm like you and really enjoy riding my little Charge Grater 1 hybrid which also has a single chainring and 8 speed cassette. It seems to cover everything I need plus you can pick up a new chain and cassette for not much more than £20 and no front dérailleur to worry about.


----------



## Sharky (30 Dec 2014)

Much of what you say is true. There are lots on here that ride fixed or single speed and manage fine, including me. With 27 gears you get a lot of overlap, so you don't get as many as it sounds. What you do get is a very wide range to cope with serious climbs and fast tail wind descents.

Good luck with your chosen bike.
Keith


----------



## Thursday guy (30 Dec 2014)

Sharky said:


> Much of what you say is true. There are lots on here that ride fixed or single speed and manage fine, including me. With 27 gears you get a lot of overlap, so you don't get as many as it sounds. W*hat you do get is a very wide range to cope with serious climbs and fast tail wind descents.*
> 
> Good luck with your chosen bike.
> Keith



So 'fixed/single' speed is proper name for a bike with one chainring?

I don't understand your last bit, surely for the toughest climb, you would just use for lowest gear, why do you need a wide range of gears?


----------



## screenman (30 Dec 2014)

Choice, a wonderful thing to have.


----------



## Markymark (30 Dec 2014)

There's lots of overlap. You also do want to cross over the chain. 

I use big at ftont on flat and get 4-8 at rear for fine adjustment. 

If on steep climb I switch to middle on ftont and use 3-6 on rear. 

If clinbing a wall use small at ftont.


----------



## vickster (30 Dec 2014)

Thursday guy said:


> So 'fixed/single' speed is proper name for a bike with one chainring?
> 
> I don't understand your last bit, surely for the toughest climb, you would just use for lowest gear, why do you need a wide range of gears?


One chainring and only one sprocket on the back...one gear! (or for fixed, no freewheeling possible)


----------



## mustang1 (30 Dec 2014)

My dad says three gears are enough. A friend of mine (of similar vintage as my dad) also says three gears are enough. When they ask me how many gears I have (20) they say that's too many gears. So I tell them 3 gears are too many and one gear is enough. They argue with me why they need three gears and then they realise they just argued my own point for me. 
Edit: corrected typos


----------



## Thursday guy (30 Dec 2014)

vickster said:


> One chainring and only one sprocket on the back...one gear! (or for fixed, no freewheeling possible)


Oh, is there no proper name for bikes with one chainring and a couple of sprockets?


----------



## HLaB (30 Dec 2014)

The range of gears is more important IMO, ie a 28t for climbing, a 11 for sprinting. The more gears though the smoother you can transfer from one extreme to the other.


----------



## vickster (30 Dec 2014)

Thursday guy said:


> Oh, is there no proper name for bikes with one chainring and a couple of sprockets?


Charge call it 8 speed gearing on the Grater 1

http://www.chargebikes.com/grater/grater-1


----------



## screenman (30 Dec 2014)

There are a lot of different aspects to this old cycling lark, there are bikes for every occasion. You just got to start with what you think is best and then keep adding to the collection.


----------



## vickster (30 Dec 2014)

screenman said:


> There are a lot of different aspects to this old cycling lark, there are bikes for every occasion. You just got to start with what you think is best and then keep adding to the collection.


Oh how very true  (that said my 3 geared bikes all have the same gearing)


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Dec 2014)

Thursday guy said:


> Oh, is there no proper name for bikes with one chainring and a couple of sprockets?


I've never seen one, if you exclude those flip-flop wheels that single speeds can have (where, if you want to change gears, you take the wheel off and turn it round to use the cog on the non-drive side. Retension the chain and you're off again). In fact it hardly seems worth the bother of fixing a dérailleur to shift between only 2 gears. The first road bike I had was equipped with a single chainring and 5 speeds, which worked fine but the addition of a double chainring - a double clanger, as we called it - was a definite improvement, despite having to add a front changer. 

In practice, unless you're very strongly one-handed, having shifters on both sides is not more problem than having the windscreen wipers and indicator on different sides in a car. It's just that you use different chainrings for the general terrain ahead and use the cassette gears like the fine adjustment.


----------



## totallyfixed (30 Dec 2014)

I use a 75" gear for flat stuff 75" gear for climbing, 75" gear for downhill, 75" gear..............mmm I may be the wrong person to advise on this .


----------



## young Ed (30 Dec 2014)

i reckon it's all marketing, they have managed to sell people on that more gears is better so now if shimano can release a new 30 gear system they can rave about how much better it is than campagnolo's that only has 27 gears and then campag will make a new 33 gear system etc etc
Cheers Ed


----------



## winjim (30 Dec 2014)

For fast road cycling, you used to have make a choice between wide ratio (for hill climbing) and close ratio (to maintain cadence). Nowadays with 10 and 11 speed cassettes you can have the best of both worlds.


----------



## screenman (30 Dec 2014)

You reckon just marketing Ed, you are kidding us surely this time.


----------



## Crackle (30 Dec 2014)

HLaB said:


> The range of gears is more important IMO, ie a 28t for climbing, a 11 for sprinting. The more gears though the smoother you can transfer from one extreme to the other.


This: Think of it not in an incremental way but as a range which suits your riding and the terrain. The idea is not to use all your gears, though on occasion you might but to match the gear range to you and to what you are doing and as said, some people like small incremental changes so that they can keep an even cadence as the road and conditions change. Others like to keep things simpler. All ways are valid.


----------



## screenman (30 Dec 2014)

vickster said:


> Oh how very true  (that said my 3 geared bikes all have the same gearing)



Blimey, none of my 5 are anything like. Could be mine have a larger age gap.


----------



## screenman (30 Dec 2014)

After driving my car the wife's with only 5 gears seems one short.


----------



## vickster (30 Dec 2014)

Reverse not working?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (31 Dec 2014)

Thursday guy said:


> As a beginner, I'm genuinely baffled. I've done a few test rides with bikes that have over 16 gears (so they all had two gear shifters on each side of the handle) and then I tried this bike http://www.evanscycles.com/products/hoy/shizuoka-000-2015-hybrid-bike-ec059169#features which only has 8 gears with only one chain ring (so it only had one gear shifter for the rear sprockets). Apparently there are many other bikes with that feature as well.
> 
> I've found the 8 gear bike was far easier to shift up/down to match my speed and the road incline, it's almost the same as shifting gears 1-5 in a car, only with this bike it's 1-8. And with only one shifter, it was far simpler to operate. Whereas with a 21 gear bike for example, I would have to adjust both shifters, and there's the problem that if I start off on gear 1 on the chainrings shifter (left handlebar side) and progress along the gears (1-7) on the sprockets shifter (right handlebar side), after I've reached 7 on that, I would then need to move to gear 2 on the chainring shifter, but I would have to move the sprockets shifter all the way back to 1, otherwise there would be a big jump and the gear wouldn't match my speed. Is this not an issue for other people as well?
> 
> *I can climb up steep hills *and go really fast on the way down *just as effectively* as with the bikes which had 16, 21, 24 or 27 gears, so it seems to me that the cons outweigh the pros with bikes that have many gears - not that I see any pros. And from talking to the bike shop people, they mentioned that the bikes with many gears (with more than one chain ring) are more difficult for maintenance and are more prone to faults in its lifetime due simply to having more moving components - is there any truth to this? And also, because they have more than one chainring, isn't there the issue of bending the chain diagonally with certain gear combinations?



Depends on what you call a steep hill.


