uncle uncle

The discussion on another thread about still riding 5 speed freewheel (I do, but I haven't really had anything unique or different to ad to the discussion), combined with the fact that I just replaced a 5 speed 14-28 freewheel with another 5 speed, 14-28, freewheel made me ponder my own internal debate about gearing. I was going to use a 6 speed Shimano freewheel (NIB), but decided to go instead with a 5 speed Suntour Perfect (straight teeth, like it's parents had paid for some orthodontal work) that looked pretty good to me (but, then, what do I know). Either 5 or 6 speed, I was going to have 14-28 spacing in the rear. Searching the webs, I would guesstimate that about 80% of the 5, 6, & 7 speed freewheels fall in the 14-28 cog tooth range... why is that? Is there something magical about the gear inches obtained when pairing 14-28 to 42/52 chainrings? Is it because many of us are pushing a half of century worth of days on the planet, and about all we can handle is 14-28 in the back? Didn't most speedy racer wanna be's, back in the day, use more corncobbie choices, like 11-21's, or something like that? And, a lot of "sport" models back in the 70's seem to have really big cogs (aka, easier pedaling), past 28 teeth. Just curious on reasons (or theories) as to how we got here with the 14-28 freewheel being so ubiquitous...

big chainring 

28t was about the largest cog a normal short cage rear derailleur could handle. Beyond that a touring type long cage derailleur was required.

Fredo76

A 14-28 was the standard freewheel of the '70s era; with a 2:1 difference, it was fine for average riders, like college students, to get around on.

Racers picked freewheels according to the course being ridden, and while plenty of riders were into spinning, grinding higher gears up hills was definitely a style. Slotted cleats that allowed vigorous pulling back and up on the pedals went a long way towards making such gearing usable, as did youth and strength. Criteriums on flat courses would get a 13-17 or 14-18, called a 13-block or 14-block, and NOT called a corncob. Average road courses and training rides would be handled with a 13-21 or 14-22, or sometimes with a 24 tooth, but most racers rode smaller freewheels than 14-28, perhaps from mis-placed pride. People who needed lower gears usually went with a triple crank.

I think freewheel width increased before 'racing' derailleur's take-up capacity did, so the same ranges stayed popular in 6 and 7-speed clusters (another term for freewheels) when they came about. With my 126 mm dropout distance after cold-setting, I have 6-speed 14-24 on my older wheels (re-spaced), and a 7-speed 14-28 on my new ones. I use a tripilizer to get my geezer gears now.

VintageRide

During the early 70's in my teens I rode whatever gearing was on a given bike, such as the Peugeot U0 8, without much thought and a few years later rode a standard Italian road bike with 54 / 42 chainrings and a 13 - 21T 5 speed freewheel for the next 35 odd years. I was living in Calgary, Alberta at the time and now reside in Vancouver , B.C. so always had hilly terrain. After all those years a degree of diminishing strength had me trying out a few touring models with either a triple or 36 / 48T double with 11 -34T 9 speed mountain gearing and then eventually found that a Randonneur offered the best combination.

I still have one early 1960's French road bike with a 52 / 42T Stronglight and 14 / 28T 5 speed freewheel and although a bit of an effort on hills where I live still manageable but the majority of cycling is on a couple of Randos, one with a 36 / 48 T double crankset and 11 - 36T 8 speed the other running 9 speed 11 - 36T with a TA Cyclotourist triple 26 / 36 / 48T so the gist of it is that most of us are going to find lower gearing advantageous along with a comfortable ride. Even though the French bike with 25mm tubulars actually rides very nicely the 42mm tires on the Randos afford what I consider the best of both worlds - low rolling resistance and the ability to absorb uneven or rough surfaces much better.


Actually, back in the 1950's and into the first half of the 1960's for example, the gearing was a bit lower and then began the move towards higher gearing and frames with shorter wheel bases and steeper seat and head tube angles. I can truly appreciate the longer wheel base of earlier road bikes, much more forgiving and still more than agile.

