Yes. If the setup is identical in all other respects (sprocket, cadence, wheel diameter), then the 53T will go further on each revolution than the 39T
useing gears
- Thread starter reacher
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yes. If the setup is identical in all other respects (sprocket, cadence, wheel diameter), then the 53T will go further on each revolution than the 39T
how much harder will it be to turn the 53 x 11 than his 39 x 11 , a huge amount ?
i dont understand why he runs the 39 , would it not be better speed wise to go up to the 53 , this is the bit i dont get ,
i cant ask him untill i see him on friday
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
It's not individual cogs you're not meant to use, just certain combinations. Your smallest cog and biggest chainring is ok (your highest gear possible), as is largest cog and smallest chainring (lowest gear). But mixing smallest and smallest, or largest and largest is putting sideways stress on your chain, and anyway those same equivalent gears, which are in the middle, will be replicated by other better combinations. For example the highest gears you get on the smallest chainring will be overlapped by the lowest ones on the next chainring up.
The more gears you have, the more will be replicated, because you'll tend to keep a similar over range, just with smaller increments between gears. That's why a 14 speed hub gear like the Rohloff can be as good as 27 speeds on a derailleur - because on the hub gear each gear is unique, whereas the derailleur has overlaps.
If you stand behind your bike, and look down at the line the chain takes between chainrings and sprockets, you'll see that biggest/biggest and smallest/smallest cause the chain to run at an angle relative to the frame. Look from the side, and you'll see that those combos also cause the derailleur arm to be bent right back (in which case the chain can rub against itself) or right forward, under a lot of tension, because the chain is either very slack (smallest/smallest) or very tight (biggest/biggest).
quassleberry
New Member
- Location
- East Yorks
I must be really dense but I've been trying to follow this thread, just when I think I've got it another opinion is posted and throws me into a panic that I'm doing it all wrong and cycling ineffectively.
I only commute, life gets in the way of cycling for long distances or for pleasure.
Now if I understand this correctly - I have 3 cogs at the front and I use the biggest one (we don't have decent hills here), I have 6 smaller cogs? at the back of which I use 3,4,& 5 (mostly 5) sometimes 6 if the bike feels easy to ride.
To me this feels as if I'm working hard (to burn calories & build a little bit of muscle) but also to go up slight inclines (compared with Wiltshire where I grew up) I think I'm changing down into 3/4. Is this right?
I only cycle 4 miles (through traffic) which takes between 15 -20 mins am I using my energy efficiently?
I only commute, life gets in the way of cycling for long distances or for pleasure.
Now if I understand this correctly - I have 3 cogs at the front and I use the biggest one (we don't have decent hills here), I have 6 smaller cogs? at the back of which I use 3,4,& 5 (mostly 5) sometimes 6 if the bike feels easy to ride.
To me this feels as if I'm working hard (to burn calories & build a little bit of muscle) but also to go up slight inclines (compared with Wiltshire where I grew up) I think I'm changing down into 3/4. Is this right?
I only cycle 4 miles (through traffic) which takes between 15 -20 mins am I using my energy efficiently?
quassleberry
New Member
- Location
- East Yorks
Oh did I forget to mention I'm female!
That must explain it then reader I'm not worth bothering with because I only do 4 miles. That 4 x 4.2 miles each day.
That must explain it then reader I'm not worth bothering with because I only do 4 miles. That 4 x 4.2 miles each day.
quassleberry
New Member
- Location
- East Yorks
Sorry (k)reacher
it was meant tongue in cheek ,
your question was not about distance it was about burning calories and building muscle, what your doing is better than nothing but if your question is how can i use 20 mins efficiently to exercise then the answer is no this is not an efficient way ,
your question was not about distance it was about burning calories and building muscle, what your doing is better than nothing but if your question is how can i use 20 mins efficiently to exercise then the answer is no this is not an efficient way ,
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
Whereas you've just done a very good job of sounding like a tosser. Mate.
12 miles an hour is perfectly respectable for commuting in traffic. If all you care about is speed, good luck to you and go and post in Race, as you know soooo much. How far do you cycle daily? Like every day, in the real world, not just sat in a gym?
Quassleberry: if you're using the big cog (at the front - actually called a chainrings) and the middle ones (sprockets) at the back, but mainly the outermost ones (I assume you mean '1' is nearest the wheel, the biggest sprocket, and 3,4 and 5 are further out, getting smaller) then you are fine. In fact you could probably upgrade to some higher gears, because you're mostly using the highest gears you have. That's what it sounds like. The thing to check is that when you're on the big chainring, you're using the outermost sprockets and not the couple nearest the wheel.
The main thing is to find a cadence that suits you - cadence is how fast your feet spin the pedals round. Generally it's better to spin nice and fast and free, rather than 'honk' hard, just to save injuring your knees. But find a cadence that feels comfortable for you, and use your gears to try and maintain it - uphill, you change down so that you can keep spinning the pedals at the same rate - you just go a little slower.