----------



## young Ed (31 Dec 2014)

screenman said:


> You reckon just marketing Ed, you are kidding us surely this time.


or at least I PERSONALLY don't find have a billion gears necessary and could quite happily ride with 3, just push a bit harder going up the hills
then again if you are focused on maximum speed with minimal effort and climbing mount ventoux as if it was flat and still going at 70mph down hill then fair enough you may well want 30 gears. but not me personally
Cheers Ed


----------



## screenman (31 Dec 2014)

young Ed said:


> or at least I PERSONALLY don't find have a billion gears necessary and could quite happily ride with 3, just push a bit harder going up the hills
> then again if you are focused on maximum speed with minimal effort and climbing mount ventoux as if it was flat and still going at 70mph down hill then fair enough you may well want 30 gears. but not me personally
> Cheers Ed



You obviously want different from your bike than I do from some of mine. The again I would not want another Landie.


----------



## screenman (31 Dec 2014)

screenman said:


> You obviously want different from your bike than I do from some of mine. The again I would not want another Landie.



Would you be equally efficient on a 3 speed bike in say the Peaks as you would a 20 speed compact?

Horses for courses and all that.


----------



## bpsmith (31 Dec 2014)

Have you ridden anything with 2 or more chainrings @Thursday guy ?

If you're shifting from 1-7 on the cassette and then shift the chainring from 1-2, followed by going back to 1 on the cassette "to keep the gear right for your speed" then it doesn't sound like you have. This is not how it works.

Depending on your equipment, you will usually change from 1-2 on the chainring and then drop back 2 gears on the cassette to get to the next logical gear or vice versa.


----------



## young Ed (31 Dec 2014)

screenman said:


> You obviously want different from your bike than I do from some of mine. The again I would not want another Landie.


well there we go, just a case of what each person wants from their bike or what ever
i know mainly people that would rather be dead than in a landrover but would love to be in a Bentley or Lamborghini or what ever, i wouldn't dream of owning such a thing...... alright maybe an incredibly old one just to restore and then sit in the garage
for me an old beat up landrover that seems on the verge of death is my dream! 
Cheers Ed


----------



## Arrowfoot (31 Dec 2014)

young Ed said:


> i reckon it's all marketing, they have managed to sell people on that more gears is better so now if shimano can release a new 30 gear system they can rave about how much better it is than campagnolo's that only has 27 gears and then campag will make a new 33 gear system etc etc
> Cheers Ed



Just as we moved from manual to auto transmission for cars, the desire to have smooth shift to accommodate varying terrain while maintaining cadence called for more gears. Shimano invention of indexing led to this progression. Its however good to see development work where numbers are being reduced and still maintain that smoothness.


----------



## screenman (31 Dec 2014)

In auto boxes the numbers are going up. Seems odd a old guy like me who grew up with 3speed at best and rod brakes, would support more gear selection.


----------



## young Ed (31 Dec 2014)

Arrowfoot said:


> Just as we moved from manual to auto transmission for cars, the desire to have smooth shift to accommodate varying terrain while maintaining cadence called for more gears. Shimano invention of indexing led to this progression. Its however good to see development work where numbers are being reduced and still maintain that smoothness.


again many people may like automatic cars for there ease of driving and indexing gears similarly for their ease use but i will never have an automatic car as i just wouldn't trust it and especially when off road and logging etc and when towing heavy trailers

i admit though i do use indexing gears as i do like my modern shimano 105 
Cheers Ed


----------



## screenman (31 Dec 2014)

Although I drive a manual now, the next will likely be a 9 speed auto.

A lot of tractors now are auto I think, the Fendt having CVT I could be wrong.


----------



## jefmcg (31 Dec 2014)

winjim said:


> For fast road cycling, you used to have make a choice between wide ratio (for hill climbing) and close ratio (to maintain cadence). Nowadays with 10 and 11 speed cassettes you can have the best of both worlds.


but 11 is better.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o


----------



## winjim (31 Dec 2014)

jefmcg said:


> but 11 is better.


http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/can-my-wheels-and-frame-take-11-speed.169262/#post-3384622


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (31 Dec 2014)

A lot of mountain bikers now use 1x9/10/11. Simply because huge range cassettes are available more readily with smaller gaps.

If your not a racer then the op's point is a very good one and maybe young ed's right.


----------



## young Ed (31 Dec 2014)

bromptonfb said:


> and maybe young ed's right.


how ever much you hate to admit it 
Cheers Ed


----------



## sutts (31 Dec 2014)

I only ever use one chainring and I too have wondered why I have all of these gears! That said, I live in a flat part of the country and mounting a pavement is like a hill to me...


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2014)

I suspect the sweet spot for tourers (rather than racers) is 5 to 7 gears, where there's a good range and the steps between gears aren't huge. More than that and you can waste effort searching for the "right" gear, or getting lost in the controls. Less than that and you don't have a great range, so have to choose between climbing/starting-power and cruising/top-speed

Even with 5, the chain is being flexed diagonally as you shift between rear cogs. The simple answer is a hub gear and thicker chain ;-)


----------



## winjim (31 Dec 2014)

Don't forget, with Campagnolo Ultrashift you can now shift multiple sprockets up and down, making your 11 speed cassette behave exactly like a 5 speed, for that retro feel.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (31 Dec 2014)

mjray said:


> I suspect the sweet spot for tourers (rather than racers) is 5 to 7 gears, where there's a good range and the steps between gears aren't huge. More than that and you can waste effort searching for the "right" gear, or getting lost in the controls. Less than that and you don't have a great range, so have to choose between climbing/starting-power and cruising/top-speed
> 
> Even with 5, the chain is being flexed diagonally as you shift between rear cogs. The simple answer is a hub gear and thicker chain ;-)



Does anyone really _search_ for the right gear?

I have two ranges of gears to choose from (46/34) - without any real thought I'll select the right chainring for the terrain. 46 for standard hilly and 34 for very hilly (not really any other choice where I live). On a 20-30 mile ride I'll maybe shift chainrings 2 or 3 times tops. So not much searching thought & effort required there.

Rest of the time I just zip up and down the cassette as required - again it's just a reflexive 'do' rather than thinking and searching.


----------



## Mo1959 (31 Dec 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Does anyone really _search_ for the right gear?


I don't give it much thought at all. Only time I get worried is when I don't have one more lower one. Lol


----------



## SpokeyDokey (31 Dec 2014)

Mo1959 said:


> I don't give it much thought at all. Only time I get worried is when I don't have one more lower one. Lol



Yup - it's pretty elusive that even lower gear!


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Dec 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Does anyone really _search_ for the right gear?
> 
> ...



When i was new to having 21 gears, yes, all the time.


----------



## Mo1959 (31 Dec 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Yup - it's pretty elusive that even lower gear!


Yep, I think it will soon be time to think about a 30 or 32 tooth on the back for me


----------



## Sharky (31 Dec 2014)

Thursday guy said:


> So 'fixed/single' speed is proper name for a bike with one chainring?
> 
> I don't understand your last bit, surely for the toughest climb, you would just use for lowest gear, why do you need a wide range of gears?



A wide range of gears is to cater for crawling up a steep hill at less than 4mph and going down the other side at over 40mph. Multiple gears help you to keep a comfortable pedal cadence regardless of speed.


----------



## KneesUp (31 Dec 2014)

It was quite normal for 'sports bikes' in the 80s and 90s to have 10 gears - a five speed block and two chainrings. Of course this had some duplication, whereby, for example, the smaller chainring and one of the smaller cogs at the back would produce almost the same gear ratio as the larger chainring with one of the larger cogs at the back - so in effect you had 7 or 8 gear ratios like the bike you tried. The only difference now is that all 8 are on one cassette so you only need one chainring.

