Why so many gears?.....

[Marazzi Mick]

Most people would dream of having a 16.4mph average

It was a very flat route, I’m not fit and a newbie but got to admit hearing the hum of the tyres on tarmac was very satisfying.

 

[Marazzi Mick]

Re cadence/rpm. Ride at a cadence that feels natural to you. You can get cadence meters that integrate with GPS units. Also some people say it's easy to estimate by counting (I disagree on that point, I keep losing count). I've come to the conclusion that it's an unimportant measure (for me, at least) Others my differ.

There are theories that a higher cadence is more efficient, but having looked in to the matter I think they are probably hokum. Your legs will soon let you know if your hearing is too high or low.

Thanks for your comments DT but I think the important bit is I did more distance than previously done and wasn’t knackered when I did the final climb up to where I live. Oh and I really enjoyed myself which is a first for me when doing anything to do with keeping fit!

 

[Marazzi Mick]

If you compare it to a car, back in the 60s, 70s, cars only had 3 or 4 gears. Now most cars have 6 gears and some even more. Why do you think that is? Efficiency.

I think the choke is missing on my bike!

 

[Marazzi Mick]

I have ridden about 1,500 miles on my singlespeed bike in the past 18 months and that includes a few moderate hills here and there. So, I can get away with one gear a lot of the time. When I go for the longer, steeper hills though I choose to ride another bike which has 30 gears and I use all of them!

In theory, I could get away with a very low gear for grovelling up steep hills into headwinds, a very high gear for bombing down hills with a tailwind, and a middling gear for everything else.

The thing with a restricted choice of gears is that you often end up feeling like you are pedalling too quickly or too slowly. Fixed gear fans may be ok with it, but most riders prefer 20 rpm < cadence < 120 rpm and a lot of them more like 60 rpm < cadence < 100 rpm. Having lots of gears gives you lots of choice so you always have your perfect gear available (except for hills so steep that you couldn't get up them in ANY gear). Changing between gears soon becomes a reflex, except for when you have to change chainring, which requires slightly more thinking about (hence the rise in popularity of single chainring systems 1x10, 1x11 etc.)

When I was cycling in a much flatter area (Coventry, like @dave r) I was fine with singlespeed most of the time and could have easily got away a much narrower range of gears. Once I started riding a lot of 15-25% climbs in Yorkshire and Lancashire I soon found out that I needed my low gears!

I agree Collin, the chainring thing certainly does require some thought. It’s so easy to get caught in totally the wrong gear when you swop the big cogs but I’m learning.

Just out of interest by the end of the summer I intend to do Fairburn North Yorkshire (my home) to my partners home in Ramsbottom. I guess by the time I get to Todmorden it will have been the best idea in the world or the worst!

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Of course the real answer is "because we can"

 

[GuyBoden]

If you want to keep to your preferred cadence range (pedalling rate) over differing terrains you need to use more gears, the advantage is that this allows old men to spin up hills they used to walk up on less gears.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Think of the gearing in terms of ‘gear inches’, or ratios rather than discrete ‘gears’. There is a fair bit of overlap throughout the range, where combinations of front and rear ‘gears’ result in the same ratio / gear inches. Gear inches are essentially how many inches forward the bike moves ( with a given diameter wheel) for every rotation of the cranks. The accepted ‘sweet spot’ is when you can produce your peak power at a cadence of 90 rpm. Power is the product of Torque and cadence, and it’s been proven that it’s bio mechanically most efficient to aim at a torque output at 90 rpm, to give your peak power there. The choice of ‘gears’ is there to allow as many people as possible to make their peak power at 90 rpm.

 

[ColinJ]

I agree Collin, the chainring thing certainly does require some thought. It’s so easy to get caught in totally the wrong gear when you swop the big cogs but I’m learning.

Just out of interest by the end of the summer I intend to do Fairburn North Yorkshire (my home) to my partners home in Ramsbottom. I guess by the time I get to Todmorden it will have been the best idea in the world or the worst!

I hope you don't have to ride up Ramsbottom Rake at the end - it half killed me when I did it, many years ago!

Are you doing it the 'scenic' (tough!) way (West Yorkshire Cycle Route) or the 'easy' way (valley roads and cycle paths)? (If you haven't heard of the WYCR, your local Tourist Information Centre should have the free guide leaflet for it and lots of websites give details.)

If you haven't found it yet, lots of us recommend cycle.travel to help in planning rides.

 

[bpsmith]

I disagree that 90 is the scientifically proven most efficient cadence for every single rider. From personal experience I find 83 rpm is where I am naturally most efficient. I believe everyone has their own natural ideal cadence.

With respect to having 22 gears, I think it’s not the best way to think about it. I look at it as having a number of gears for the inner chainring and a number of gears for the outer chainring, to allow them to work efficiently. The number of gears depending on the rider as to how far they like to cross over, which can vary depending on the ride.

