Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

3x drivetrain on road bike

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

3x drivetrain on road bike

Old 05-30-22, 11:39 AM
  #101  
t2p
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: USA - Southwest PA
Posts: 2,980

Bikes: Cannondale - Gary Fisher - Giant - Litespeed - Schwinn Paramount - Schwinn (lugged steel) - Trek OCLV

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1359 Post(s)
Liked 1,803 Times in 1,038 Posts
Originally Posted by N2deep
Not the organized race. The Dirty Dozen Race is an exceptional event for the young and talented, not old Fred's like me. Love watching this race!

Do they still put on the race? Is Danny still with us?

Can't recall if they still do the Dirty Dozen race - might have paused due to COVID and not sure if it resumed (?)

Yes - Danny still with us (unfortunately in wheelchair)
t2p is offline  
Likes For t2p:
Old 05-30-22, 11:52 AM
  #102  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,710 Times in 2,910 Posts
Originally Posted by seypat
Once the computer completely takes over shifting the FD, the industry will probably go this way. Things are getting crowded on the rear of the bike. The rider won't care as long as the ratios are provided. Even if they do, it won't matter. Evolution will happen, regardless.
With electronic drivetrains you already have the option of fully automatic FD shifting, together with rear compensation shifting to mask the gaps. But front shifting across chainrings can never be as physically slick as rear shifting - which is why the industry has gradually moved toward more rear cassette gears and less front chainrings.

But as you rightly say, natural engineering evolution will pervail. If you think that means triples might make a comeback then you are very likely to be disappointed. But you might get lucky with multiple hub gears taking their place.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 12:06 PM
  #103  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,710 Times in 2,910 Posts
Originally Posted by N2deep
Interesting points, however I believe the elimination of the triples is related to suppliers/manufacturers need to evolve the market and to keep new products on the shelf. I would not be surprised to see them polished-packaged and presented as the new snake oil in a few years. I love the 2X 11/12 speeds on road bikes but they suck in the mountains unless specifically geared but then they are no fun on the faster roads. IMHO, the triples are the best group sets ever
So at what point do you think the industry is going to return to 3x7 drivetrains? Or do you think riders are going to start demanding 3x12? I just don't see either of those things happening. My future prediction is a move toward 1x13 plus 2x hub gears for those who need extra range. FDs are horrible crude devices, even in electronic form. So the sooner a more elegant solution is found the better.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 12:26 PM
  #104  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3872 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
That is 100% not the reason why triples have virtually disappeared. It is simply down to the increase in the number of cassette gears. A modern 11 or 12-speed drivetrain doesn't really need 3 chainrings for most people. We are actually at a point where 2 chainrings is now becoming questionable with 1x13 emerging.
I bought my last new bike in 2000 when I was 55. I was still riding strong for being 55. I bought a 5200 9 speed, 52-42-30 in front and 12-25 in back. I thought it was a perfect bike for me. Since I ride in terrain from moderately hilly to mountainous, top performance on very long climbs has been my goal, which means a narrow cadence range based around 80, which is what my legs have always liked best for climbing.

That was the last bike I bought because I couldn't see sufficient improvement in the drivetrain to make it worth the money. A few pounds didn't matter to me as I don't race and lose and gain bodyweight anyway, more than bike weights changed. For me, it's all about the frame (perfect match of BB stiffness and vertical compliance ) and gear-inches.

What happened in the marketplace is that the 9-speed triple was replaced by the 10-speed triple. Hardly anyone upgraded from the 9 because why? Adding 1 more cog in back made no financial sense with a triple, so they dropped the triples and went with compacts because they needed an upgrade path.

So let's have a little contest. Here's my factory 9-speed, circa 2000, age 55:
Bicycle Gear Calculator

As I aged, I went from 11-25 in back to 12-27, then to a 11-30, then to smaller rings, 53-36-26. So this is my 9-speed at 77:
https://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=...N=MPH&DV=teeth

I saved many thousands of dollars in continuing bike and gruppo upgrades and believe that I still have a better gearing range for who I am and what I do.

I should point out that in my current drivetrain I only have 16 distinct gear ratios which I use, out of 27, ranging from 125-23 g.i. My 4 lowest ratios, the ones I really care about, are only 3.5 g.i. apart.

