kingston 

Agree that wasn't 100% right. Just a generalization that someone going into a bike shop 10 years ago looking for a bike to ride a few hundred miles a year on the rail-trail would have walked out with a high-end hybrid. Today they would walk out with a gravel bike.

livedarklions

I kind of feel bad that I disabused you of the possibility you had invented the hybrid since it was probably a harmless delusion that made you happy. OTOH, maybe I spared you some "if only I had thought to market it, I'd be rich" regrets.

genejockey 

I'm not sure it DID become de facto standard. I'd have to see numbers. But it was one of the two choices, certainly, the other being 53/39. Nowadays, I'm finding the 52/36 plus an 11 speed cassette gives me everything I want in low and high gears as well as spacing, with a single exception - the 11-13 jump at the small end of the cassette. And that's only a mild annoyance, and really only affects one or two places on my rides - when I'm coming off a short, sharp descent with a flat runout, and I want to slow down the rate of deceleration. The 52x11 goes below my preferred cadence range while the 52x13 is still above it. Apart from that, all the other jumps stay within my preferred range from 90-105.

The last year or so, I've become interested in bikes from the 80s, with fewer gears in back, and with downtube shifters that do not encourage the frequent shifting that brifters do, and that has trained me to be able to spin a wider range of cadences comfortably. The little roller where I might shift to a lower gear to go up then a larger gear to come down to keep my cadence in the 90s when riding a more modern bike, on an older bike I'll just push harder on the pedals for a bit and let my cadence fall into the 80s, then spin up into the 100s on the other side.

kingston 

I became interested in bikes from the 80's in the 80's so I know what you're talking about.

tomato coupe

Every 2x or 3x setup forces you to shift at certain speeds. Whether or not those shift points occur at speeds that you find inconvenient depends on how fast you ride. In your case, the 2x setup is basically a racing setup, but your 24-25 kph average isn't racing speed, so the shift point from the big ring to the small ring falls in an inconvenient place. A different 2x setup would solve some of your problems.

NumbersGuy

Glad to hear about someone else utilizing some flexibility in cadence/effort to deal with grade variations. I have been doing the same on my 2x11 for quite some time, simply not shifting even though it would be supremely easy. I find myself interested in getting a single speed again, which in the absence of any real hills is perfectly fine for recreational riding.

The talk here of needing such and such gear range seems to be based on the idea that the cyclist can only pedal in a very narrow range of cadence when in actuality, we are a lot more adaptable and most can perform quite well across a pretty wide range. It seems like the desire is to have all this gearing so that they can pedal with the exact same cadence and effort in every situation. That seems like such a boring way to ride. I guess that's why I never got into group rides, I don't really like the robotic approach so many seem to have toward cycling.

NumbersGuy

Why is anyone forced to shift only at certain speeds? We don't have to shift into or out of one chainring only when in a specific rear sprocket. It generally makes more sense to be in the chainring that will support the range of speeds you expect to be riding at. It's not like we're often going sequentially through all the gears on one chainring and then moving to the next.

Then there's the *GASP* pedaling in a wide range of cadences idea that seems to be incomprehensible to most here.

70sSanO

If I recall the 80’s correctly, there were no narrow spaced recreational freewheels. Typical 6 speed went 13-15-17-19-21-23/24. You might get 13-14-15… with a 7 speed, or the extra cog was a 28. Many people had 14-28 freewheels. If you ran Dura Ace you could get to a 12t.

But running a 52t/42t with an 80’s 13-15-17, is wider than a 50t/34t with a 10 speed 11-12-13-14-15-17…

Corncobs were race oriented back then and generally not recreational.

John

Edit: Added big rings.

kingston 

Completely agree. A 46-30 with an 11-speed 12-25 that I have on one of my other bikes works just as well for me as the road triple for brevets. I give up a little bit on the top end that I don't really need anyway.

sjanzeir

Fourteen pages for something anyone's supposed to have figured out in the first half-hour of their first ride on a geared bike. Boy, this thread really flies in the face!

kingston 

Absolutely correct. The fundamental problem here is that I was young and fast in the 80's but now I'm old and slow.

base2 

Oh, no worries. It was perfectly harmless. At most I liked the idea I inspired someone that was in a position of influence.