One needs to realize the influence of organized racing over the decades - the idea that the only way to go fast is on a racing bike. I can say that a traditional 650b Randonneur equipped with lights, fenders and front bag is more than capable. In the end it really comes down to the rider's strength and abilities. Over the years the number of individuals that were punishing themselves on a racing bike when they were not suited for it seems endless, one could see it was an effort and not enjoyable. At least today there are many more options including electric compared to the past when the racing bike was considered the ultimate.

I for one would have enjoyed owning a touring or rando model years ago and taking much longer trips but had the common idea that only a racing bike was ideal and of course was not very aware of other options.

repechage

Depends on the terrain.

I have two bikes with 52/40 and 53/40
they have 14-26

a few others are 14-18 Coast Vintage Ride use.

a man has got to know their limitations.
when I was racing, freewheels were selected for that weekend's race.
keepin in mind that attitude was bigger than a 23 and you were off the back anyway.

I found myself in a race in Mexico, lead group, looked down and I was Climbing in a 52-16!!
and everybody else was in the big ring.
be nice to have those legs again.

Bad Lag

After just a few years of riding, I learned to tailor the freewheel to where I was riding. <-- serious rider but non-racer here.

The thing is, 14-24 got me, and continues to get me, everything I need. I use 42 up front because the crank won't go lower.

I use 52 up front because 52X18 is perfect for me.

Anything faster than 52X14 can handle (>30 mph), well, I worry more about braking and steering than about pedaling.

42X24 gets me up any rational mountain highway/road, even at high altitude.

I only use 42X24 around here on a few fairly short stretches that are just STEEP! 42X21 is much more common.

So, for me, gearing selection is not about age, it is about terrain.

Bad Lag

One more thing, I do use an Ultra-Six 13-32 X 42/45 with a long cage derailleur (DeOre XT) when heading into the serious mountains on steep, small back roads that we have out here in the west.

Bad Lag

Riding in a pack, with others breaking the wind for you, really helps.

Still, you have to tailor for the situation you will be in, right?

52telecaster

Most 14-28 5 speed are 14-17-20-24-28 which is an excellent half step and granny freewheel. Personally I think the 14-17 gap is a bit much unless you have half step. Of course I also ride a sturmey archer aw with even wider gaps.

When I was a kid most department store bikes came with a freewheel like that and a lousy crank.

philbob57

52/40 with 14-17-20-24-28 gives a relatively even progression of gear inches and 10 gears. 52-42/14-28 results in fewer gear choices, with, IMO, essentially 8 gears. In use the 52/40 shift patterns to get the full 10 gears is problematic, but it looks great on paper. In any case, when I first looked for a 10-speed bike, in 1972, everything I found in my price range was 52/40 with European parts. Every brand I looked at was European - Raleigh, Peugeot, Moto, Mercier, Gitane, Bottechia, Jeunet, Atala.... I think I might have seen bikes by Kabuki and C. Itoh, but they were cheap and tank-like. 'Great War' (WW I) tanks, at that.

I think one reason 52/42 became common was that Japanese manufacturers wanted to emulate Campy, with the NR's 41 tooth minimum size that turned into a 42 effective minimum, due to lack of production of 41s. Before I saved enough money to buy my TA crankset, I used an SR Campy copy, except that the taper is JIS.

bikingshearer 

And those lungs. And that pain threshold. And that "oh, what the hell" feeling of youth. You once commented that, if you couldn't climb in a 42x23, you couldn't hang. As I replied then, I couldn't and I didn't. T'was true BITD, t'was more true when I first wrote it, 'tis even more true now.

Forty-two years ago, I rode across the USA on a fully-loaded self-supported tour with a low gear of 40x28. My knees would explode and I would barf up both lungs and die if I tried that to do that now. The changing gearing isn't about terrain, it isn't about age, it isn't about availability of gearing options. It's about all of them

repechage

All made an assumption before the race, at that time the lead group was down to 13, one's turn to pull was not too far away.
a guy would falter, next through would attack to dispatch him from the group.