Can anyone match those g.i. numbers and spacings with the latest and greatest road gruppo? Let's see it!
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 12:42 PM
  #105  
LarrySellerz
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,964
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2644 Post(s)
Liked 474 Times in 344 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Your post offered no indication that it was in jest. No emoji, no 'jk', no sarcasterisks.
Not sure why you would think anyone would 'of course' view it in jest.
It's especially funny when you the asd in that only half was in jest. When you have to explain that much, it wasnt obvious.
He used the term Big Gravel, of course its in jest
LarrySellerz is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 01:03 PM
  #106  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
My 4 lowest ratios, the ones I really care about, are only 3.5 g.i. apart.
If those are the only gears you really care about, there are a lot better solutions than a triple.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 01:20 PM
  #107  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
are only 3.5 g.i. apart.
That's not a very useful way to frame the size of a gearing jump. 40gi-to-48gi and 80gi-to-88gi are both jumps of 8gi, but the former will have twice the impact on cadence and torque because it's a ratio change of 1.20 while the latter is only 1.10. The "only 3.5gi apart" of your 20->23->26->30 gears are shifts of 15%, 13%, and 15% respectively, which aren't all that small. With an 11-speed drivetrain, for instance, you could achieve comparable if not slightly better spacing at the low-end with something like a 52-36 paired with an 11-42 cassette. Although, it could easily be argued that such a setup would still make compromises compared with your 3x9 (slightly lower top-end, mildly wider shifts across much of the range, bigger front shifts, may require unusual RD configuration to achieve good behavior).

I do agree that wide-range setups where spacing is still a concern is a big blind spot for modern gearing. For me, that sticks out on my gravel setup, where I'm trying to have a reasonably-fully-fledged road drivetrain with decent spacing alongside super-low bailouts. Currently I have a 3x8, with 48-38-24 cranks paired to an 11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32 cassette. In the foothills it behaves like an old-school wide-range triple, but the two larger chainrings 1.5-step the cassette, so tight shifts are available on the road when I want them. In theory it's worth up to ~19 unique useful gear ratios, although once cross-chain aversion and my riding style are accounted for, it's realistically more like 17. And those 17 ratios are quite well-distributed on the range.
I've spreadsheeted out comparisons to modern alternatives, and even with 12-speed cassettes and two chainrings, it's really hard to assemble something that wouldn't make any compromises.
HTupolev is offline  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 05-30-22, 01:29 PM
  #108  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,094 Times in 1,311 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
I bought my last new bike in 2000 when I was 55. I was still riding strong for being 55. I bought a 5200 9 speed, 52-42-30 in front and 12-25 in back. I thought it was a perfect bike for me. Since I ride in terrain from moderately hilly to mountainous, top performance on very long climbs has been my goal, which means a narrow cadence range based around 80, which is what my legs have always liked best for climbing.

That was the last bike I bought because I couldn't see sufficient improvement in the drivetrain to make it worth the money. A few pounds didn't matter to me as I don't race and lose and gain bodyweight anyway, more than bike weights changed. For me, it's all about the frame (perfect match of BB stiffness and vertical compliance ) and gear-inches.

What happened in the marketplace is that the 9-speed triple was replaced by the 10-speed triple. Hardly anyone upgraded from the 9 because why? Adding 1 more cog in back made no financial sense with a triple, so they dropped the triples and went with compacts because they needed an upgrade path.

So let's have a little contest. Here's my factory 9-speed, circa 2000, age 55:
Bicycle Gear Calculator

As I aged, I went from 11-25 in back to 12-27, then to a 11-30, then to smaller rings, 53-36-26. So this is my 9-speed at 77:
https://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=...N=MPH&DV=teeth

I saved many thousands of dollars in continuing bike and gruppo upgrades and believe that I still have a better gearing range for who I am and what I do.

I should point out that in my current drivetrain I only have 16 distinct gear ratios which I use, out of 27, ranging from 125-23 g.i. My 4 lowest ratios, the ones I really care about, are only 3.5 g.i. apart.

