So many gears, pointless?

[Ian H]

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

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

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

 

[a.twiddler]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ming the Merciless]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dogtrousers]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dogtrousers]

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

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

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

I was just doing the sums out of interest.

 

[avecReynolds531]

The Campagnolo double-shuffle.

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

 

[ColinJ]

The Campagnolo double-shuffle.

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

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

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

 

[a.twiddler]

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

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

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

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

 

[a.twiddler]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mike_P]

That is an assertion, not an explanation.

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

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

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

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

 

[screenman]

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

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

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I have replaced it this year with with a new MTB with 10-50 (12 speed) it had a 30 up front that I have replaced with a 34, I am happy with this gearing.

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

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

If you like simplicity 1x would suit you.m

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

 

[Ian H]

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

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

 

[roley poley]

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