No way would I think I could claim credit. That bike evolved organically as my needs changed. The Hybrid as we know it was an inevitability.

Maelochs

Pretty sure not.

Hybrids, or whatever they choose to call them ... have a very specific market.

Hybrid buyers tend not to want drop bars. That is the single most important determining characteristic ... a lot of riders tend to forget that for a lot of other riders ... the ones we don't see because they are on MUPs or cruising happily on paths, trails, and streets not suited for of generally used for more spirited riding---see those funny, ram's horn handlebars as weird and uncomfortable. To those folks a bike is something you ride sitting up with bars that sit up high to reach you.

Next, a lot of hybrid owners like a little suspension (or a suspension seat post) because comfort is a big deal to them. A few extra pounds means nothing---they are used to 30-40 pound bikes and a 30-pound bike is just fine (I can recall my old Bridgestone MB4--a "mountain Bike" back in the mid-late '80s--rigid, 48/38/28 Deore drivetrain, chromoly frame and forks, 30 pounds ..... it was considered a respectable MTB, and just about two pounds heavier than a high-end model. These people probably recall Schwinns or box-store bikes, 35-45 pounds ..... )

The folks who want hybrids are not looking (by and large--@Livedarklions is a freak ) for any sort of performance or endurance or distance ... they plan to ride max ten or maybe 15 miles at a reasonably relaxed pace and just enjoy riding. Strava sounds silly to them. For them riding is more about "Fun" than anything else. they go fast when they feel like it and go slow when they feel like it. A lot of them probably never use either the large or the small ring--to two or bottom two exclusively---and if a salesperson steered them towards a gravel bike, they would see everything they Don't like about cycling.

kingston 

Here's an example of what I mean. A buddy of mine walked into the Trek store 10 years ago and told them he's a 40 year-old male runner looking to do 30-50 mile rides a few times a month on the Des Plaines River Trail (a flat gravel path in north Chicago). They sold him a high-end 3x9 hybrid. That same guy from 10 years ago goes into the same shop with the same request today and there's no way he gets a hybrid. He's walking out of there with a 1x gravel bike. I've been riding the DPRT for over 30 years. It used to be all mountain bikes and hybrids, now its mostly gravel bikes that didn't even exist 10 years ago. That's what I mean by gravel bikes have replaced high-end hybrids.

Maelochs

@kingston--I am surprised they sold him a hybrid for 50-miles rides. of course, road bikes all had really skinny tires back then. Sure, they would not try that today .... but here's the thing people never want to remember---and which I noted regarding @livedarklions: Some people are freaks. Some people are outliers.

We all know how generalizations work, yet there is so often someone trying to point out a specific exception claiming it invalidates the rule.

AS I SAID:

"Hybrid buyers tend not to want drop bars. That is the single most important determining characteristic ... a lot of riders tend to forget that for a lot of other riders ... " etc.

I have done long rides on a flat-bar bike. I certainly know it can be done. I also know why manufacturers sell bar-ends, ergo grips, Jones bars, H-bars, and the like. Riding for a few hours in one position is more tiring. I found myself sometimes leaning far forward and reach up from underneath the bars, or whatever, because holding one upper-body position for a few hours is more tiring. That is why they would sell your buddy a drop-bar bike.

If gravel bikes had been a thing back then, they never would have sold him a hybrid. I agree. But he is NOT the typical hybrid customer, never was and is not now.

genejockey 

Well, I like to do both, depending on what I'm riding. If I have a lot of gears and brifters, I shift a lot. Fewer gears shifted on the downtube, a lot less shifting. And I ride them all on the same routes, regardless. And I pretty much use all the gears at my disposal on every ride, because even my 'flattish' ride is still 1000 feet of ascent in 23 miles.

indyfabz

I’m guessing you don’t do much loaded touring in hilly and mountainous terrain with various types of unpaved surfaces.

genejockey 

Well, he DOES say where he lives is flat enough to ride a single speed bike, so.....

indyfabz

Mom’s basement?

genejockey 

Lawn Guy Land.

