Gears

[bottombracket]

jimbo,
I strongly disagree with your response to Arch!

 

[jimboalee]

jimbo,
I strongly disagree with your response to Arch!

What is Arch trying to say?

Arch says "I don't give a toss"....

In that case, don't contribute.


Quiz of the day....

Here's a hill I've ridden up. I took a photo first just in case I woke up in hospital and didn't get another chance to take the photo.

For all the folks on here who think they know about gearing,,, for ten points,,,

"What length gear should the bike have had?"

and for a five point bonus,,,,

"What length gear did I use?"


Clues.
I was 180lb.
It's 25%.

 

[Arch]

What is Arch trying to say?

Arch says "I don't give a toss"....

In that case, don't contribute.

I don't give a toss about one specific aspect. I do give a toss about helping someone understand how to use their gears. I don't have to know about muscle make up to do that, but I do have to have cycled a bit. Which I have.

And that picture is all very impressive, well done. All I know is, I'd change down until I ran out of gears. And then, if necessary, walk. If I had to do it a lot, I'd maybe change my gears down to cope. But not knowing the size of my gears in inches or whatever makes no difference to whether I could actually get up it.

I have a very vague idea of the number of teeth on my various sprockets and chainrings - I only need to know when I'm speccing a bike, then I tend to forget the numbers. I just know what feels right. And all the people who's opinions I respect most (and yes, I know Mike Burrows too, lovely chap, pushed me up a few hills in France when I was tired), would be quite happy with that attitude I think.

 

[PpPete]

What is Arch trying to say?

Arch says "I don't give a toss"....

In that case, don't contribute.

Jimbo - it's not that anyone says you're wrong (who would dare??)
Just that sometimes your tone comes across as a little "curt"

Quiz of the day....
Here's a hill I've ridden up. I took a photo first just in case I woke up in hospital and didn't get another chance to take the photo.
For all the folks on here who think they know about gearing,,, for ten points,,,
"What length gear should the bike have had?"
and for a five point bonus,,,,
"What length gear did I use?"

Clues.
I was 180lb.
It's 25%.

Er.... I think I'd want a "bloody short one"

Go on then tell us the answer - we know you're dying to...




By the way....I'm definitely a slow twitch kind of person, but I much prefer spinning, if i'm pushing too high a gear the lactate builds up and I'm f**ked.

 

[jimboalee]

I don't give a toss about one specific aspect. I do give a toss about helping someone understand how to use their gears. I don't have to know about muscle make up to do that, but I do have to have cycled a bit. Which I have.

And that picture is all very impressive, well done. All I know is, I'd change down until I ran out of gears. And then, if necessary, walk. If I had to do it a lot, I'd maybe change my gears down to cope. But not knowing the size of my gears in inches or whatever makes no difference to whether I could actually get up it.

I have a very vague idea of the number of teeth on my various sprockets and chainrings - I only need to know when I'm speccing a bike, then I tend to forget the numbers. I just know what feels right. And all the people who's opinions I respect most (and yes, I know Mike Burrows too, lovely chap, pushed me up a few hills in France when I was tired), would be quite happy with that attitude I think.

Sorry Arch.

What I ought to say is,

Choosing gearing for a specific task, either climbing hills never seen before or on a bike with three or five gears, is still a 'dark art'.

Cadence, power capabilities and expected speeds are all interwoven to formulate a gearset which lets the rider complete the intended task or make the bike 'feel right'.

Bikes available OTP now have such a range of ratios, it makes all the calcs and testwork redundant ( except if one is commuting across San Francisco ).
BTW, the bike had a 30" lowest, 30 x 27, but I could have used a 21", 26 x 34 for that situation.

There are hills in the UK steeper than the photo, but they are climbed once in a blue moon by the majority of cyclists.
If there are folks who need to ride up 25% hills on their commute, they would be thinking of lower gearing and very soon purchase that kit. The big BUT is who is going to do the choosing? Trial and error seems to be the norm. Good LBS chaps can do the choosing but not explain how.

It is all fair and good to ride round on 'std' set-ups, I do it, and walk the bike up short very steep hills.

How many times have people on this forum asked "Triple or compact for sportives?" How can anyone answer without knowing the guy's physical capabilities, his natural cadence and the speed he intends to ride, along the flat and up the hills.

All the respondents say is "fit the lowest gears you can squeeze on the bike, mate", without considering all the variables. The guy finishes his sportive without walking and posts a big 'Thank you' to all the people who offered advice.
That's called 'more luck than judgement', or 'overkilling it'.

I give up now.

 

[Debian]

By the way....I'm definitely a slow twitch kind of person, but I much prefer spinning, if i'm pushing too high a gear the lactate builds up and I'm f**ked.

I don't really know anything about slow twitch and fast twitch muscles, never even heard of them until a few weeks ago.

All I know is that I used to think it was better to push hard rather than spin fast but no matter how hard I tried and how patient I was my leg muscles always eventually gave up in screaming agony .

When I decided to spin up hills instead I found I could tackle much more difficult hills easier, and keep going for longer.

Therefore, on that basis alone, and for the riding that I do, spinning is better than pushing, for me.

 

[potsy]

I don't give a toss about one specific aspect. I do give a toss about helping someone understand how to use their gears. I don't have to know about muscle make up to do that, but I do have to have cycled a bit. Which I have.

And that picture is all very impressive, well done. All I know is, I'd change down until I ran out of gears. And then, if necessary, walk. If I had to do it a lot, I'd maybe change my gears down to cope. But not knowing the size of my gears in inches or whatever makes no difference to whether I could actually get up it.

I have a very vague idea of the number of teeth on my various sprockets and chainrings - I only need to know when I'm speccing a bike, then I tend to forget the numbers. I just know what feels right. And all the people who's opinions I respect most (and yes, I know Mike Burrows too, lovely chap, pushed me up a few hills in France when I was tired), would be quite happy with that attitude I think.