Can anyone match those g.i. numbers and spacings with the latest and greatest road gruppo? Let's see it!
Why would I want to match your gearing requirements? That gap between the 12 and 14 cog would drive me bananas. I look for 15-20% gaps in my climbing gears and 1 tooth gap in cruising gears. My current low gear is a 48 x 39 or 34 depending on which 12s wheels. I think a 50/37 double crank would be better for me although the 1x is mostly good. I only care about 3 climbing gears, the 39t, 33t, and 28.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 01:40 PM
  #109  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,274

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 682 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
So at what point do you think the industry is going to return to 3x7 drivetrains? Or do you think riders are going to start demanding 3x12? I just don't see either of those things happening. My future prediction is a move toward 1x13 plus 2x hub gears for those who need extra range. FDs are horrible crude devices, even in electronic form. So the sooner a more elegant solution is found the better.
i think they are fundamentally they are the same as rear derailleurs, i don't see a big difference between the two.
spelger is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 01:54 PM
  #110  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,094 Times in 1,311 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
So at what point do you think the industry is going to return to 3x7 drivetrains? Or do you think riders are going to start demanding 3x12? I just don't see either of those things happening. My future prediction is a move toward 1x13 plus 2x hub gears for those who need extra range. FDs are horrible crude devices, even in electronic form. So the sooner a more elegant solution is found the better.
Velomobiles use such a setup. I think it is called a Schlumpf mountain drive. It is a direct drive normally and therefore no losses and when you need low gets, it is a planetary setup in the bottom bracket. I know very little about them other than velomobile riders LOVE them. They will use a single chainring, usually a 70T and then and 11-39 or maybe 11-46 cassette. I think the ratio is cut by a factor of 2-3 when engaged, IIRC
GhostRider62 is offline  
Likes For GhostRider62:
Old 05-30-22, 01:56 PM
  #111  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by spelger
i think they are fundamentally they are the same as rear derailleurs, i don't see a big difference between the two.
Rear derailleurs guide the chain via two pulleys that track the sprocket sizes, whereas front derailleurs just shove the chain to the side. Compared to the former, the latter is pretty crude.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 05-30-22, 02:05 PM
  #112  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,710 Times in 2,910 Posts
Originally Posted by spelger
i think they are fundamentally they are the same as rear derailleurs, i don't see a big difference between the two.
Rear shifting is smooth and fast. Totally effortless with a modern mech. Front shifting is something you just tolerate. It's maybe slightly better with an electronic mech, but still the same crude concept and never really very satisfying. Sooner or later front mechs will get replaced by something more elegant, smoother and faster (probably hub gears). There is less incentive to replace rear mechs as they are quick and smooth in their operation. It's actually a pleasure shifting up and down with a modern electronic rear mech. It's a shame the front isn't in the same league.

This looks very promising as an alternative to front shifting:-

https://granfondo-cycling.com/classi...b-2020-test-2/

Last edited by PeteHski; 05-30-22 at 02:11 PM.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 02:27 PM
  #113  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,338
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2428 Post(s)
Liked 2,885 Times in 1,646 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Rear shifting is smooth and fast. Totally effortless with a modern mech. Front shifting is something you just tolerate. It's maybe slightly better with an electronic mech, but still the same crude concept and never really very satisfying. Sooner or later front mechs will get replaced by something more elegant, smoother and faster (probably hub gears). There is less incentive to replace rear mechs as they are quick and smooth in their operation. It's actually a pleasure shifting up and down with a modern electronic rear mech. It's a shame the front isn't in the same league.

This looks very promising as an alternative to front shifting:-

https://granfondo-cycling.com/classi...b-2020-test-2/
Suntour attempted to market the Browning Transmission in the late 1980s: see SpeedofLite's post of a Bicycling! Magazine article on the topic.

I'm very happy with the half-step-plus-granny triple on the 1995 Cannondale H300 hybrid I bought last year for use on wet-weather training rides. Ride a half-step chainring pair for a while, especially if, like me, you're an ex-racer and want to maintain your power output within an extremely narrow band, and it'll become obvious why so many racing bike manufacturers stuck with half-step gearing for so long in the 1950s and into the late 1960s.
Trakhak is online now  
Old 05-30-22, 02:32 PM
  #114  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,710 Times in 2,910 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
I bought my last new bike in 2000 when I was 55. I was still riding strong for being 55. I bought a 5200 9 speed, 52-42-30 in front and 12-25 in back. I thought it was a perfect bike for me. Since I ride in terrain from moderately hilly to mountainous, top performance on very long climbs has been my goal, which means a narrow cadence range based around 80, which is what my legs have always liked best for climbing.

