Darth Lefty 

No, trolling is when you use a small outboard electric motor. Get a grip

livedarklions

No, this is trolling:

caloso

Winter in BF Land.

Road Fan

Exactly, Phil! A lot of people don't know about the shifting sequence that the pattern was designed for. small to large, then large to small and one harder in the rear. the change from small to large takes you ½ step harder, then the shift from large back to small takes you back ½ step but the associated fhift to the next smaller sprocet takes you up a whole step for a net ½ gain.

One thing is, you have to accept cross-chaining. But back 50 years ago, people were not so concerned about cross-chaining on 2x5 and 2x6 gearing equipments.

tomato coupe

Half-step gearing was really useful back in the 5-6-7 speed days. Definitely better than the step-and-a-half gearing that was often found on bikes.

Road Fan

Yes, Tomato, that's true. Today one can design a half-step to use on a 2x10, but you end up with very small tooth jumps in the chainring, and hence the smallest value of the actual half-step is not a useful gear change, and is in no way useful. 12 speed hardware may ameliorate the matter, since the biiiig new rear sprockets open up the design space. A modern crossover is much more useful (without crazy bigs in the back), say a 50/34 or 46/30. But up to 6 and some times a 7, it can get you a good range and no lost gears.

Road Fan

Phil, what's your basis for that? It's not clear what desigh you are modifying, but mine have been calculated out and have good progressions with 41/45. My experience with half-steps is that while the range of the system does not change much with a 1-tooth change in chainring, progression is different and usually results in redundant gear ratios. If you're modifying what I presented, I don't agree.

bwilli88 

here is the difference with a 45 or 46 large chain ring, this is showing the step between 28 and 34 is better with a 46 but the rest is better with a 45.

If you went with a 32 big cog it would even everything out

L134 

i think if you shifted your thinking about half steps from progressive shifting to fine tuning cadence you might find half steps extraordinarily useful.

rydabent

IMO you are over thinking gearing. For commuting, even tho I am a bent and trike rider, a mountain bike would probable be best. They will have a triple in front and a standard cluster in back. Use the front triple for hills flats and down hill. Then just shift across the rear cluster as needed. Double shifting in an out and out nuisance.

Road Fan

I've done that and it's useful, but there is still such a thing as small shift increments that are too small.

Phil_gretz

The bottom graphic is what you want. Go with what's shown here. Even steps from 35 to 87 G.I. What's not to like? PG

Road Fan

For some of us, kvetching, whatever it's about, is part of the game, anyway.

As an expert gear kvetch, I'm happy to help another aspiring gear kvetch learn to kvetch as well as the masters, and to learn to see why to kvetch and why not to kvetch.

Road Fan

IMO overthinking gearing is equivalent to gear kvetching.

Outrider1

Don't know that you'll get a response from folks that participated in this thread as it's 4 years old. Maybe start a new one?

indyfabz

Quit kvetching about zombie threads.

Road Fan

I've been on this site for longer than nearly all of the feared "zombie" threads have been. My experience is that interested people will read about what they are interested in, even if it carries a date code. Half-step designs have existed since I first saw 2 x 10 bikes (maybe some 2 x 8's?) in LBS, and a few good write-ups in library books since I was in grade school. If you're really interested in half-steps, it does not matter when the best tutorials were written.

Maelochs

In this case, however, the experience Is irrelevant.

The OP asked about wide-ranged gearing to make commuting easier, and the response was, "Don't even bother." In effect, the response was, "You are wrong to even be thinking about gearing." The commenter then accused the OP of "kvetching" (which I interpret as "whining" or "pointlessly complaining") about gear choices. On the whole I would say that is a fairly disrespectful response, thought it was not apparently meant that way.

For instance, if I replied, "Just get a throttled e-bike that maxes out at 32 mph and forget all about pedaling---that is what I do, Quit whining about gearing," I think I would hear a lot of pushback.

I think the OP has a valid question. He wants a wider range of usable gears with small steps so he can have efficiency on the flats and still make the climbs in comfort. "Kvetching:" would more be saying., "No company makes the exact cassette and chain ring combo I need. It is so unfair." Merely inquiring about the best set-up .... isn't that sort of one of the reasons we have this site?

In Any Case .... As others have said, half-step gearing isn't really effective with today's tighter cassettes. If the OP has an old 7-speed 14-34 .... I'd simply upgrade to a more modern 9,10, or 11-speed, probably Microshift or Micronew to avoid paying Shimano prices.

If the OP is determined to ride a 7-speed ..... with modern brifters, even with the longish throw on many front shifters, half-step shifting should work a lot better than it did back in the day.

My '83 Cannondale had (I think) a 48-44-32 triple with seven cogs in back and half-step shifting with downtube friction shifters was kind of a pain. With brifters (or STI shifters for those who hate certain words) it would still be less ergonomically efficient as a proper modern set-up (because of the long throw) but nothing to worry about.

As far as the exact gear choices .... plenty of folks have worked it out. personally I would leave the 34 out of the rotation .... use the 28 as the lowest practical gear and use the 34 as a granny gear (low-low (or big-big.) Then the stepes between gears are a little more even.

However, again .... it is likely that most people would not be upset by nor even much notice, the slight differences between jumps. No matter how it looks on paper, out on the road most riders would just make the slightest adjustments in cadence or pressure to suit the situation ... and because the environment, from the road surface to the wind to the load carried to rider fatigue, differs constantly during each ride as well as from ride to ride ... overthinking it is really not worthwhile (which is more what the "kvetching" comment was addressing, if somewhat clumsily (IMO)).

However yet again, though ... some folks really like planning out all the ratios on paper and making micro-adjustments, even if out on the road there is no practical difference. So, I won't rain on anyone's commute ....

And Ultimately .... Ugh! I responded to a Zombie thread ..... I noticed Jim from Boston weighed in, and I hadn't seen him for a long time ... but I hoped he had been lurking and decided to pop back in. No such luck.

Homebrew01

Please don't dig up old threads unless there's a specific on-topic, relevant reason to.
Thanks.