That works perfectly well if you live somewhere flat, undulating or not too hilly, and/or if you don't carry much luggage. When I had such a bike in Manchester I never felt the need for any more gears. When I took the same bike to Wales I really wanted some lower gears, and I would have liked a higher one too, but I wouldn't have wanted to have bigger gaps between the middle gears. I currently ride 21 gears somewhere quite hilly and although my bike is slightly under-geared (i.e. I don't use the lowest few but I can't pedal fast enough downhill) that seems to be enough (I just need bigger chainrings)


----------



## Thursday guy (31 Dec 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Depends on what you call a steep hill.



I would say the hill I was cycling in is around 7 degrees. Not the steepest, but the thing is that I found that at the lowest gears on both 8 gear and 21 gear bikes, they 'felt' the same in terms of how difficult it was to pedal. I'm not entirely sure, but that would suggest that for inclines even higher, there would be no difference between the bikes is there?


----------



## iggibizzle (31 Dec 2014)

The smallest gear on my 7speed elswick is about the same as 4th on smaller ring on other bikes I've found. Had no choice when faced with a hill but to suffer at 1st. But now glad of it. Fly up them while people used to having more spin away at a snails pace. Wouldn't mind another higher gear tho. Find myself spinning out on long flat roads.


----------



## Thursday guy (31 Dec 2014)

bpsmith said:


> Have you ridden anything with 2 or more chainrings @Thursday guy ?
> 
> If you're shifting from 1-7 on the cassette and then shift the chainring from 1-2, followed by going back to 1 on the cassette "to keep the gear right for your speed" then it doesn't sound like you have. This is not how it works.
> 
> Depending on your equipment, you will usually change from 1-2 on the chainring and then drop back 2 gears on the cassette to get to the next logical gear or vice versa.



Yeah the 21 gear bike I rode has 3 chainrings. So if I go from 1 to 2 on the chainring, I drop from a 7 to a 5 on the cassette? Why do you only drop back 2 gears on the cassette? (this is the sprockets shifter, right?)

Either way though, there's still the extra fuss of changing one shifter and then having to change the other one.


----------



## Thursday guy (31 Dec 2014)

iggibizzle said:


> The smallest gear on my 7speed elswick is about the same as 4th on smaller ring on other bikes I've found. Had no choice when faced with a hill but to suffer at 1st. But now glad of it. Fly up them while people used to having more spin away at a snails pace. Wouldn't mind another higher gear tho. Find myself spinning out on long flat roads.



Are you saying that the lowest gear on your 7speed elswick is not quite as low as the others, meaning that it was tougher to pedal on an uphill climb?

I don't understand why you're now able to fly up them while other people with 21/24/27 gear bikes spin away at snail pace? If its tougher to pedal, wouldn't you be even slower than the other people?


----------



## screenman (31 Dec 2014)

What type of cycling do you intend to do? I only ride to keep fit, never to commute, nor tour, or even day trips.

A 2 hour ride of say 35 miles twice a week with maybe a shorter fast one thrown in is my style now Len down the road rides his bike at 10mph for 3 miles along the Sustrans route to the pub 3 times a week.

Different horses, I would suggest that you do not buy anything that you feel is complicated, as this may be enough to put you off riding it.


----------



## iggibizzle (31 Dec 2014)

Because I'm used to going up in a higher gear compared to them. They are only used to low low gears. So I can go faster up the hills. Hurts tho!! But then where is the challenge if it doesn't


----------



## bpsmith (31 Dec 2014)

Thursday guy said:


> Yeah the 21 gear bike I rode has 3 chainrings. So if I go from 1 to 2 on the chainring, I drop from a 7 to a 5 on the cassette? Why do you only drop back 2 gears on the cassette? (this is the sprockets shifter, right?)
> 
> Either way though, there's still the extra fuss of changing one shifter and then having to change the other one.


Chainring up front, cassette at the back.

Your dropping from 7 to 5, as you say, is 2 gears surely?

On my Winter bike with 34-50 up front and 11-28 it's actually 3 gears if I wanted to naturally step up by only 1 gear, but I swap chainrings by judging the terrain ahead and only change 2 gears usually and therefore step up or down 2 gears. This is usually on the lead up to a steeper climb, so that I am already getting my cadence right for heart rate to adjust, before dropping further gears as the climb gets steeper. It certainly works better than leaving it until your desperate to get the lower gear ratios and putting loads of strain on body and bike.

It sounds complicated, but it is second nature. I flick the right shifter twice and the left shifter once shortly after. Other way round works too, it's that quick.

My 105 setup equates to:

34 front and 14 back is a ratio of 2.43. 59 front and 19 back is a ratio of 2.63. Hence 3 gears changed and 1 gear step up. I just go from 14 to 17 though and get a 2 gear step up.

I suspect that those who think it's overkill are looking at it wrong. It's not the total gears that matters, it's the range. By have a single chainring, you miss out on the highest and lowest gears.

Try going up the 20% hill we did yesterday in South Wales using 3 gears...


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2014)

I could go up with 3 gears... but I'd pick a low 3! Have I mentioned I lived at the foot of a 25% for 6 years? You can do Ventoux on a London hire bike...


MontyVeda said:


> When i was new to having 21 gears, yes, all the time.


Don't even need to be new: it's not unusual for me to forget I'm riding the 3x7 instead of the 1x6 or 3 speed (especially if I rode them last) and make a Horlicks of a gear change... that's what I meant by getting lost.

Searching is when you're convinced there's an ideal gear for the conditions lurking in there somewhere to keep you near a comfy 90 cadence and keep shifting up and down to find it, slowing yourself down as you ease off to shift, instead of just getting on with mashing or spinning as you would on a simpler bike.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

@Thursday guy just use them, you will get used to them, I have a triple 10sp, with plenty of range high to low gears, the way I have it set up, I changed the shifters in July from a 9sp rear to 10sp and done nearly 3,000 miles without any real hassle, other than making sure the cables are clean, I set it it all up myself and being a 10sp triple is supposedly the most trickiest to set, it's all B.S. aimed at making you buy the latest gear (which the compact double is favourite at the moment and it a dogs boll*** of a set up, well set up with a 34th ring it is), a 38-40th front ring and a good range on the back will give you plenty of scope on a single chainring

And Happy New Year.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

How many inches is your lowest gear on one bike and how many on the other?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> Yeah the 21 gear bike I rode has 3 chainrings. So if I go from 1 to 2 on the chainring, I drop from a 7 to a 5 on the cassette? Why do you only drop back 2 gears on the cassette? (this is the sprockets shifter, right?)
> 
> Either way though, there's still the extra fuss of changing one shifter and then having to change the other one.


To discover why, you would have to objectively ride a modern 20/22 or 30 speed road bike and try it without the prejudice of "why so many gears"


----------



## xzenonuk (1 Jan 2015)

i pretty much went from a mtb with 18 to one with 27, i seem to have found my knack with the 27 now, preferred gears ect i think the biggest improvement over the 18 is the ability for having the smaller increments between gear changes.

saying that unless im knackered on the way back from a ride ill take the steepest hills at no lower than 5th gear, then 10 and 12 for basic cruising which goes up to 18 i think switching to the biggest ring on front then if i get speed going from there ill run through the rest of the gears on the rear derailuer till i slow down.

so not actually using all 27 but i never used all 18 on my old bike either, just found ones i like for different situations and go between them pretty much while mantaining the speed i want.

oh my old 18 gear bike topped out around 20 mph, new one with 27 is noticeably faster eg 32.4 mph on downhills and just had much thinner less grippy tires fitted so that should increase


----------



## Ian193 (1 Jan 2015)

I have a 50/34 chainset with an 12/25 cassette and hardly ever use the 34 ring


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Ian193 said:


> I have a 50/34 chainset with an 12/25 cassette and hardly ever use the 34 ring



Does that tell us you cycle in the flat lands, or you are a better rider than Froomie and the suchlike who do use the 34.


