caloso

One of my teammates had a pretty nasty fall due to snapping the chain on his CX bike. His SSCX bike. He got no sympathy but a raft of grief because it was admittedly an installation error.

dave42

Hi, Rhodabike.

I'm running a newly purchased, new stock Shimano 14-28 freewheel on my old Trek. The quality is fine. My only problem with it is that I want a higher gear ratio than my 14 tooth cog provides. Shimano freewheels only go up to 13. You either get 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, or 13,15,17,19,21,24,28 for 7speed.

I wish I could buy a new freewheel that was, say 12-18 straight block, or even 13,14,15,17,20,24. Or an 11 tooth, even.

I am limited to two choices with huge gaps in the high end.

So, my next big purchase may well be a freehub.

Note: DNP has 11-28 freewheels, but they cost more than a cassette, and they don't solve the gap issue.

MattFoley

Good point...I guess it would be more appropriate to say that "user error" (whether through lack of maintenance or improper installation) is the most likely culprit in most broken chain scenarios. I've probably ridden 10k miles in the last two years and have never had a broken chain on either of my 10spd bikes **knock wood**.

AlanK

Perhaps I should've specified: I was actually referring the the rear cog only. Having triple chain-rings makes sense; it provides a tremendous range and since the rings are larger/thicker they typically last a long time. But is there really much functional difference between 24,27, or 30 gears?

Keep in mind, my perspective is as commuter/tourer, not a racer or cargo-hauler. Again, keep in mind that most riders only use 8-10 gears the vast majority of time. Most only need a couple low gears for inclines, a few mid-range gears for level terrain, and a few higher gears for moderate declines. 24 gears seems perfectly adequate.

DX-MAN

Tell you what, you do the math, since you're so concerned: I'm 6'1", I weigh 235, my bike weighs 37, I can top out at 32mph, and maintain my pace across town at about 15-16. I've spun out the 44/14 combo on this bike. My thighs are 25" around, and I am capable of putting my big toe in your ear if you're my height...and I'm 54-y-o.

And IF you had read thoroughly, you would have also seen that each chain, once repaired, served until standard replacement -- for me and my chain/cassette combo's, is 2 years. The LAST one, that I am presently still running, has broken 2x.

dynaryder

No,they make perfect sense for racers. If you're racing all day,for a month(TdF),you want plenty of gears to keep a constant cadence and save energy. For most transportation cyclists,they aren't necessary,since we have to constantly start/stop with traffic,lights,etc.

BTW,you might want to go 10spd if you're breaking chains:
https://www.bikerumor.com/2013/02/19/...e-the-results/

Mobile 155

If you got the most people only use 8 to 10 gears from Grant Peterson you got bad information. Commuting or not unless you park when it get windy having more gears make getting their a lot easier. And Grant's position that you should mash up hills doesn't work either. For many of us matching RPM or spin to gear is worth the extra gears. If you don't live where it is dead flat or where the wind never blows you might be able to make a case for a Omafiet with 3 speeds every bit as eloquently as you have for a 8 speed max. I have to wonder why you favor so many gears in the front and so few in the back but then I realized you are building with what you have. Fair enough. But if you only need 8 gears why three in the front? That is 24 shift points or 16 too many.

It is also based on how you ride. If you like to keep your Spin in the 90s and you come to a hill, even a small one having that slightly lower cog sure is nice. Same when running into a 15 to 20 knot headwind.

Yes you are missing something, that something is there is a whole big group of us that like more gears just fine. For you a 2 speed Bender Kick back may be all you need. But for those of us that have rollers and climbs between where we are and where we want to go gears make up for a lot of our lost conditioning.

ThermionicScott 

I certainly don't need 11-speed blocks with a double/triple, but enough people dig them that I can't objectively say that's "too many gears."

2x7 is the sweet spot for me (48/39 + 13-14-15-17-19-21-23 on the road bike, and 48/38 + 13-15-17-19-21-24-28 on the rando bike), and whenever the range or spacing start to bug me, that's my cue to ride the fixed-gear more often.

martianone

Too many gears ? Probably, but depends each riders needs and terrain.
am very comfortable with my road bike's 1x10 set up with an 11-36 cassette. primarily a utility cyclist, so it has the gears I really need.

redcon1

Lighten up, Francis.