SkinGriz

Bikes cover a wide range of styles and uses.
Bikes are ridden at different speeds, different inclines, and different terrain.
Some improvements might not be better for most riders.
It is impossible to say 1x, 2x, or 3x is better. Only which one you like more.

Some like 1x1.

NumbersGuy

And further evidence of a typical bf commenter can’t grasp the concept that everything doesn’t have to fit in the same exact box. And even so, A single, and extremely niche use case, which also still doesn’t really counter the point I was making. Or Are you claiming that loaded, unpaved touring requires something along the lines of a 120+ gear inches?

I sure wish I had such a varied and exciting life such as yours, with the time to rack up 30k+ posts on this forum. You sir really are impressive….

Maelochs

Oi!!!

Why do people have such a problem with other people having different Preferences??? !!! ???

Generally, I prefer to let my transmission do more work than my legs. I stay in a narrow range because I don't have much power or energy, and getting the most out of it is most enjoyable for me, ..... Generally.

Sometimes I just power up a climb or coast down a descent. Sometimes I spin up a climb and shift six times. Sometimes I power down descents. Sometimes I don't even ride my bike. Whatever is my Preference on that day.

Some people prefer other things than you. Sorry, but you had best get used to it.

Also, nobody said it was not possible to ride a wide-spaced cassette, or that it was bad. people said they Preferred narrow spacing.

The Only time I recall someone saying that they almost had to have narrow spacing is @indyfabz, talking specifically about fully loaded touring and long climbs. And as someone who has done that (and also gone hard into a 20+ mph headwind while riding all-day rolling hills) I can say that in that case, where you cannot just stop and rest because you need to get to your campsite in time to set up before dark, and where you need enough energy to finish the day's mileage or you might end up camping in the breakdown lane or in a cactus forest full of scorpions or something ..... yeah, in that case, having the right ratio is really important.

That is where triples shine---you can have a couple very low gears, a couple very high gears, and a whole ranges of very close gears so you can really fine-tune your energy output to the terrain and conditions.

Also .... it is about ten times harder to push a loaded touring bike up a hill as to ride it, however slowly. The bike wants to tip over all the time, and you spend half your energy trying to balance it. It is a lot easier to pedal at a steady 4 mph than to push a steady two .... which means an hour's climb might be three hour's push, and you will be twice as tired when you reach the crest .... and then still maybe have 50 miles to ride to your campsite.

Also .... you can mock racers if you like, but there is a reason they use the corncob block, and it is efficiency. In that case also close ratios make a difference, because the energy wasted turning the wrong gear might mean not being able to latch on when someone attacks the breakaway, meaning you busted your butt for three hours, only to get dropped thirty minutes from the finish.

So, yeah ... recreational cyclists Could all ride single-speeds ... after all, for years everyone did. but not a lot of riders Prefer to ride single-speed. Even the people here mocking people who like close ratios don't ride single-speed currently ....

it is all a matter of Preference. There is no right or wrong, beside the right of understanding that different folks like different strokes, and the wrong of failing to acknowledge that.

rsrogers

Wow, its those guys who ride 1x1 "fixies" that really have my utmost respect. I know of a few around here and they seem completely fearless of road conditions, hills, wind, and they are not slow either. I just wish I had something like that kind of power.

WhyFi

Not so much.

Many people that desire tight gearing, like myself, want it for situations in which we're trying to sustain output at the limits of our capabilities. When you're trying to hold on to a wheel, or an interval, or shave a second off of a PR, etc, and you're at the edge of cracking, a 2-tooth gap might be too much - one asks too much of your legs, the other too much of your cardio, no happy/painful medium.

No one needs tight gearing for noodling around, so don't pat yourself on the back too vigorously.