----------



## Ian193 (1 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> Does that tell us you cycle in the flat lands, or you are a better rider than Froomie and the suchlike who do use the 34.



I can get up the hills round here on 50/25 just about


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Ian193 said:


> I can get up the hills round here on 50/25 just about



Maybe if you used the 34 you might get a few more KOMs.


----------



## Mo1959 (1 Jan 2015)

Ian193 said:


> I can get up the hills round here on 50/25 just about


...........so you're cross chaining? Your drivetrain will wear out pretty quickly if you continue to use that combination.


----------



## bpsmith (1 Jan 2015)

Struggling up a hill in the big ring, just for the sake of it, makes no sense.


----------



## Cubist (1 Jan 2015)

Yeah, a horses for courses gearing debate with the obligatory "quads of steel " willy-waving addition. 

I am an old fat knacker living in the Pennines. My road bike is 50/34 with an 11-32 11 speed. My bridleway/ XC bike is 38/24 with an 11-34 10 speed, my trail bike is 1x10 with a front 32 and 11-42 cassette. I have been known to get off and push. Do I win a zimmer?


----------



## Mo1959 (1 Jan 2015)

Cubist said:


> Yeah, a horses for courses gearing debate with the obligatory "quads of steel " willy-waving addition.
> 
> I am an old fat knacker living in the Pennines. My road bike is 50/34 with an 11-32 11 speed. My bridleway/ XC bike is 38/24 with an 11-34 10 speed, my trail bike is 1x10 with a front 32 and 11-42 cassette. Do I win a zimmer?


Sounds good to me.....I am already thinking about having to go from 28 to 30 or even 32 on the rear of my road bike.


----------



## phantasmagoriana (1 Jan 2015)

My road bike has a 50x39x30 triple with a 12-30 cassette (30 gears) and I use them all - if I'm using gears, I want to have a decent range available!


----------



## totallyfixed (1 Jan 2015)

[bear in mind this is post NYE] @Thursday guy, do not listen to the heresy and misinformation you are being inundated with because it sounds to me that all this talk of gears is complicating things for you. An easy trap fall into, I see loads of folk riding flat roads with gears, they seem to be catching on somewhat, much to my surprise. Anyway, man up and ride fixed, it will make you smile more than anything else you will ever ride on two wheels.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

I have had a few fixed, not now though. One minute 12mph and over geared, the next 30mph and under geared.

I would say everyone should try a single speed and a fixed at some point, in fact try as many different bikes as you can, until you find the one that suits the type of cycling you want to do.


----------



## atbman (1 Jan 2015)

Drago said:


> They're there to impress the chicks.


 
Absolutely Drago. I rmember, back in the day, when I went from what was then called "5 speed" to "Ten speed", my pulling power went through the roof, thereby demonstrating the technical knowledge of the average girl


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

Mo1959 said:


> Yep, I think it will soon be time to think about a 30 or 32 tooth on the back for me



@Mo1959

Well I've recently fitted a 30 'out back' but have yet to ride the thing due to illness/weather.

I am expecting great things from the the dinner plate sized blighter but I fear I will ultimately be disappointed.

Whoever said gravity is the 'weak force' was off their trolley.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> I would say the hill I was cycling in is around 7 degrees. Not the steepest, but the thing is that I found that at the lowest gears on both 8 gear and 21 gear bikes, they 'felt' the same in terms of how difficult it was to pedal. I'm not entirely sure, but that would suggest that for inclines even higher, there would be no difference between the bikes is there?



They'll only ever feel the same if you have exactly the same gearing/tyre size/wheel size/crank size etc on both bikes. Even with the same gear inches different combinations of front/rear will feel different - you can move the same distance by spinning a small ring or grinding a big ring.

I think the moot point is that any bike first and foremost needs to have the lowest and highest gear that you will require.

After that it's your choice as to whether or not you are happy with the size of the jumps between the gears


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Struggling up a hill in the big ring, just for the sake of it, makes no sense.


It's maybe a velominati thing. Ya know Rule 5 and all that bollox

Because, there are people who believe in "the rules"


----------



## Mo1959 (1 Jan 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It's maybe a velominati thing. Ya know Rule 5 and all that bollox
> 
> Because, there are people who believe in "the rules"


Lol.........I keep forgetting to read them. That will be why I'm sitting here all cosy when it is peeing down outside!


----------



## Tigerbiten (1 Jan 2015)

I agree that it's a question of how big a range do you want/need between first gear and top gear and how big a jump do you want between the gears.
I've always tried to get the maximum range with the minimum gap.
At the moment I've 24 unique gears with roughly 14% increase between each gear.
That give me the range I want and almost the correct gaps between the gears for me.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> They'll only ever feel the same if you have exactly the same gearing/tyre size/wheel size/crank size etc on both bikes. Even with the same gear inches different combinations of front/rear will feel different - you can move the same distance by spinning a small ring or grinding a big ring.


Not so, the same gear inch will travel the same distance per rotation of the crank.



Ian193 said:


> I can get up the hills round here on 50/25 just about



Bad idea.



screenman said:


> Does that tell us you cycle in the flat lands, or you are a better rider than Froomie and the suchlike who do use the 34.



Not sure many pros ride on a 34th front.



phantasmagoriana said:


> My road bike has a 50x39x30 triple with a 12-30 cassette (30 gears) and I use them all - if I'm using gears, I want to have a decent range available!



Try using a 26/38/50 front set up with a 12-25, 27.6-110.4" on25c tyres compared with you 26.5-110." you will have a much closer rear set up, with much the same low gear, less metal work as the cassette is smaller as are the inner and middle ring, and the chain will be a few links shorter.


----------



## bpsmith (1 Jan 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It's maybe a velominati thing. Ya know Rule 5 and all that bollox
> 
> Because, there are people who believe in "the rules"


I like Rule 43, personally.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

Tigerbiten said:


> I agree that it's a question of how big a range do you want/need between first gear and top gear and how big a jump do you want between the gears.
> I've always tried to get the maximum range with the minimum gap.
> At the moment I've 24 unique gears with roughly 14% increase between each gear.
> That give me the range I want and almost the correct gaps between the gears for me.



My front is 46% inner to middle and 32 to the outer, on the rear starting from the 12th 8,8,7,7,6,12,11,14,13%
You can see why i don't like the 17-19 jump, I am toying with the idea of a 12-23, but it cost really that is preventing me, that would give me a 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 with range of 30-110" pretty much the same as 30/39/50 and a 12-27 but much closer on the low end.


----------



## CharlesF (1 Jan 2015)

Being older than a MAMIL, in summer, I went from 11-30 to 11-32 and I am now sourcing parts to convert my compact 50-34 compact to a 50-39-30 triple to get a great granny gear


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Not so, the same gear inch will travel the same distance per rotation of the crank.



@Nigelnaturist

I think you may have mis-interpreted what I have said Nigel? Or maybe I have not made my point clearly?

It is perfectly possible to have the same amount of gear inches with different front/rear combinations. And thus for the same value of gear inches you could be spinning or grinding.

Or am I misunderstanding gear inches and should have just stuck with ratios, distance travelled or whatever?


----------



## Tigerbiten (1 Jan 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Not so, the same gear inch will travel the same distance per rotation of the crank.


But different size cranks/chainrings/sprockets/wheels all alter how hard you have to work even though it's the same size gear.


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> How many inches is your lowest gear on one bike and how many on the other?


sorry I don't understand what you're asking for


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Nigel, the size of the inner ring depends on the terrain, I remember Froomie saying he uses a 34. Or at least the equivalent of. You will be surprised how low they go.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> sorry I don't understand what you're asking for



1st on one bike is going to be different to 1st on the other.