Your fitness skills don't impress me, no math necessary.

Neither does your mechanical aptitide. Learn to install your chain properly in the first place.

bkaapcke

I sure like having more cassette gear steps with a one tooth difference when I'm really rolling. But then I'm an old guy with a bad knee. bk

Dahon.Steve

I often feel like the OP where less is more. It really depends on where you live. If the OP lives in a city, a single speed might very well be perfect. I have many bikes and the one I use the most has a Shimano 3 speed hub. Go figure

caloso

+1
I love my 12-23 for the flat lands.

dave42

I guess that's a cassette, right, or do you have a really old freewheel?

rebel1916

Who is trolling here?

fietsbob

simple IGH math...


If its 13.6% smaller than the next largest gear , then the next one is 13.6% smaller
than the next largest
And so forth, each 86.4% of the next larger gear . the gap between ratios is always less
by that 83.6 %..



SA 3 speed inverses 4 & 3 1st is 3/4, 25% down ...the 1... 3rd is 4/3rds 33% larger ..

.75 of .75 is 0.562, 3/4 of that is 0.4218 and so fort..




Any How..

FWIW I got a whole bike Used with the R'off hub , for little more than the Hub costs , Retail..now..

AlanK

Yeah, in many cases having some really low gears makes sense. And no, I don't advocate 'mashing' up hills; spinning is definitely easier on your legs/knees. I live in Seattle, and it's one of the few cities (along with SF) that is so exceedingly hilly that having a variety of low gears is necessary. But even here, 30 gears seems like overkill.

Yes, in many cases I definitely think less is more, or at least simpler is better. In mechanical terms, simpler generally means lower maintenance. For most cyclists 3-spds is too limiting, but 30-spds is overkill.

As others have mentioned, like just about any other commercial endeavor, the bike industry has to create the perception of a need in order to continuously sell new stuff - even if it isn't necessary or even beneficial.

ThermionicScott 

Yep, cassettes. I do have a road bike set up with a 5-speed freewheel, but it doesn't get as much use. (I don't like having to keep a lot of bikes ready to ride.)

Drew Eckhardt 

No we still don't have enough except in the pro peleton.

The pro peleton pretty much kept adding cogs while keeping the same range until we got to 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 10 cogs.

With half their Watts/kg we need small gears half the size. With no better tolerance for varying cadence that implies

53-39 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-23-26-29-32-35-38-41-44-46 20 cogs, or a triple with 53-39-24 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-22-23-26-29 14 cogs should do the trick.

Less farcically with middle aged spread 50-39-26 x 13-26 10 cogs suits me in all situations (or 50-39-30 x 14-23 10 cogs for hills to 3% with brief 6% stretches) although if I wanted a big gear like other people I'd want 11 or 12 cogs with a triple and 3-4 more with a double.

I was getting about 5000 miles out of my C9 chains (the last one which began life in California with no snow/sand/road salt and limited rain made it 5000 miles without 1/32" of stretch; the one which detoured through the Pacific Northwet in Seattle for a season didn't make it 2000; although I think the ones from Boulder did about 5000 miles to 1/16") and 4 chains per cassette .

5000 miles per $30 chain for 0.6 cents per mile, 4 chains a $65 cassette for 0.3 cents per, 1 cent per mile, whatever.

My 10 speed chain has about 1500 miles without reaching 1/32" of stretch suggesting I'll get at least 3000 miles out of it which means the per-mile cost is still effectively free.

You want redundancy to limit front shifting and double shifting.

I noticed with the move to 9 cogs I could have the same range and spacing using a compact that I got with the 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 triple setup I built to have a 13-19 straight block for plains rides east of Boulder, CO and a low like 42x28 for the mountains west without constantly changing cassettes (especially for lunch hoour group rides, where it'd mean a lot of tools in a Jersey pocket and "hang on guys.... gonna change cogs").