18,000 posts and you don't know this yet shame on you Arch

 

[jimboalee]

I don't really know anything about slow twitch and fast twitch muscles, never even heard of them until a few weeks ago.

All I know is that I used to think it was better to push hard rather than spin fast but no matter how hard I tried and how patient I was my leg muscles always eventually gave up in screaming agony .

When I decided to spin up hills instead I found I could tackle much more difficult hills easier, and keep going for longer.

Therefore, on that basis alone, and for the riding that I do, spinning is better than pushing, for me.

While in San Francisco, I saw other cyclists climbing those 25% hills, which they did as part of their commute. Fast twitch strongmen.
Most of the other cyclists rode down the shallow grades and all the way round the Embarkadero ( flat as a pancake ) spinning like Lance. Slow twitchers.


The reason for this being the ratios the slow twitch spinners needed to climb the hills.
I didn't see many 22T rings and 36T sprockets on the same bike. This gives a 17" which is 50 rpm at 2.5 mph. 50 rpm is TOO slow for some individuals.

The slow twitch spinners in SF are lucky, they've got an alternative route. Similar chaps over here in the Lake District aren't so lucky.
What gearing do they use? Foot power and shoe leather, I expect.

 

[Debian]

Bikes available OTP now have such a range of ratios, it makes all the calcs and testwork redundant ( except if one is commuting across San Francisco ).
BTW, the bike had a 30" lowest, 30 x 27, but I could have used a 21", 26 x 34 for that situation.

There are hills in the UK steeper than the photo, but they are climbed once in a blue moon by the majority of cyclists.
If there are folks who need to ride up 25% hills on their commute, they would be thinking of lower gearing and very soon purchase that kit. The big BUT is who is going to do the choosing? Trial and error seems to be the norm. Good LBS chaps can do the choosing but not explain how.

It is all fair and good to ride round on 'std' set-ups, I do it, and walk the bike up short very steep hills.

How many times have people on this forum asked "Triple or compact for sportives?" How can anyone answer without knowing the guy's physical capabilities, his natural cadence and the speed he intends to ride, along the flat and up the hills.

All the respondents say is "fit the lowest gears you can squeeze on the bike, mate", without considering all the variables. The guy finishes his sportive without walking and posts a big 'Thank you' to all the people who offered advice.
That's called 'more luck than judgement', or 'overkilling it'.

I give up now.

Now you see, I haven't a clue what the bit in bold even means. Is 30" the length of chain pushed through per revolution of the chainwheel? I dunno, and to me it doesn't matter.

I just look at the cog combination when I buy a bike and if it looks "right" (purely subjective I know) then that'll do for me. I've never yet run out of low gears but I have, very occasionally run out of high gears. I rarely have to get off and walk, not for reasons of steepness but then I mainly ride off-road - I only ride on tarmac for commuting and shopping.

I wouldn't have the slightest knowledge about, or care about gear theory as pertaining to cycling, it simply has no relevance to me. If I decided my gears were "wrong" in some way then I'd go and buy a different set with more lows or highs or whatever it was that I felt I need.

I'm sure it's all very relevant to very competitive and pro riders but to me... {shrugs shoulders}....

 

[jimboalee]

Beats head against wall.

Here's a guy who says "I wouldn't have the slightest knowledge about, or care about gear theory as pertaining to cycling, it simply has no relevance to me.", posting comments on a thread entitled "GEARS".

 

[Debian]

Beats head against wall.

Here's a guy who says "I wouldn't have the slightest knowledge about, or care about gear theory as pertaining to cycling, it simply has no relevance to me.", posting comments on a thread entitled "GEARS".

The fact that I don't understand gear theory is not relevant to whether I post on this thread or not.

I know how to use gears and I know what looks / feels right for the riding I do and this is perfectly valid experience to allow me to post on this thread.

I believe the OP simply wants some general advice on gearing - (s)he doesn't need to be able to reproduce engineering theory to benefit from general advice.

 

[jimboalee]

I too know how to use gears and what ‘feels’ right for me. I have done for many years.
Then came the day when the routesheet for the Castleton Classic was delivered. I studied it and thought “Are my gears low enough for these hills?”
I traced the route on the OS and noted where the steep sections were. As it isn’t a race, I decided I would be able to catch up time on the flats and declines if I walked up the steep hills.
This stingy old bugger didn’t want to buy a new freewheel block for the sake of 2 14% hills.

As the years passed and I watched chaps ride past me up the steep hills, I vowed to work out what ratios I needed to ride up the hills.

This was in the days before CTC’s ‘PowerCalc.xls’ and MachineHead’s package. It was labourious.
Now I can whack out some results in no time if I know the rider, their bike, their ability and where they intend to ride.

The mysteries of bicycle gearing are resolved.

There is of course the witchcraft. But that is a dirty word round these parts.

As for the OP, how complicated do you want this 'guide book' to be ?

 

[PpPete]

I've had a look at "powercalc" - but not at "machinehead"
Many of Jimbo's posts go right over my head - I don't mind admitting it.

But I really do think it's worth understanding what "gear inches" is all about.
Sheldon has a good explanation.

But it's really just a convenient shorthand for cyclists to compare different gear ratios (or brag about them) - in a kid of similar manner to the way in which certain motons talk about horsepower.

 

[bottombracket]

I think you'll find that the original poster buggered off ages ago - completely baffled by all of this and the short shrift given to other posters!
Just happy to be riding his bike...

to quote Sheldon RIP - "Unfortunately, the handwriting is on the wall for all inch-based measurement systems..."

 

[Arch]

18,000 posts and you don't know this yet shame on you Arch

Ignorant and proud of it...