Google "gear inches cycling" you will find more info than I can write.


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> To discover why, you would have to objectively ride a modern 20/22 or 30 speed road bike and try it without the prejudice of "why so many gears"



Trust me, there's not prejudice from me. As a beginner, I'm just confused by the need for so many gears, because I've ridden on both 21 gear and 8 gear bikes on flat and uphlll terrain, and I genuinely can't notice the advantages that the 21 gear bike has over the 8 gear bike.


----------



## Tigerbiten (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> Trust me, there's not prejudice from me. As a beginner, I'm just confused by the need for so many gears, because I've ridden on both 21 gear and 8 gear bikes on flat and uphill terrain, and I genuinely can't notice the advantages that the 21 gear bike has over the 8 gear bike.


As you get more experience you will find it's more efficient to spin your legs at one speed.
It's normally somewhere around 70-90 RPM range.
By having more gears close together, it's easier to keep your legs at your preferred cadence, which will mean you can go further for the same effort.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> Nigel, the size of the inner ring depends on the terrain, I remember Froomie saying he uses a 34. Or at least the equivalent of. You will be surprised how low they go.


When climbing steep hills or long ascents to keep cadence up, I know how it works.
I know a 34/50 set up for wouldn't work, as I would be on the extremes of the cassette, where as on my triple I have a very straight chain line, middle 38th 16/17 on the rear gives me 59.2-62.9" my average last year was 61.41" average speed 15.33mph average cad 84rpm, 6050 miles with 227228ft gain, its not hilly here abouts but a couple of short steepish climbs, most riding is done on the 38th as I have full range of the rear gears, the 26th does get used to keep cad up on longer climbs as it gives a range of 25.5-49.2" that is usable so at 90rpm 6.83-13.18mph, but short ones I tend to be out of the saddle. The outer ring does get used, the disadvantage of the 38th middle is lack of inches going down slight inclines as at 90rpm its 9.99-22.47mph I can spin it upto 105rpm and 26.22mph but it not ideal for me. 



Tigerbiten said:


> But different size cranks/chainrings/sprockets/wheels all alter how hard you have to work even though it's the same size gear.



Cranks only effect the leverage not the gear", the only other effect would be size/make/tread of tyres, if a particle combination gives 61" and another set up gives 61" its still 61", but on wider tyres it will be harder work as there is more resistance. 



SpokeyDokey said:


> @Nigelnaturist
> 
> I think you may have mis-interpreted what I have said Nigel? Or maybe I have not made my point clearly?
> 
> ...



For a given road speed say 20mph you would need a 67.2" gear spinning at 100rpm, same speed at 80rpm you would need an 84" gear (assuming a standard road bike and 25c tyres), neither of which i can really do.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

My legs like 90 rpm on a ride my speed may vary from 5mph up to 35mph or even more. So to keep my cadence where I like it we have to have a variable.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Nigel, I was only replying to your bit about pro's with a 34.

I know you know what you are talking about.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> Trust me, there's not prejudice from me. As a beginner, I'm just confused by the need for so many gears, because I've ridden on both 21 gear and 8 gear bikes on flat and uphlll terrain, and I genuinely can't notice the advantages that the 21 gear bike has over the 8 gear bike.


You must be some sort of pro. What kind of riding are you doing?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> Trust me, there's not prejudice from me. As a beginner, I'm just confused by the need for so many gears, because I've ridden on both 21 gear and 8 gear bikes on flat and uphlll terrain, and I genuinely can't notice the advantages that the 21 gear bike has over the 8 gear bike.


as @Tigerbiten says the more gears (primarily on the rear) it gives you better options, take this example I had a 13/15/17/19/21/23/26 7sp when I started, I am looking at either a 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25 or a 12-23, if you have ever ridden into a headwind where one gear is too high and the other too low, this is where the closer grouping comes in really handy, the triple on the front gives a really useful range, as for there being redundancy it cobblers as the duplicate gears would be used when in the right range without the need to change front and rear, when I shift from front inner to middle I have to change down (up the cassette) about 3 gears to be in the same range, the shifters will do 2 in one sweep of the lever, (you get adapt at it) its a little close on the middle to outer (less ratio difference between them) usually 2.

I generally ride on the 38th and 21-13 on the rear, with options for conditions and terrain, I know which rear gears will wear first.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> *For a given road speed say 20mph you would need a 67.2" gear spinning at 100rpm, same speed at 80rpm you would need an 84" gear (assuming a standard road bike and 25c tyres),* neither of which i can really do.



Which is what I was getting at in my original post that you quoted.

You can move the same distance by either spinning or grinding (and all points in between).


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

Tigerbiten said:


> As you get more experience you will find it's more efficient to spin your legs at one speed.
> It's normally somewhere around 70-90 RPM range.
> By having more gears close together, it's easier to keep your legs at your preferred cadence, which will mean you can go further for the same effort.



ok fair enough, but what about the problem I mentioned in the first post where if you shift up a chainring (front deraileur), is it correct that you would have to move the sprockets shifter (back deraileur) all the way back to 1?


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Which is what I was getting at in my original post that you quoted.
> 
> You can move the same distance by either spinning or grinding (and all points in between).



But not by keeping the engine running at it's most efficient revs.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> ok fair enough, but what about the problem I mentioned in the first post where if you shift up a chainring (front deraileur), is it correct that you would have to move the sprockets shifter (back deraileur) all the way back to 1?



No.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> ok fair enough, but what about the problem I mentioned in the first post where if you shift up a chainring (front deraileur), is it correct that you would have to move the sprockets shifter (back deraileur) all the way back to 1?



No - that is not correct.

Better to think of having a number of ranges with multiple chainrings rather than expecting them to be linear.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> But not by keeping the engine running at it's most efficient revs.



For sure - although some people like to spin and others like to grind away irrespective of whether they are optimally efficient.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> ok fair enough, but what about the problem I mentioned in the first post where if you shift up a chainring (front deraileur), is it correct that you would have to move the sprockets shifter (back deraileur) all the way back to 1?


Only if to keep the same speed and cad if its the same gear ratio/inch, it is feasible to change the front and be in the right gear on the rear, though it practise this doesn't happen often, if the front rings are closer say 30/38 instead of 26/38 it would be more likely.

Chances are you would only change the front with a change in terrain.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> For sure - although some people like to spin and others like to grind away irrespective of whether they are optimally efficient.



But few of those like to do both.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> But few of those like to do both.


I can do both, I can spin and maintain 90 on this 1 1/2 mile 150ft climb, though only on a good day, or get out of the saddle and use a higher gear, all depends on mood ect......

http://www.strava.com/activities/170019185#4448009243


----------



## bpsmith (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> ok fair enough, but what about the problem I mentioned in the first post where if you shift up a chainring (front deraileur), is it correct that you would have to move the sprockets shifter (back deraileur) all the way back to 1?


If you read people's replies, then you would know that this was answered a fair number of posts back.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> If you read people's replies, then you would know that this was answered a fair number of posts back.


He's taken a position and is sticking to it


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You must be some sort of pro. What kind of riding are you doing?



I was doing some test rides the other day. It was just along some quiet residential roads, mostly flat, with a fairly steep hill on one end (abut 7 degrees). Maybe I wasn't setting the gears up properly on either of the bikes, but I did try to make sure that I selected the one which allowed me to pedal at a 'comfortable' rate, and I was able to do so on the 21 gear bikes and the 8 gear bike, on the flats and uphill as well. 

