What gearing changes should I make to my Tarmac for better climbing in Maine?
#101
Senior Member
All im saying is that within the usual speed range of many a recreational cyclist, the 11-34 is better spaced than the 11-28 when combined with a 50/34
The only place the 11-34 is better-spaced is on the 25-27-30 progression versus the 25-28 at the bottom-end of the 11-28. Otherwise the spacing is either the same or worse.
Here's the 15-20mph speed range on a 700x25 50-34 at 90rpm, comparing 11-28 (left) with 11-34 (right):
The straight block in the small ring on the 11-28 is way denser in that range than any other combination of chainring and cassette being discussed. At 90rpm there's some missing occupancy toward the 15mph side, but most cyclists are doing less than 90rpm when they're cruising at 15mph (the purple lines would move upward for a lower cadence), so for many people this issue doesn't exist.
If you absolutely must have 1t spacing in the midrange speeds, get a triple, a really small big ring
No I am not. There is more than one way to figure the percentage of change. 19/17 = 1.12, or 12%. 17/19 = .895. 1-.895 =.105 or 10.5%. Both are legitimate calculations and neither involves rollout, which would mean a change in tire diameter. Gear inches is a meaningless number that is just the gear ratio times 27. A 48/19 is a decent gear ratio for 15 mph riding.
Last edited by HTupolev; 04-03-20 at 01:01 PM.
Likes For HTupolev:
#102
Senior Member
I can ride anything, but my preference is to have a top gear of around 100" narrow spacing around 70" and a low of around 30" or lower. It's not difficult to put that together. It's just not standard, which I've never understood because it doesn't seem like it's that unique of a preference.
#103
Jedi Master
I know. A lot of my bikes have triples and the ones that don't have a sub-compact double and a jr. cassette which close enough. Normal compact cranks don't work as well for me, and big-boy cranks are a distant memory. That's kind of my point. I feel like I'm just an average fitness person, but I have to go to great lengths to find gearing that works well for me. Seems odd.
Likes For kingston:
#104
Portland Fred
I'm not speed obsessed and ride recumbents and trikes as well as road bikes. But I'd quit forever if I had to ride a cruiser and wouldn't ride fixed for anything other than short hops.
#105
Jedi Master
It's the same person. That's my commuter. I ride it one mile to the train station.
#106
Portland Fred
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
Yes, randonneurs have been using these setups for years for good reason, but there have been very few standard options until the recent gravel craze. It's just always puzzled me that I'm sort of an average recreational cyclists, not too fast or too slow, I ride my bike a few hundred miles a week in the summer, but I still don't have enough power to push a compact crank and a narrow cassette without cross-chaining most of the time and mashing up hills in a too-high low gear. I've just always thought that was odd. I've come to the conclusion that most people don't care about narrow spacing and have no problem using a wide-ratio cassette to get low gears.
#108
Portland Fred
You tend to learn to like what you have -- I enjoy riding in cold rain. Though I can't imagine ever learning to like wind.
Likes For banerjek:
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
If you limit it to bike enthusiasts, racers, whatever, hills come back as important. For most people riding self powered vehicles, they won't be happy if you tell them you know a great route and then ride anything pointed up.
#110
Portland Fred
In Portland, even people who present themselves as bike enthusiasts (to the point that they'd ban driving if they could) howl at the prospect of climbing even 50' and think climbing minor hills in town is some kind of physical feat -- seriously.
#111
Senior Member
Yes, randonneurs have been using these setups for years for good reason, but there have been very few standard options until the recent gravel craze. It's just always puzzled me that I'm sort of an average recreational cyclists, not too fast or too slow, I ride my bike a few hundred miles a week in the summer, but I still don't have enough power to push a compact crank and a narrow cassette without cross-chaining most of the time and mashing up hills in a too-high low gear. I've just always thought that was odd. I've come to the conclusion that most people don't care about narrow spacing and have no problem using a wide-ratio cassette to get low gears.