So I switched to 50-34 x 13-23 9 cogs. HUGE mistake. Every time I dropped below 16 MPH in 50x21 I'd shift to 34x15 with a five cog move in back. Then when I got going more than 18 MPH in 34x14 I'd go back five cogs larger to 50x21. With the wrong wind/slight hills/etc. I could shift 10 times a mile.

The redundancy is GOOD because it means less front shifting which is not a big deal and less double shifting.

I'd have gone insane if I was riding Shimano or SRAM and going CLICK-RELEASE-click-release-click-release-click-release-click 10 times a mile, although as a Campy guy simultaneous thumb shoves were enough to take me from 50x21 to 34x15.

Commuting to work I often stay on my 39 ring using just 8 cogs 15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22, although with some hills and harder work outs the rest are welcome.

An Ultegra CS-6500 12-23 9 cog cassette weighs 196g and CS-6600 10 speed 235g.

Those 39 grams will make a 140 pound rider atop a bike approaching the 15 pound UCI minimum 0.05% slower up the steepest hills. If you have that sort of body morphology, race, are otherwise competitive, and are in the mountains that might cost you 2 seconds for each hour you spend off the front headed towards a mountaintop podium finish. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

One tooth jumps up to the 19 or 21 cog (I've been riding a 14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23 10 cog straight block junior's cassette as an experiment and would say the 22 is where it becomes superfluous although Lance did insist on 21-22-23 big cogs for some of his mountain time trials) feel great.

With 11, 12, and 13 starting cogs respectively that allows for a big cog no more than 21, 23, and 26 respectively with 10 in back or 18, 19, and 21 with just 8.

That's not enough for a lot of people.

dave42

Cool. I wish I'd just bought a cassette hub when I bought my wheels. I am impressed with the durability of my shimano freewheel, though. It's just gonna have to teach me to spin to go fast...

cplager

The Rohloff gearing is consistent. The gap is always the same (and I think we agree on that). But that contradicts:

Anyway, Rohloffs are cool, just expensive.




As long as you like the rest of the bike, then it sounds like you did well.

himespau 

If the percent change is constant, that means the absolute change (number of gear inches per change) decreases as you go down the scale or increases as you go up.

rydabent

I am pretty much on the side that says that the ever increasing number of gears is marketing and hype. I have a trike with 8 sprockets in back and a bent bike with 9. Since they are there, I use most of them. I pretty much ride in the center chain ring up front and shift across the gears in back. I pretty much look at the front chain rings as the small for hills, the center for 90% of my riding and the large for the few great times of down hill with the wind. Like everyone else here, we of course use what the bike comes with. However probably most of us could easily do with out the large chain ring in front as the gear inches are too high except for professional racers.

I am with the engineering group that believes in KISS (keep it simple stupid). With say 9 or 10 sprockets in back, a good case could be made for having only one chain ring in front for simplicity.

A personal note here, 20 years ago at 55 I bought my "last bike". It was a touring bike with 3 chain rings in front, and 7 in back. I figured as I got older I would have the granny gear to get me home. I am now on my 5th "last bike" that is actually a trike. The trike is a 24 speed, and the bent bike is a 27 speed. They are both used in the above described manner, which basically says even they have more gears than I really need. And of course the 36 speed that can be set up now are way too complicated and unnecessary IMO.

MattFoley

I would just say that what works in a place like Nebraska doesn't necessarily translate well into the hillier parts of the country. I have a compact double with 10spd cassette and I generally make good use of those gears, given that I can easily do 2000ft of climbing on a 20 mile loop north from my house, or I can do 500ft of climbing if I do a 20 mile loop south.

ThermionicScott 

Yeah, they're not the classiest-looking things, but seem to be made well. I got a lesson in spinning to go faster when I embarked on a Ragbrai and found that I couldn't shift into the biggest ring of my triple, leaving me with an 85" top gear. My knees appreciated it, and I found that it didn't really slow me down.

I just scored a perfectly-good RX100 rear hub on eBay for $5, so that's something to keep in mind when you build your next wheel.