If you're doing 16 miles a day, you're maintaining a good base fitness, and it sounds like you're fairly strong if you're mostly in the higher gears. Just keep on doing it. If you want to push yourself, work up to using the highest gear most of the time, and then think about getting the gears upgaded to some higher ones. Or just carry heavier panniers!
Frankly, you'll be sailing on when reacher is panting in a heap by the road side. Keep it up!
the question was is it an efficiant way to exercise for 20 mins , the answer is still no ,
is it an efficiant way to cycle through traffic , probably , it depends on differant traffic conditions every day as to is it efficient ,
will it build muscle and burn calories , some , not a lot , as i said better than nothing , but could you spend 20 mins acheiving more , absolutely ,
now i could say great you are burning at least a 1000 cals and you will soon look like victoria pendelton ,
which is what you want to hear ,
is it an efficiant way to cycle through traffic , probably , it depends on differant traffic conditions every day as to is it efficient ,
will it build muscle and burn calories , some , not a lot , as i said better than nothing , but could you spend 20 mins acheiving more , absolutely ,
now i could say great you are burning at least a 1000 cals and you will soon look like victoria pendelton ,
which is what you want to hear ,
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
Not quite, the question was "am I using my energy efficiently". I'd say that getting 4 x 20 minutes of exercise every day and at the same time, getting to and from work, was pretty efficient. Getting very out of breath and pounding along isn't especially efficient use of energy, going at a sustainable pace, is. As DanB says.
Quassleberry said she wants to lose a little weight and gain a little muscle, not turn into an Olympic athlete. She also wants to get to and from work. Win win!
When I ride my double 39/53, I cruise along on the 39 ring with a cadence of around 80 rpm (providing its flat) and my speeds will range from about 15 to 20 mph using the 12 to 17 sprockets, soon as my speed goes above 20mph, then I go into the big ring and my speed range then becomes 20 to 28 mph, but it also becomes harder work turning the big ring. If you look on a gear chart, you will see how the chain ring and sprocket combinations work, and there are no duplicates on a 39/53, apart for a couple of close matches at the extremes, unless the cadence alters, so it is a natural progression on a 39/53, whereas on my triple there are quiet a few duplicates on all 3 rings so I ride differently. A few riders have queried why I do it, but it becomes evident to them when you put the hammer down and just slip into the big ring and pull away, they've been grinding a big gear at a lower cadence and tired, whilst you have been in a smaller gear with a higher cadence and are a lot fresher. It is also easier to get sudden bursts of accellaration in a lower ring if you need to by just increasing the cadence, but more difficult in the big ring with it being harder to turn. I even came across this method in a road racing manual, stating that you only use the big ring over a certain speed, which is the point where the speed increases and is unobtainable in the smaller ring unless the cadence increases which could be out of your comfort zone.
But at the end of the day, every rider has there own styles, its a case of getting out on the road, doing long rides 100+ or a distance that pushes you to your limits and finding out naturally what is the easiest riding style in about the last 20 miles when your tiring, too high a gear and its hard work and slow but a lower gear with a faster cadence and it becomes faster and more economical.
I've just had a look on Sheldon Brown, and he puts it over better and simpler than I do:-
http://sheldonbrown.com/gears.html
But at the end of the day, every rider has there own styles, its a case of getting out on the road, doing long rides 100+ or a distance that pushes you to your limits and finding out naturally what is the easiest riding style in about the last 20 miles when your tiring, too high a gear and its hard work and slow but a lower gear with a faster cadence and it becomes faster and more economical.
I've just had a look on Sheldon Brown, and he puts it over better and simpler than I do:-
http://sheldonbrown.com/gears.html
quassleberry
New Member
- Location
- East Yorks
Arch & DanB thanks for your replies. My gears are being used large chainring to smaller sprockets (away from wheel) although whether they are 3rd - 6th or 15th - 18th I 'm not sure, although that is how I remember learning it in Physics way back in the mists of time when I was a teenager. Which is probably why I'm not familiar with the name Victoria Pendleton, although was she on TV at the opening of the Olympic Velodrome talking to Boris the Mayor?
That isn't the only exercise I get, there's 5 dogs to walk at least twice a day, housework, and trying to train for a half marathon so my 'big' brother doesn't beat me again this year not to mention the mental strain of teenagers!
Reacher, the basics haven't changed only the technical terms and nuances put on training techniques have. You sound young(ish) so have many opportunities that weren't around while I was growing up. Indeed I never had gears on my bike which was a nuisance traipsing after my friend on her sisters' horse especially as we lived in Wiltshire.
That isn't the only exercise I get, there's 5 dogs to walk at least twice a day, housework, and trying to train for a half marathon so my 'big' brother doesn't beat me again this year not to mention the mental strain of teenagers!
Reacher, the basics haven't changed only the technical terms and nuances put on training techniques have. You sound young(ish) so have many opportunities that weren't around while I was growing up. Indeed I never had gears on my bike which was a nuisance traipsing after my friend on her sisters' horse especially as we lived in Wiltshire.