I do get what some people have said here, about the difference between each gear being smaller with a 21+ gear bike, so there should be fewer 'goldilocks' moments where you find yourself unable to sustain a comfortable pedal rate on any of the available gears. But I didn't have this problem when I was test riding the bikes, at least I didn't notice it.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I can do both, I can spin and maintain 90 on this 1 1/2 mile 150ft climb, though only on a good day, or get out of the saddle and use a higher gear, all depends on mood ect......
> 
> http://www.strava.com/activities/170019185#4448009243



So can I but the grinding bit is not so good for knees with arthritis.


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> No - that is not correct.
> 
> Better to think of having a number of ranges with multiple chainrings rather than expecting them to be linear.



I don't understand why wouldn't be linear if you increase/decrease your speed? 

I was under the impression that if you increase your speed while at chainwheel 1 sprockets 7, the next higher gear would be chainwheel 2 sprockets 1




bpsmith said:


> If you read people's replies, then you would know that this was answered a fair number of posts back.



Someone did try to explain it near the beginning, but I didn't understand it, hence why I'm asking again.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> I was doing some test rides the other day. It was just along some quiet residential roads, mostly flat, with a fairly steep hill on one end (abut 7 degrees). Maybe I wasn't setting the gears up properly on either of the bikes, but I did try to make sure that I selected the one which allowed me to pedal at a 'comfortable' rate, and I was able to do so on the 21 gear bikes and the 8 gear bike, on the flats and uphill as well.
> 
> I do get what some people have said here, about the difference between each gear being smaller with a 21+ gear bike, so there should be fewer 'goldilocks' moments where you find yourself unable to sustain a comfortable pedal rate on any of the available gears. But I didn't have this problem when I was test riding the bikes, at least I didn't notice it.


Your test ride area isn't really the best for testing gear ranges is it? I'm sure I could maintain the same speed on the same bit of road on any of my bikes, but inevitably in NI at some point there will be climbing so what's the best option? 

More gear ranges available


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

If you look at a gear chart like I tried to explain earlier, you will be able to work out how the combinations work. Or you could just experiment by pedalling and trying different combinations.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

@Thursday guy think of it this way if you want, each front chain ring is liner to itself with the rear cassette, but with different ranges for different terrains,


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> I was under the impression that if you increase your speed while at chainwheel 1 sprockets 7, the next higher gear would be chainwheel 2 sprockets 1


Why would you shift through the entire cassette? There's absolutely no reason to do so.



> Someone did try to explain it near the beginning, but I didn't understand it, hence why I'm asking again.


Try. You're too busy with numbers and not looking at numbers of gears and not how they would be utilised.


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Your test ride area isn't really the best for testing gear ranges is it? I'm sure I could maintain the same speed on the same bit of road on any of my bikes, but inevitably in NI at some point there will be climbing so what's the best option?
> 
> More gear ranges available



Probably not, but it was pretty much the typical commuter terrain - mostly flats, with some steepish hills. I'm not looking for a bike to compete in the tour de france.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> Probably not, but it was pretty much the typical commuter terrain - mostly flats, with some steepish hills.* I'm not looking for a bike to compete in the tour de france.*



That was a silly reply.

You've had a lot of advice on the thread so maybe now is the time to accept/reject it and go and make your purchasing decision.


----------



## bpsmith (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> I don't understand why wouldn't be linear if you increase/decrease your speed?
> 
> I was under the impression that if you increase your speed while at chainwheel 1 sprockets 7, the next higher gear would be chainwheel 2 sprockets 1
> 
> ...


That would have been me, but you never said that you didn't understand.

Its all about the gear ratios. My Winter bike setup has 34-50 chainring (front) and 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette (back). The ratios for my specific bike are therefore as follows:

34:11 - 3.09
34:12 - 2.83
34:13 - 2.62
34:14 - 2.43
34:15 - 2.27
34:17 - 2.00
34:19 - 1.79
34:21 - 1.62
34:24 - 1.42
34:28 - 1.21

50:11 - 4.55
50:12 - 4.17
50:13 - 3.85
50:14 - 3.57
50:15 - 3.33
50:17 - 2.94
50:19 - 2.63
50:21 - 2.38
50:24 - 2.08
50:28 - 1.79

So if I went from smallest gear 34:28, I would only need to go up 3 more gears to get to a ratio of 1.79, which is the same ratio as if I changed up on the front chainring and dropped to the smallest gear on the cassette. Do you follow?

Edit: hope so, as took ages to type on my iPhone!


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> That was a silly reply.
> 
> You've had a lot of advice on the thread so maybe now is the time to accept/reject it and go and make your purchasing decision.



It was a light hearted comment, jeez.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

@bpsmith or you could do this, in inches, assuning 700x25c







mine 






%is the change between rear gears, the lower the number the closer the gears.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

or maybe this will help


----------



## Thursday guy (1 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> That would have been me, but you never said that you didn't understand.
> 
> Its all about the gear ratios. My Winter bike setup has 34-50 chainring (front) and 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette (back). The ratios for my specific bike are therefore as follows:
> 
> ...



That's brilliant, thanks. I understand now.

by the way, the numbers for the chainring and the cassette are the number of teeths?


----------



## bpsmith (1 Jan 2015)

Indeed @Nigelnaturist. I kind of prefer using ratios tbh. Don't know why? Gear inches is probably better, but doesn't come as natural as ratio to me. Cheers for doing it though.


----------



## bpsmith (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> That's brilliant, thanks. I understand now.


No worries. That's all we are trying to do.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2015)

How can you have inches with s 700c tyre

All good fun.


----------



## winjim (1 Jan 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> or maybe this will help
> 
> View attachment 75790


Ye gods, what monstrous abomination is this? For the love of all that is holy, label your axes man!


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

@bpsmith easy one of two ways measure it or convert it. 
Same tables in ratios











These are 25c tyres.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

winjim said:


> Ye gods, what monstrous abomination is this? For the love of all that is holy, label your axes man!


As we are talking about front chain rings and rear sprockets anyone with any common sense would see which is which.
Its just a screen grab of the relavent information, the full table is a little complex as it includes gear inch, ratios, gear inch change and percentage change, along with the change on the front chanirings, also FD & RD difference and capacity needed for the RD, so its just easier to do a screen grab of the relevant info in context of the thread.


----------



## winjim (1 Jan 2015)

I meant the graph but yes, a healthy application of common sense should see you right.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Jan 2015)

winjim said:


> I meant the graph but yes, a healthy application of common sense should see you right.


Right got you.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (1 Jan 2015)

Thursday guy said:


> I'm not looking for a bike to compete in the tour de france.


Aye, but here comen in the concept of N+1 
I find my single speed more than adequate for the daily (flat) commute, can even go up some steep short hills. Love the semplicity of it, I'm lazy at changing gears.
My old banger 5 speed (I mostly run it single speed anyway, did I mention I'm lazy at changing gears?) allows me to ride up any hill there is in this town.
But my super duper low geared 27 speed triple tourer allows me to do long, hilly rides with my pals. Wasn't I half glad for the 1/1 granny gear on the Arran hills!


----------



## chrisuren (2 Jan 2015)

Slightly off topic, but having ridden a road bike for a few years, I feel incredibly ashamed to ask this, but quite often I hear people speaking about gears and they will say something like "He rides a 21/40" and I have literally no idea what they're talking about, I know it's something to do with the gears but I do not know what, could someone explain?


----------



## User16625 (2 Jan 2015)

I didnt read the huge OP. But to answer the question "What's the point of having lots of gears?"

Having more gears gives you much less of a jump of ratio between each gear change. This makes it much more likely to find a gear that suits you for any given circumstance (hills, wind etc)
.