That was the last bike I bought because I couldn't see sufficient improvement in the drivetrain to make it worth the money. A few pounds didn't matter to me as I don't race and lose and gain bodyweight anyway, more than bike weights changed. For me, it's all about the frame (perfect match of BB stiffness and vertical compliance ) and gear-inches.

What happened in the marketplace is that the 9-speed triple was replaced by the 10-speed triple. Hardly anyone upgraded from the 9 because why? Adding 1 more cog in back made no financial sense with a triple, so they dropped the triples and went with compacts because they needed an upgrade path.

So let's have a little contest. Here's my factory 9-speed, circa 2000, age 55:
Bicycle Gear Calculator

As I aged, I went from 11-25 in back to 12-27, then to a 11-30, then to smaller rings, 53-36-26. So this is my 9-speed at 77:
https://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=...N=MPH&DV=teeth

I saved many thousands of dollars in continuing bike and gruppo upgrades and believe that I still have a better gearing range for who I am and what I do.

I should point out that in my current drivetrain I only have 16 distinct gear ratios which I use, out of 27, ranging from 125-23 g.i. My 4 lowest ratios, the ones I really care about, are only 3.5 g.i. apart.

Can anyone match those g.i. numbers and spacings with the latest and greatest road gruppo? Let's see it!
Of course you can't match 27 gears with 24 gears precisely. It's more a question of how big the market is for those requiring 27+ gears. All road bikes I've ever been interested in have always been exclusively 2x anyway (with the odd 1x appearing now). The nearest I could get to your setup would be a 33/46 front and 10/36 12-speed cassette. Doesn't quite match your overall range, but not far off and actually has closer spacing at the top end.

What I actually run is 35/48 and 10/33 which has a bit less range at the lower end, but closer spacing and same top gear as you have.

Last edited by PeteHski; 05-30-22 at 02:41 PM.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 02:54 PM
  #115  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,710 Times in 2,910 Posts
Originally Posted by Trakhak
Suntour attempted to market the Browning Transmission in the late 1980s: see SpeedofLite's post of a Bicycling! Magazine article on the topic.

I'm very happy with the half-step-plus-granny triple on the 1995 Cannondale H300 hybrid I bought last year for use on wet-weather training rides. Ride a half-step chainring pair for a while, especially if, like me, you're an ex-racer and want to maintain your power output within an extremely narrow band, and it'll become obvious why so many racing bike manufacturers stuck with half-step gearing for so long in the 1950s and into the late 1960s.
Very interesting thanks. But you can see why it didn't catch on. It still has the awkward issue of moving the chain across large chainrings of significantly differing sizes. Moving to hub gears eliminates this issue entirely.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 03:04 PM
  #116  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Rear derailleurs guide the chain via two pulleys that track the sprocket sizes, whereas front derailleurs just shove the chain to the side. Compared to the former, the latter is pretty crude.
The use of pulleys does not in and of itself facilitate cog-tracking. Rear derailleurs may employ a jockey offset or b-pivot rotation, but these aspects exist in part to circumvent challenges created by the pulley's role in chain tensioning. Some modern rear derailleurs employ neither of these, like the newer Shadow rear derailleurs intended for multi-ring setups in Shimano's road and gravel lineups: whether it's a Di2 Dura Ace RD-R9250 or a mechanical GRX RD-RX810, the position of the jockey pulley purely follows the round curve defined by the parallelogram.

And while pushing a chain with plates is very simple, I wouldn't call it "crude." It's the reasonable way to do it anywhere in a system that a derailleur isn't also operating as a tensioner.
The main impediments to front derailleur performance are the fact that derailments are initiated on the part of the chain that transmits pedaling forces, and the huge sizes of the shifts that we ask front derailleurs to make. And it's mostly the latter: front derailleurs can be very quick and butter-smooth when the shifts are in the 10T range or smaller, and what this means for shifts between middle and big rings of many triples is one of the main things I like about using triples.