 

[Randomnerd]

@Marazzi Mick good to hear you're enjoying the new bike. I'm just east of you, in the Vale of York, and can happily get around on a three speed most of the time in this neck of the woods. I wouldn't worry too much about cadence yet, until you get a bit further down the road with cycling. You'll spend a little while going through the gears till you learn what you feel good with for which hill etc. As your legs get stronger, you may find you don't change gear so often, and just decide to push a bigger ring further.
A more useful thing to concern yourself with for cycling efficiency is chainline (more critical on a triple front ring but still important for a compact double) - pick the better, straighter chainline if you can, to help reduce component wear and drivetrain friction.
Eventually, you'll be such a strong rider you'll sell your Willier and buy a fixed or singlespeed, and drone on here about how you did Midhopestones with one leg tied to the crossbar.
In hilly country, in a headwind, with a tent and a crate of beer on board, you never have too many gears. it's not gears you need, it's lungs.
If you want to measure your cadence, i was told a method which seems to work, when checked against a Garmin with a sensor. Count one knee reaching apex for 19 seconds - on your stopwatch function on your Casio watch or whatever - and multiply by pi. For training I like to reach and stick to 90 if I can; it's where I seem to be able to sustain power for longest (which isn't that long!) And fool myself into thinking I'm at 90 the whole run, burst back into the house and declaim to anyone listening what an athlete I am.

 

[Aravis]

I think all the points have been made, but in answering the original "Why so many gears?" question I wonder if some specific numbers will help.

When I had my new 12-speed in 1985, it came with 52/36 on the front and 13-15-18-21-26-32 on the back. When I had my earlier 10-speed it never occurred to me that counting teeth was a useful thing to do so I don't know what I had then. The 12-speed gave me the range to get up almost anything, even when touring, but at the cost of bigger gaps than was comfortable. As I became more knowledgeable I started switching cogs between rides according to what I expected to tackle on the next ride. I'd usually pick a biggest of 24 or 28, allowing a closer spread in the critical mid-range. Using a 14 instead of the 13 was often a good idea as well. The 32 was still available if I was going touring in seriously hilly areas.

So 12 gears was never really enough. There were ways round it, but in those days I couldn't carry more than 12 at once. With a 22-speed setup you're much more likely to be able to carry every gear you'll ever need.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Close, but no cigar. Out by a factor of pi.

Gear inches describes the diameter of an equivalent wheel with a 1:1 connection to the cranks. That is, the diameter of the wheel of a notional ordinary (penny farthing) bike of the same gearing.

The distance moved for each rotation of the cranks is called développement and is normally given in metres. The développement of a given gear is pi times the gear inch value converted to metres.

For more fascinating fun see:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

True. But as I said ( to try and not confuse too much) the gear inch measurement is used to work out how far the bike moves forward per revolution of the crank.

 

[Alan O]

For what it's worth, I usually ride an old Raleigh touring bike with a triple front (28/38/48) and six-speed rear (14-28) with friction shifting.

I'd say for around 80% of the time, I'm on the middle 38 chainwheel and use mostly the middle four at the rear, though I do use the full six. So I'd mostly get away with a six-speed bike.

But on occasions when I'm riding anywhere hilly, I really appreciate having the 28 front, and I do use right down to 28/28.

And when I'm on mostly open flat road with good surface (which tends to be not that often), I like having the 48 front too.

 

[ColinJ]

For what it's worth, I usually ride an old Raleigh touring bike with a triple front (28/38/48) and six-speed rear (14-28) with friction shifting.

I'd say for around 80% of the time, I'm on the middle 38 chainwheel and use mostly the middle four at the rear, though I do use the full six. So I'd mostly get away with a six-speed bike.

But on occasions when I'm riding anywhere hilly, I really appreciate having the 28 front, and I do use right down to 28/28.

And when I'm on mostly open flat road with good surface (which tends to be not that often), I like having the 48 front too.

That's very close to what I have on my best road bike. I have 28/36/48 rings and a 10-speed 12-30 cassette. I do a lot of my riding on the 36 because it goes low enough for many smaller hills and high enough for 20+ mph. The 28/30 bottom gear is a luxury on the really steep stuff, and when I actually do use the 48, I can stay on it much longer than the 53 that used to be on the bike. It is a really versatile setup. The only time I'd lose out would be chasing someone down a really long steady descent where I would spin out before them but I don't race so I would normally be freewheeling anyway in that situation.

It is nice having 10-speed rather than 6-speed because of the much smaller steps between sprockets.

 

[Marazzi Mick]

Think of the gearing in terms of ‘gear inches’, or ratios rather than discrete ‘gears’. There is a fair bit of overlap throughout the range, where combinations of front and rear ‘gears’ result in the same ratio / gear inches. Gear inches are essentially how many inches forward the bike moves ( with a given diameter wheel) for every rotation of the cranks. The accepted ‘sweet spot’ is when you can produce your peak power at a cadence of 90 rpm. Power is the product of Torque and cadence, and it’s been proven that it’s bio mechanically most efficient to aim at a torque output at 90 rpm, to give your peak power there. The choice of ‘gears’ is there to allow as many people as possible to make their peak power at 90 rpm.

Beautifully explained Sir!