Retro Grouch 

I once built up a triple with a 5-speed 13 to 18 freewheel. It was a PITA to ride.

If you started up a hill in the middle chainring everything went fine until you ran out of rear cogs. Then you had to make a double shift, lost all of your momentum, and had to shift into the lowest gear combination to grind up the rest of the hill. I learned that overlap between the chainrings is a good thing.

sreten

Hi,

Gearing is gearing, there are good ways of doing it, and some not so good.

rgds, sreten.

downtube42

I never met a gear I couldn't use.

sreten

Hi,

Extreme examples don't address the point I made.
I'm not remotely suggesting something like that.

I should of said closer ratios than close.

Enough overlap, without loads of overlapping gears.

rgds, sreten.

Bandera

I take that as "No. I have never attempted to actually cycle up a mountain, but I have a gearing theory with no practical experience."

Your previous posts seem to indicate that:

You have been riding a bicycle 'seriously' for less than 1 year.
You have mainly ridden a folding bike.
You do not use toeclips or foot retention on your road bike.
You posit bike fitting "rules" based entirely on your own flashes of insight.
You posit theories of ideal gearing having never used the hardware or ridden in challenging terrain.
Your 1,283 posts all contain the words "I, me or mine".

Is that about right?

-Bandera

cccorlew

I had a compact, but but failed to love it.
I have a 52-39-30 that I like, but don't love. Why can't that 30 be a 28?

I read another thread here that mentions a 46-30 "sub compact (edit: make that Sugino Compact+)
I can imagine my next bike having that, with a 12-30 in either a 10 or 11 speed.
Because I, like many others here I'll bet, really can live without 52-11 or even 50-11.

Hermes

I would recommend giving that some thought. Now that you have a power meter, one of the areas of very effective training that is available to you is long constant power tempo efforts at low cadence during the strength and adaptation phase of training cycles. That is not feasible on flat to rolling terrain with low gearing. And yes, that means you are going fast down the the hills assuming they are not steep. And yes, it is hard to ride constant tempo power for one hour or more. However, it is very effective training especially for the events that you want to do.

Gnosis

jimmuller 

I used to not think that in a reverse kind of way, and still do almost.
Year ago I came to realize bikes came from the factory with high gears I never ever used. So I "invented" the compact double for myself three decades ago. Why carry high gears I didn't use when I needed low gears I didn't have?

Our vintage tandem has a triple, 52-38-30 I think, with a 14-32(?) 5-speed freewheel. My other bikes except two all have compact doubles, generally one and a half step.

One exception is a mid-70's Masi Gran Criterium. I wanted to use the original crank for style reasons, but the smallest chainring it could take is 42 (or 41 if I want to spend a mint). I went to a 14-34 6-speed freewheel and tried 49-42 rings. It didn't work. The two rings produced almost identical gears, the only difference being the overall range. So I switched to 47-42 rings to get a nice half-step system. I like it! It encourages me to shift to improve the cadence and that encourages me to go faster.

The other except is a new-to-me '87 Centurion Dave Scott Ironman Expert. I built that with a 14-34 6-speed freewheel but 53-39 rings. Don't ask me why. But I've found myself using that high gear a few times.

Gearing is not an abyss. It's a way to climb the slippery slope!

doctor j

I swapped the 30 tooth chain ring on my 50-39-30 with a 28, and it has worked well for several thousands of miles. It's a TA ring (French). I ordered it through Harris Cyclery. The swap was easy enough that I did the work myself.

Barrettscv 

I put a 44 t single chainring on a Cyclocross bike that I used for flat mid-western century rides and was very happy with the range of small-ish chainring. I used a 11-28 cassette and could easily touch 30 mph under power for short bursts. I did miss having a smaller chainring if the slope was steeper than 10% for any distance. Climbing was done out-of-the-saddle at a 30 rpm cadence and short walks were sometimes needed if the slope was 15% or more. I eventually switched to a triple and found that the 39 t chainring was used 80% of the time. Having a small inner ring made 15% slopes doable while seated.

I could see a 46 & 30t crankset as very useful for a hilly century.

dbg

If you've only been biking seriously for a few years you may not have encountered enough situations (hills, loads, etc) where you wish for a gear you are not carrying --and have the benefit of several iterations of experimentation on chainrings and cassettes.

I've only been back into serious riding ~10yrs and I'm still experimenting. My recent WI trip (700 mi) was heavy climbing and I took the CF superlight with 50-34 and 12-30. I liked it well enough even at some 10% plus sections. My normal (light touring) steel bike has 50-39-26 and 12-25. I like a closer range cassette.

Doohickie

Hmm. And here I've been going with fewer and fewer gears. I mostly ride my fixed gear and my two-speed kickback these days.

rdtompki

More power to you (literally!). Here is my problem:

This is a typical climbing ride. I can do either of these climbs on a shorter ride in a 30-30 combination and probably could to the entire ride with that gearing, but my legs might be toast. I'm imagening trying to do a Century with 7K or 8K of climbing and no way I can do it with that gearing. A strong cyclist might have standard double with an 11-28 and do just fine, but those days are way, way behind me.