It's also why I think it's silly that interleaved gearing hasn't been brought back. A front shift of just a few teeth could be made extremely snappy and smooth with modern shift gates. Synchro would eliminate the human aspect of double-shifting. With just a 2x11 you could have a gearing range of >500% with all gearing steps in the 7-11% range.
HTupolev is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 05:14 PM
  #117  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,274

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 682 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Rear derailleurs guide the chain via two pulleys that track the sprocket sizes, whereas front derailleurs just shove the chain to the side. Compared to the former, the latter is pretty crude.
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Rear shifting is smooth and fast. Totally effortless with a modern mech. Front shifting is something you just tolerate. It's maybe slightly better with an electronic mech, but still the same crude concept and never really very satisfying. Sooner or later front mechs will get replaced by something more elegant, smoother and faster (probably hub gears). There is less incentive to replace rear mechs as they are quick and smooth in their operation. It's actually a pleasure shifting up and down with a modern electronic rear mech. It's a shame the front isn't in the same league.

This looks very promising as an alternative to front shifting:-

https://granfondo-cycling.com/classi...b-2020-test-2/
true, the FD shoves the chain off one ring and onto another. but so too does the RD. the difference being that the FD shoves from the outside while the RD shoves from the inside of the chain. pretty much the same. and those pulleys mainly take up slack after the shift is done.

i think if the difference in number of teeth on the chain rings were not so great the FD shifting would feel much better. and if the difference in cogs were greater the RD would probably not shift as well as they do. a lot of those cogs change by maybe 2 teeth while for chain rings it can be like 10 or more.
spelger is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 05:58 PM
  #118  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
The use of pulleys does not in and of itself facilitate cog-tracking.
The chain doesn't come in contact with anything other than the pulleys, so if they don't facilitate cog tracking, what does?
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 06:05 PM
  #119  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
The chain doesn't come in contact with anything other than the pulleys, so if they don't facilitate cog tracking, what does?
Err, I think now that I'm confused as to what you mean by "cog tracking." I had assumed that you were referring to the geometric path that the jockey wheel takes relative to the cassette, but now I'm not sure.
HTupolev is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 06:05 PM
  #120  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
It's also why I think it's silly that interleaved gearing hasn't been brought back. A front shift of just a few teeth could be made extremely snappy and smooth with modern shift gates. Synchro would eliminate the human aspect of double-shifting. With just a 2x11 you could have a gearing range of >500% with all gearing steps in the 7-11% range.
"Half-step" gearing was great in the days of six speed freewheels, but it's pretty hard to configure such a system so that two chain rings stay interleaved through 11 or 12 gears.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 06:09 PM
  #121  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
Err, I think now that I'm confused as to what you mean by "cog tracking."
You introduced the term. What is your definition?
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 06:17 PM
  #122  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
"Half-step" gearing was great in the days of six speed freewheels, but it's pretty hard to configure such a system so that two chain rings stay interleaved through 11 or 12 gears.
It's difficult as an end user because very few 11/12-speed cassettes are designed with evenly-stepped ratios, and because matching half-step cranksets don't exist. But that's not something that a component manufacturer couldn't work around. For example, here's the interleave on a 50-46 crankset paired with a 10-12-14-16-19-22-26-30-36-42-50 cassette:



Originally Posted by tomato coupe
You introduced the term.
I was referring to this:
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Rear derailleurs guide the chain via two pulleys that track the sprocket sizes
HTupolev is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 06:47 PM
  #123  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3872 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
That's not a very useful way to frame the size of a gearing jump. 40gi-to-48gi and 80gi-to-88gi are both jumps of 8gi, but the former will have twice the impact on cadence and torque because it's a ratio change of 1.20 while the latter is only 1.10. The "only 3.5gi apart" of your 20->23->26->30 gears are shifts of 15%, 13%, and 15% respectively, which aren't all that small. With an 11-speed drivetrain, for instance, you could achieve comparable if not slightly better spacing at the low-end with something like a 52-36 paired with an 11-42 cassette. Although, it could easily be argued that such a setup would still make compromises compared with your 3x9 (slightly lower top-end, mildly wider shifts across much of the range, bigger front shifts, may require unusual RD configuration to achieve good behavior).