Part of the issue is that having a solid understanding of gearing requires some amount of mathematical and physics understanding, and the vast majority of people have no real background there. They have only traditional and the marketing to go on. And the marketing is kind of nonsense: it labels chainring combinations by the style of the use case, without consideration to the regional terrain or to the cyclist, or even to the cogs on the cassette. So 53-39 is a "standard road racing" crankset, 50-34 is a "compact road racing" crankset, 46-30 is an "adventure"/"gravel" "sub-compact" crankset, etc. For people who don't understand what the numbers mean, this implies that for someone who wants to ride hard on the road, a 50T big ring is the absolute smallest to go.
I had a friend get trapped in this boat a couple years ago. He's a similar rider to me in a lot of ways: we fit nigh-identically, our self-selected cadences are similar, and we ride in the same region over the same hills. But I'm far stronger than he is.
He's always had trouble with front shifting for some reason, so he was putting together a 1x road dream bike of sorts. In most respects it was absolutely awesome. It was built from an Argon18 Jelly Belly frameset and looked amazing, and it was about twelve pounds ready-to-ride. I tried it out when he first put it together, and it felt awesome. The one thing that didn't feel tight and snappy to me was the sluggish shifting on the SRAM eTap drivetrain, but he didn't mind it and it's his bike, so whatever.
BUT
It had a 50-tooth chainring, and because he dislikes wide-spaced cassettes, he wasn't willing to go wider than 11-32 on the cassette. So his bottom gear was 50-32. This is much too high for me to use optimally on our local hills, so I knew it was going to become a problem for him.
A little while later, we had just finished a group ride. I had been riding with the faster group, him with the slower group. He was complaining that the low-end was way too high on the climbs. I pointed out that he was basically never putting out power above 30mph, and that the top few cogs on his cassette were literally clean untouched silver, so he could probably drop the chainring down to the at least low-40s without giving anything up. He was incredulous, replying that any chainring less than 50T would obviously be too slow for road riding, although he couldn't articulate what exactly he meant by this. Now, on this particular day, I had been riding my 1979 Fuji America on this group ride, which presently* has a top-end ratio of 52-14. I pointed out to him that my top-end ratio is roughly equivalent to 41-11, and that even though I had been riding with a much faster group than him, I had not been tangibly hindered by spinning it out. He still didn't understand.
A few months later he finally tried out a smaller ring (I think a 42 or a 44, but can't recall off the top of my head). As I predicted, he reported no drawbacks.
A big extra factor here is that racing drivetrains started out very narrow-range, and racers have typically been pretty conservative about changing.
When derailleurs were becoming accepted in racing in the 1930s, a lot of people were concerned about the "s-bend" that the chain made through the pulley cage on what were, at the time, "touring" derailleurs. Even though these parts had been around for decades, racers were worried that they might introduce excessive chain friction. The earliest racing derailleurs sought to minimize the chain bends, usually by using just 1 pulley, or even zero pulleys (like in the case of the famously bizarre Campagnolo Cambio Corsa). Here's an example of a Simplex derailleur from that era:
In the case of this particular derailleur, because it doesn't have a jockey wheel close to the cogs, it uses long metal plates on the cage to help push the chain from cog to cog. There were a lot of similarly esoteric designs sold to racers at the time. Their shifting was usually either baulky or otherwise weird, and more problematically, they could usually only wrap maybe 8-10 teeth of chain.
Even after Campagnolo's Gran Sport (1951) popularized two-pulley parallelogram derailleurs among racers, racing derailleurs mostly used short cages and geometries that didn't play nicely with wide gear ranges. Things have been incrementally, very slowly, getting wider ever since.
As we've gotten more cogs and the range has gotten wider, a lot has been added to the top-end. Eddy Merckx won a lot of races with a top gear of around 52-13; with an 11-tooth small cog, that's equivalent to a 44-tooth chainring. Most people don't have much use for gears higher than that, but the world still looks to Merckx's 52T big ring and thinks it needs a 50+ tooth big ring regardless of context.