Definitely some food for thought in the responses which I really appreciate. Without looking at the gearing splits my ideal setup would probably be 50-39-26 combined with the original 12-30. My FD might just be able to handle the 24t delta up front and I know the 12-30 works just fine. I'm having a bit of an issue setting up the 11-36t cassette and it's not lack of experience doing so, just some foibles related to my shifter/RD combination. I have the 50t chain ring on the compact double I replaced with the triple so all I need to find is the small ring and I'm good to go.

dbg

And if I know ahead of time what my challenge is and when it will happen, I would be training to accomplish it with whatever equipment I want to use.

I do most of my workout rides on a single speed, and whatever hills I can find in this cornfield world I currently reside in --requires some extra leg in my single gear.

sreten

Hi,

Your wrong and whatever attitude your complaining about your
pontificating and personal attitude is far hypocritically worse.

Chew on your own unpleasantness, not transference.

rgds, sreten.

jimmuller 

I have! I have! Pick me!

But it usually takes only one gear, my lowest!







And it takes no gear at all to get down.

Bandera

Well OK, but only if you did that "without loads of overlapping gears".

-Bandera

VegasTriker

I once had a 21 speed road bike that was set up so that there was absolutely no overlap but that did not make it any easier to find the right gear when I needed it, Listed below are the gear inches for my 30 speed Catrike 700 recumbent trike. I absolutely love the gearing on it. I can ride in the 39 tooth chainring almost all of the time using the 10 speeds on the 11-36 rear cassette to find a very comfortable cadence.

30 39 52
11 71.7 93.2 124.2
13 60.6 78.8 105.1
15 52.6 68.3 91.1
17 46.4 60.3 80.4
19 41.5 53.9 71.9
21 37.5 48.8 65.1
24 32.9 42.7 56.9
28 28.2 36.6 48.8
32 24.6 32.0 42.7
36 21.9 28.5 38.0
Here's a list of the actual gears mathematically sorted from low to high. There is a lot of overlap, more than I realized. Do I care? Heck no. It works for me.
21.9 42.7 65.1
24.6 42.7 68.3
28.2 46.4 71.7
28.5 48.8 71.9
32 48.8 78.8
32.9 52.6 80.4
36.6 53.9 91.1
37.5 56.9 93.2
38 60.3 105.1
41.5 60.6 124.2

blt

Worry only about what makes you happy. In my old age I switched to a 48-36-26 up front and an 11-34 in back. The hills I had to really grind up before now I can at least almost spin up, the short stretches that were too steep for me to ride up without stopping to rest or worse yet, without having to get up and walk I now can at least grind up. And perhaps more importantly, I can go for longer rides that include those nastier hills. Being able to go for longer rides in the hills means the engine on the bike has been reduced in weight by more than whatever amount the switch to a triple added.

So far, I have heard no guffaws. If there are any out there, there are not within range of my hearing. Those who would not be happy with my set up should not get my set up.

phread59

I just redid my Apex set up. I took the 11-32 in the back off. I added a 11-36 and an X-9 mountain derailer. It works OK for the Central PA hills and mountains I ride. We were on a ride Saturday we call the "Rollers" There are rolling hills. One section had a 14% grade on it. I actually would like to go 30-36. But a compact double bottoms out at 34 in the front. If SRAM would stop being stupid and offer triples. I'd put one on in a heartbeat. My old Fuji has a 48-36-28 on it with an 11-28 in the back. I'm thinking of changing the small ring to 26 or 24. this winter.

Mark Shuman

sreten

Hi,

Suggesting "loads of overlap" is not good is not remotely the
same as suggesting "overlap is bad" or "no overlap is good".

That much at least should be obvious. However if you can
ride on your middle front gear nearly all of the time it does
suggest one or other or both extremes of the rear are
really not needed and you could have closer rear ratios.

YMMV and my 52/42 7s 14-28 road bike has a lot of overlap, would
I be any better off with a compact crank with less ? I think I would.

Currently my cranks are about two rear gears difference *, three would
nice with the extra gear on the bottom end, even though it would
mean changing the front a quite bit more often than I now do.

However I can't simply swap the smaller riveted front ring.
Or simply fit a bigger lowest gear rear cassette.
Not a major issue if avoiding big hills.

rgds, sreten.

* Noting the 14 to 28 7 speed rear is like a 8 speed 14 to
28 with a 2t spacing between all gears, with the 26 missing.

Bandera

Until a big old nasty series of hills or a mountain suggests otherwise.
This may be difficult to believe but actually cycling in challenging conditions is necessary to understanding the physical demands and technical adaptations each rider learns to optimize performance, or just not walk. It's a rite of passage, there are those who have been there and those who have not. It's not a gear chart activity, ride a series of big ones and feel it for yourself. Credibility only comes with experience. Your dues are not paid yet.

"To Talk the Talk you 1st Walk the Walk."

-Bandera

the engine

I have used a triple on every bike I have owned since 1970 ... my recent build has a triple:
I have been on many hilly centuries where I have passed compact riders walking up the steep hills. No one has ever called me a Fred for being able to climb Fiddlers Elbow or Mt. Ascutney (both have 25% sections).

sreten

Hi,

Can you scrape the barrel of patronising pointless tedium any further ?
Credibility is something someone as offensive as you does not possess.

rgds, sreten.

No doubt if you've got big gears you never use you have no credibility
until you've hurtled down at a hill at 120 rpm plus in whatever top
gear your bike happens to fitted with as well ..... as if ....