I do agree that wide-range setups where spacing is still a concern is a big blind spot for modern gearing. For me, that sticks out on my gravel setup, where I'm trying to have a reasonably-fully-fledged road drivetrain with decent spacing alongside super-low bailouts. Currently I have a 3x8, with 48-38-24 cranks paired to an 11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32 cassette. In the foothills it behaves like an old-school wide-range triple, but the two larger chainrings 1.5-step the cassette, so tight shifts are available on the road when I want them. In theory it's worth up to ~19 unique useful gear ratios, although once cross-chain aversion and my riding style are accounted for, it's realistically more like 17. And those 17 ratios are quite well-distributed on the range.
I've spreadsheeted out comparisons to modern alternatives, and even with 12-speed cassettes and two chainrings, it's really hard to assemble something that wouldn't make any compromises.
Thanks for the comments. I of course agree about the percentages. What I was hoping for was data rather than opinions which is mostly what I got back. That calculator I posted is very easy to use. I would be interested in seeing what modern gearing could look like, done with a similar range for a club rider.

Our tandem has much more laughable gearing - next week we will be 150 y.o. and still hard at it. It doesn't get easier, you just go slower™. We have a 53-39-24 up front and a 11-40 in the stern. Shifts to and from the granny and middle are not a problem. I don't even run a chain catcher. That is, I used to until I realized it was causing derailments, at which point I took it off. Haven't had a missed front shift since. I am experienced enough not to hit the granny in the middle of a climb. I hit the granny early as I dial the rear up the cassette, then gradually back down. At the top I say, "spin it up," and hit the middle. Middle to big and back are no issue at all - I never call those. I do call the drop into the granny, not for mechanical reasons, just for Stoker's comfort - her pedal is going to drop, then suddenly stop when the chain tightens.

On the tandem, I'm running 10 speed middle and big rings with a 10-speed FD and brifter, still 9-speed in the rear. The tandem's 9-speed FD didn't like the 10-speed rings though my Trek is just fine with 9-speed FD and brifter and also 10-speed rings. I never figured out what the difference was. All Shimano.

On this pass ride, I mostly climbed in my 4 lowest gears and had no problem holding a steady average power as the gradient changed. I also had no problem staying on my companion's tandem wheel during that 4700' descent at 30-40 mph. If I dropped off a little, I could always pedal back on. Love the wide range.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 06:52 PM
  #124  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
It's difficult as an end user because very few 11/12-speed cassettes are designed with evenly-stepped ratios, and because matching half-step cranksets don't exist. But that's not something that a component manufacturer couldn't work around. For example, here's the interleave on a 50-46 crankset paired with a 10-12-14-16-19-22-26-30-36-42-50 cassette:
That's not half bad, if you don't mind the dinner plate cassette. It would be fun to give it a try.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 05-30-22, 09:49 PM
  #125  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3872 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Of course you can't match 27 gears with 24 gears precisely. It's more a question of how big the market is for those requiring 27+ gears. All road bikes I've ever been interested in have always been exclusively 2x anyway (with the odd 1x appearing now). The nearest I could get to your setup would be a 33/46 front and 10/36 12-speed cassette. Doesn't quite match your overall range, but not far off and actually has closer spacing at the top end.

What I actually run is 35/48 and 10/33 which has a bit less range at the lower end, but closer spacing and same top gear as you have.
Thanks for the inspiration, that's nice. Here's the calculator with that 10/36:
Bicycle Gear Calculator

Maybe I should change to a 24T as granny and use a 12/27. I'd only be 1 g.i. higher at the bottom than I am now and everything even closer than you have it. I'd gain 1 more gear in the granny before I had to shift to the middle. I'd lose 10 g.i. at the top end but those gears would be closer together and I don't cruise at 35 mph anyway. I used to think the 12-27 worked well for me. I have that cassette in my spares box, and I can buy a 24T 74 BCD ring for less than $25 and install it myself..
https://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=...N=MPH&DV=teeth
Triples are quite versatile.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.