Another possible answer is that more gears generally gives a wider range of ratios. This may not always be the case but sod pedantics. More gears means your much more likely to have an easier gear for going uphills. (ask for a triple!) More gears make going uphills easier.

Ideally: A triple will give you extra low ratios for climbing steep hills while also giving you those big fat gears for sprinting back down em. Perfect if your me.

Realistically: I have never maxed out my road bike which is a compact double (20 speed). I have hit 50mph on it. 50,34 I think it is. My mountain bike has a triple and its rather easy to max it out in top gear on one particular downhill. On both bikes I use the lowest ratio much more oftwn than I use the higher ones, you decide.....


----------



## User16625 (2 Jan 2015)

My bicycle has 20 gears, a bugatti veyron heas 7 gears and the russian rocket used as an alternative to the space shuttle has 0 gears. If you use these as examples of speed vs gears............and so on.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> That was a silly reply.



Not that silly. It seems like everyday there is someone asking which flimsy, light-weight bike designed for speed over comfort and durability they should spend a thousand pounds or more on simply to get to work.


----------



## bpsmith (2 Jan 2015)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I didnt read the huge OP. But to answer the question "What's the point of having lots of gears?"


So you didn't read the OP, but did you even read ANY of the thread?

If you had, you will know Everything that you said has already been said and you post is pretty pointless.

Read the thread, and definitely read the OP before posting eh?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (3 Jan 2015)

KneesUp said:


> Not that silly. It seems like everyday there is someone asking which flimsy, light-weight bike designed for speed over comfort and durability they should spend a thousand pounds or more on simply to get to work.



Was the TDF bit which the poster has now said was TIC - was not a comment on the subject matter of the thread.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (3 Jan 2015)

chrisuren said:


> Slightly off topic, but having ridden a road bike for a few years, I feel incredibly ashamed to ask this, but quite often I hear people speaking about gears and they will say something like "He rides a *21/40"* and I have literally no idea what they're talking about, I know it's something to do with the gears but I do not know what, could someone explain?


Not sure I understand that.
Inch refers to how far the wheel will rotate for one turn of the crank, or how far the bike will travel. a 26" gear i.e. a 30x30 on a typical road triple will travel 26" on 52x13 about 104" 
If you read that as 40x21 (usually the crank figure is first) that would be a front 40th with a 21th rear or a 50" gear


----------



## Tigerbiten (3 Jan 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Not sure I understand that.
> Inch refers to how far the wheel will rotate for one turn of the crank, or how far the bike will travel. a 26" gear i.e. a 30x30 on a typical road triple will travel 26" on 52x13 about 104"


Not correct.
Gear inches come from the Ordinary bike and is the based on diameter of the wheel.
So a 26" gear has the same size as a 26" wheel and will cover 26 x pi = 82" or almost 7' with one turn of the pedals.
The continental system is meters development and based on is how far you will go for one turn of the pedals.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Jan 2015)

chrisuren said:


> Slightly off topic, but having ridden a road bike for a few years, I feel incredibly ashamed to ask this, but quite often I hear people speaking about gears and they will say something like "He rides a 21/40" and I have literally no idea what they're talking about, I know it's something to do with the gears but I do not know what, could someone explain?




I may get shot down for this.

What I believe they are talking about is the teeth on the crank rings. The number of teeth on the crank rings and also the rear cassette make a huge difference to the bike.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (3 Jan 2015)

Tigerbiten said:


> Not correct.
> Gear inches come from the Ordinary bike and is the based on diameter of the wheel.
> So a 26" gear has the same size as a 26" wheel and will cover 26 x pi = 82" or almost 7' with one turn of the pedals.
> The continental system is meters development and based on is how far you will go for one turn of the pedals.


ok I was 22/7 wrong distance wise,


----------



## simongt (3 Jan 2015)

Some riders are easily seduced by the 'more gears, the more impressive the bike'. I don't buy into this idea although it appears to be the way some manufacturers are going. If you are using the bike in question for local riding, then you need a range, range not number, of gears to suit. If you're likely to travel and use said bike in different areas, e.g., Bath or the Peak District are very different to York or Cambridgeshire, then you'll need a wider range of gears. A lot also depends on the bike and its setup; light frame & fast tyres will obviously need fewer gears than mountain bike with 1.5" nobbies. And just to muddy the waters even further, there are some who prefer to push big ratios and others who prefer spinning smaller ratios. It's a very personal thing.


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2015)

I can do the same route 5 times and use different ratios on each ride. Wind we call it, sometimes 3mph and sometimes 30mph, sometimes coming from one direction another time the other, or even somewhere else. Seldom are 2 rides the same.


----------



## Andy_R (3 Jan 2015)

Wind...ohhhhh...colour me hateful.....I barstwead hate the furcoupling wind...here in County Durham I've been known on several occasions to have to use my gears to pedal DOWNHILL, cos of the buttocktruffilng cherfing wind. Think yourself lucky if you've only had to use gears to go uphill.....


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2015)

Andy_R said:


> Wind...ohhhhh...colour me hateful.....I barstwead hate the furcoupling wind...here in County Durham I've been known on several occasions to have to use my gears to pedal DOWNHILL, cos of the buttocktruffilng cherfing wind. Think yourself lucky if you've only had to use gears to go uphill.....



Hill. Come on you are going to have to remind me what they look like, all flat around here, well part from the Wolds that is, most people forget about them though.


----------



## mjr (3 Jan 2015)

You probably don't want massively different gear ranges depending on terrain... what flat lands lack in hills they gain in headwinds...


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2015)

mjray said:


> You probably don't want massively different gears depending on terrain... what flat lands lack in hills they gain in headwinds...



Is that talking from 26 years experience of cycling and racing in Lincolnshire. I like the fact I have a good range of gears on all my bikes. The more gears the more efficient the engine can be, in variable conditions


----------



## mjr (3 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> Is that talking from 26 years experience of cycling and racing in Lincolnshire. I like the fact I have a good range of gears on all my bikes. The more gears the more efficient the engine can be, in variable conditions


You've misunderstood. I've edited my post to clarify. Sorry.. 15 years in Norfolk, comparing with 6 in Somerset at the foot of a 25% ifit matters.


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2015)

The reason as I have said before a big selection I'd useful, is if like me you ate best at say 88rpm, but you speed varies from 8mph up to say 35mph without a good selection there will be times when you are over or under geared

Your post is clearer now, close ratio but large range, is I feel best with.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> The reason as I have said before a big selection I'd useful, is if like me you ate best at say 88rpm, but you speed varies from 8mph up to say 35mph without a good selection there will be times when you are over or under geared


Ha - I have done nearly 60 mph downhill round here, and been reduced to sub-2 mph on a few very steep climbs! I have triples on all my bikes and use all the 27 or 30 gears, and could do with a few more ...


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2015)

ColinJ said:


> Ha - I have done nearly 60 mph downhill round here, and been reduced to sub-2 mph on a few very steep climbs! I have triples on all my bikes and use all the 27 or 30 gears, and could do with a few more ...



But if you read some of the posts you only need a 3 speed, you and I must have it wrong.


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2015)

I suppose at then end of the day we or at least a lot of us use our bikes in different ways. If I jot poodles to the shop I would use maybe a 3 speed, but seeing as my cycling is, how do I put it, sporting style then I will use what I consider the best tool for that job.


----------



## sutts (3 Jan 2015)

chrisuren said:


> Slightly off topic, but having ridden a road bike for a few years, I feel incredibly ashamed to ask this, but quite often I hear people speaking about gears and they will say something like "He rides a 21/40" and I have literally no idea what they're talking about, I know it's something to do with the gears but I do not know what, could someone explain?