//===============================================
tldr: It's mostly fashion and marketing, and stock road bike gearing arrangements have often had nothing to do with what makes sense for the majority of people on road bikes.
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3951 Post(s)
Liked 7,296 Times
in
2,946 Posts
Understanding and calculating gear ratios requires nothing beyond grade school mathematics, i.e. multiplication and division.
#113
Senior Member
Sure, any idiot can figure out how many gear inches result from a gear combo and a wheel diameter, and how fast that'll go at some cadence. But that doesn't mean that that person will understand what they need to perform optimally in the terrain they ride in, and why. And the why is important, in terms of people pulling the trigger on changes.
Last edited by HTupolev; 04-05-20 at 01:53 AM.
#114
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
Likes For Bah Humbug:
#115
Jedi Master
Grant asks about Shimano making a high-end group geared for average recreational cyclists...
Kozo Shimano: Sure, but there are two things, two hurdles. One is being able to see the potential for selling that, and the other is, can we sell it without cannibalizing sales from an existing group, such as Ultegra or Dura-Ace?...
Kozo Shimano: Sure, but there are two things, two hurdles. One is being able to see the potential for selling that, and the other is, can we sell it without cannibalizing sales from an existing group, such as Ultegra or Dura-Ace?...
#117
Jedi Master
Seems like you haven't been following the thread. I consider myself to be a normal person, I don't race but do a lot of long distance and my preference is a top gear of around 100" narrow spacing around 70" and a low of around 30" or lower, which I can't achieve with any standard or compact road chainset.
If people ride a lot of steep and long hills they may want a lower low gear, but I would argue that has more to do with fitness than terrain. I'm not an especially strong climber and can get up anything with 30". Lower is easier obviously. Could be someone who likes to go really fast down big hills would want a top end bigger than 100".
If people ride a lot of steep and long hills they may want a lower low gear, but I would argue that has more to do with fitness than terrain. I'm not an especially strong climber and can get up anything with 30". Lower is easier obviously. Could be someone who likes to go really fast down big hills would want a top end bigger than 100".
Likes For noodle soup:
#120
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
Seems like you haven't been following the thread. I consider myself to be a normal person, I don't race but do a lot of long distance and my preference is a top gear of around 100" narrow spacing around 70" and a low of around 30" or lower, which I can't achieve with any standard or compact road chainset.
If people ride a lot of steep and long hills they may want a lower low gear, but I would argue that has more to do with fitness than terrain. I'm not an especially strong climber and can get up anything with 30". Lower is easier obviously. Could be someone who likes to go really fast down big hills would want a top end bigger than 100".
If people ride a lot of steep and long hills they may want a lower low gear, but I would argue that has more to do with fitness than terrain. I'm not an especially strong climber and can get up anything with 30". Lower is easier obviously. Could be someone who likes to go really fast down big hills would want a top end bigger than 100".
Likes For Bah Humbug:
#121
Jedi Master
Standard gearing is too high for me. If people have less fitness than I do, they need lower gearing not more fitness. That's been my point the whole time. Standard road gearing is designed for people who are a lot stronger than I am, and even I am stronger than some people who need even lower gearing than that.
Likes For kingston:
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,922
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,882 Times
in
998 Posts
If people ride a lot of steep and long hills they may want a lower low gear, but I would argue that has more to do with fitness than terrain. I'm not an especially strong climber and can get up anything with 30". Lower is easier obviously. Could be someone who likes to go really fast down big hills would want a top end bigger than 100".
#123
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
What's a "normal" cyclist? Is it the 24-year-old who ran track in college or the 65-year-old cruising around the neighborhood?
I think both of those are more "normal" than people who call a century "the beginning of long-distance".
I think both of those are more "normal" than people who call a century "the beginning of long-distance".
Likes For Bah Humbug:
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,922
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,882 Times
in
998 Posts
I would agree, but that's not "normal".
Maybe you aren't particularly strong, or as strong as "normal" cyclists
What is "normal"?
That's been my point the whole time.
What is "normal"?
That's been my point the whole time.
#125
Jedi Master
Likes For kingston: