So many gears, pointless?

[Blue Hills]

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

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

 

[mustang1]

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

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

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

 

[JPBoothy]

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

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

 

[Dogtrousers]

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

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

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

 

[screenman]

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

 

[Mike_P]

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

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

 

[RoadRider400]

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

 

[Sharky]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[a.twiddler]

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

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

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

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

 

[ColinJ]

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

Yes - 1967!

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

 

[winjim]

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

The Campagnolo double-shuffle.

 

[Dogtrousers]

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

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

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

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

 

[JPBoothy]

The Campagnolo double-shuffle.

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

 

[Ian H]

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

That is an assertion, not an explanation.

 

[Sharky]

That is an assertion, not an explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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