I shouldn't worry about it! I don't have a clue about 'cadence', 'gear ratios' or any of that stuff! I get on my bike and if it's too hard, I change down a gear, too easy, I change up a gear. I don't eat the right stuff, drink the right stuff, wear the right stuff...and I certainly don't do 'Strava' or any of that bullshit...but I do ride one hell of a lot of miles and I really enjoy it!!


----------



## screenman (4 Jan 2015)

sutts said:


> I shouldn't worry about it! I don't have a clue about 'cadence', 'gear ratios' or any of that stuff! I get on my bike and if it's too hard, I change down a gear, too easy, I change up a gear. I don't eat the right stuff, drink the right stuff, wear the right stuff...and I certainly don't do 'Strava' or any of that bullshit...but I do ride one hell of a lot of miles and I really enjoy it!!




I like a post like that, the only little thing that troubles me is, how do you know you would not enjoy it more with the added bits?


----------



## sutts (4 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> I like a post like that, the only little thing that troubles me is, how do you know you would not enjoy it more with the added bits?



Fair point! Maybe I would enjoy it even more...but I guess I am happy doing what I do! I'm not anti-trying it though, so maybe I will start doing it all the right way!

Today, I was out on my bike in the freezing cold and pouring rain with my 'Next' fur lined boots on (covered over with plastic bags)...yet I did 32 miles, not another cyclist was seen for the entire duration of the ride...I have it going on, let me tell ya!


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

I love it when people say that "it's not the number of gears that matters but the range!"

How on earth could you have a wide range of gears without having more than 3 of them!?!

As has been said multiple times already, having 20 or more gears means you have greater choice when it comes to differing elevation and/or wind conditions. More range surely equates to more gears?


----------



## screenman (4 Jan 2015)

You can have a wide ratio or a close ratio. So you could fit more or less gears into the same range.


----------



## mjr (4 Jan 2015)

@bpsmith A 7 speed hub and a 3x9 derailleur will both give you about 300% range. The 3x9 will give you more choice within that range but it ain't a clear win.

A 3 speed hub will usually give you about 190% range which isn't much less than the 212% range of the old ten speed (2x5) bikes that we used to ride. Maybe not quite as flexible but rideable. When I was riding a ten speed, I used to have a few favourite gears that I used most of the time: didn't anyone else?


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

I think of Range as being choice rather than simply the difference between one ratio and another ratio. If range is simply the latter, then an 11 speed 11-28 cassette would only be as good as a 2 speed 11-28 cassette, taking physically impossible issues out of the equation.

Wide or close ratio, the number of gears may still be the same depending on upper and lower parameters.

Yes, you could have a wider ratio and have less gears between 2 points than a closer ratio range, but that leaves more gaps in your range of available gears.


----------



## screenman (4 Jan 2015)

A range is the difference between the highest and lowest gears.


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

Nice edit @mjray. Could have sworn that you compared that 3 speed percentage to that of a 2x10 setup and suddenly it now says 2x5...

Anyway, I think Sheldon sums it up nicely:

http://sheldonbrown.com/gear-theory.html


----------



## mjr (4 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Nice edit @mjray. Could have sworn that you compared that 3 speed percentage to that of a 2x10 setup and suddenly it now says 2x5...


Yeah, sorry, getting late and drink has been taken. It did always say "ten speed" though!


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> A range is the difference between the highest and lowest gears.


A range is also a number of items in any given set.


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

mjray said:


> Yeah, sorry, getting late and drink has been taken. It did always say "ten speed" though!


A more than acceptable reason!


----------



## screenman (4 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> A range is also a number of items in any given set.




I am just trying to simplify things a bit, anyway who is talking about kitchen utensils.


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> I am just trying to simplify things a bit, anyway who is talking about kitchen utensils.


I was thinking of the number of models in the Defy range as it happens.


----------



## screenman (4 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I was thinking of the number of models in the Defy range as it happens.



You mean all those between the top and the bottom of the range.


----------



## bpsmith (4 Jan 2015)

screenman said:


> You mean all those between the top and the bottom of the range.


Yup. The Number of Models that make up the Range. Just like the Number of Gears that make up the Range.

I wasn't talking about the difference between the bottom and top of the range though.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (4 Jan 2015)

sutts said:


> I shouldn't worry about it! I don't have a clue about 'cadence', 'gear ratios' or any of that stuff! I get on my bike and if it's too hard, I change down a gear, too easy, I change up a gear. I don't eat the right stuff, drink the right stuff, wear the right stuff...and I certainly don't do *'Strava' or any of that bullshi*t...but I do ride one hell of a lot of miles and I really enjoy it!!


I do that B.S., though in all honest I am less keen on these days, I do keep meticulous records of my rides in my own database, but it only takes 5 mins or so, I just ride these days, 6-8,000 miles a year.

@Andy_R done that the having to cycle down hill bit.



simongt said:


> Some riders are easily seduced by the 'more gears, the more impressive the bike'. *I don't buy into this idea although it appears to be the way some manufacturers are going.* If you are using the bike in question for local riding, then you need a range, range not number, of gears to suit. If you're likely to travel and use said bike in different areas, e.g., Bath or the Peak District are very different to York or Cambridgeshire, then you'll need a wider range of gears. A lot also depends on the bike and its setup; light frame & fast tyres will obviously need fewer gears than mountain bike with 1.5" nobbies. And just to muddy the waters even further, there are some who prefer to push big ratios and others who prefer spinning smaller ratios. It's a very personal thing.



Its not a matter of the more gears the more impressive the bike, I ride a Viking that I have upgraded from 21 to 30 (being a triple) like @ColinJ much prefer them to doubles. I can gear it to cover a good range with a very *close* group of ratios, this is what more gears is about not range, I could gear a 3x7 with the same range as 3x10 (triple and rear gears) but because of the extra 3 gears I can go 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25 instead of 12-14-16-18-20-23-25 for example both would have the same range but the extra gears help no so much in climbing as you have the same range but in the abilities to spin in whatever the conditions are, if you have never ridden a close grouped cassette I suggest you do as you wouldn't want to ride a compact double again.
As for manufactures introducing more gears the opposite is true, there a fewer triple on the market than there used to be as Shimano have dropped the triple option on all but the lower to mid range, my 105 is 3x10 the new is 2x11 with no triple option as yet.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (4 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I love it when people say that "it's not the number of gears that matters but the range!"
> 
> How on earth could you have a wide range of gears without having more than 3 of them!?!
> 
> As has been said multiple times already, having 20 or more gears means you have greater choice when it comes to differing elevation and/or wind conditions. *More range surely equates to more gears?*


Not necessary, as I have just pointed out.


----------



## Tigerbiten (5 Jan 2015)

bpsmith said:


> How on earth could you have a wide range of gears without having more than 3 of them!?!


It's possible.
If my rear shifter cables freeze, which they have done in the past, then I'm left with only the 4 gears from the front which give me a range of 350%.
But then again my full range is around 3-4 time that of a standard bike at 1840%.


----------



## Yorksman (8 Jan 2015)

Commerically it is cheaper to produce and supply gears with a wide range even if the user only ever uses a portion of them. Different users in different terrains with different levels of fitness etc all could benefit from custom built gear systems, but the costs would be an awful lot more. So, we end up with stuff we don't need or use but in the long run, it is more affordable than having something to suit exactly.


----------



## bpsmith (8 Jan 2015)

But I use all of my gears depending on the climb or head wind, etc.

So much nicer having a range of gears with only a single tooth change in size for the higher gears and only 2 teeth difference towards the lower gears. I can ride at my natural cadence no matter what then. Would be grinding or spinning too high without the choice that I have quite often.


----------

