WAH! Too many gears. Help the stupid newbie!

[Dumb Newbie]

I recently purchased (used) a 2005 TREK 1000. Plenty good enough for me
at this point. It's the first bike I've had since my Schwinn Traveler
when I was a teenager, so I'm not fully up to speed with newer bikes.

The 1000 has 3 front gears, and 8 rear. I'm thoroughly confused as to
which combination of front and rear gears are the best for normal
riding. I end up shifting around between the two, and never developing a
good flow. Do most people use all three front gears in normal
situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones? I'm
tempted to leave the front in the middle, and just use the 8 rear gears,
but something tells me that's not the most efficient, and that I'd be
missing out.

And advice?

 

[Peter Cole]

Dumb Newbie wrote:
> I recently purchased (used) a 2005 TREK 1000. Plenty good enough for me
> at this point. It's the first bike I've had since my Schwinn Traveler
> when I was a teenager, so I'm not fully up to speed with newer bikes.
>
> The 1000 has 3 front gears, and 8 rear. I'm thoroughly confused as to
> which combination of front and rear gears are the best for normal
> riding. I end up shifting around between the two, and never developing a
> good flow. Do most people use all three front gears in normal
> situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones? I'm
> tempted to leave the front in the middle, and just use the 8 rear gears,
> but something tells me that's not the most efficient, and that I'd be
> missing out.
>
> And advice?
>

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears.html

 

[Jim Smith]

Dumb Newbie <[email protected]> writes:

> I recently purchased (used) a 2005 TREK 1000. Plenty good enough for me
> at this point. It's the first bike I've had since my Schwinn Traveler
> when I was a teenager, so I'm not fully up to speed with newer bikes.
>
> The 1000 has 3 front gears, and 8 rear. I'm thoroughly confused as to
> which combination of front and rear gears are the best for normal
> riding. I end up shifting around between the two, and never developing a
> good flow. Do most people use all three front gears in normal
> situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones? I'm
> tempted to leave the front in the middle, and just use the 8 rear gears,
> but something tells me that's not the most efficient, and that I'd be
> missing out.
>
> And advice?

No real rules, just ride and enjoy the bike! The one thing to avoid
is using the "crossed" gears, such as big-ring/big-cog and
small-ring/small-cog. Nothing really bad will happen if you do that,
but it may be less efficient because of the sharper angle of the
chain, and there may be problems with things rubbing.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Go ahead and leave the front on
the middle ring if that feels ok.

Just my 0.02

 

[Ken]

"Dumb Newbie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I recently purchased (used) a 2005 TREK 1000. Plenty good enough for me
> at this point. It's the first bike I've had since my Schwinn Traveler
> when I was a teenager, so I'm not fully up to speed with newer bikes.
>
> The 1000 has 3 front gears, and 8 rear. I'm thoroughly confused as to
> which combination of front and rear gears are the best for normal
> riding. I end up shifting around between the two, and never developing a
> good flow. Do most people use all three front gears in normal
> situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones? I'm
> tempted to leave the front in the middle, and just use the 8 rear gears,
> but something tells me that's not the most efficient, and that I'd be
> missing out.
>
> And advice?
>
I would have to agree with Jim. Just use what feels good for your legs.
Don't worry that much about how efficient it is if you are just getting back
into cycling. You will figure your best gears by how your muscles react.
Ken

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:56:42 -0500, Dumb Newbie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I recently purchased (used) a 2005 TREK 1000.

Damn, that one sure got traded fast.

>Plenty good enough for me
>at this point. It's the first bike I've had since my Schwinn Traveler
>when I was a teenager, so I'm not fully up to speed with newer bikes.
>
>The 1000 has 3 front gears, and 8 rear. I'm thoroughly confused as to
>which combination of front and rear gears are the best for normal
>riding.

Pick the pair that makes for reasonably easy pedalling without causing
the chain to be at too much of an angle. I find that for me, on level
ground, that's the big ring in front and the third smallest in back.
Your needs may differ.

>I end up shifting around between the two, and never developing a
>good flow. Do most people use all three front gears in normal
>situations?

It varies. My daughter tends to select a gear and mash mercilessly
for the entire ride. I shift often. We seem to be at the extremes of
the small group with which I find myself riding.

>Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones? I'm
>tempted to leave the front in the middle, and just use the 8 rear gears,
>but something tells me that's not the most efficient, and that I'd be
>missing out.

IMO, the only rule that matters is this: The greater the angle at
which the chain must run, the faster it will wear. I find that if I
need to go three steps in the back, rhen I'm probably better off going
one step (if it's available!) in the front instead. (This is with
typical mtb gearing; roadies usually have a narrower range in the
back.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[frank-in-toronto]

>Peter Cole wrote:
>> Dumb Newbie wrote:
....
>>>... Do most people use all three front gears in normal
>>> situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones?
....
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears.html
in fact mr brown doesn't answer this question at all. he makes
some philosophical suggestions but a newb wants
statements. later on they can develop their own
fashion of shifting.
....thehick

 

[Peter Cole]

frank-in-toronto wrote:
>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Dumb Newbie wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>... Do most people use all three front gears in normal
>>>>situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones?
>
> ...
>
>>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears.html
>
> in fact mr brown doesn't answer this question at all. he makes
> some philosophical suggestions but a newb wants
> statements. later on they can develop their own
> fashion of shifting.
> ...thehick

There are no "statements", since it really doesn't matter much. Geeks
love to obsess about this stuff, but that's stupid. Sheldon explains the
basics, how you use them is up to you. On my road bike, I pretty much
shift to the big ring in June and shift back in October. On my MTB, I
shift to the big ring when I hit pavement, the middle ring for the woods
and the little ring for steep trails. On my fixed gear I never shift
because it has one gear, but it serves to prove how little difference
all those gears make. Getting a perfect cadence is for pro racers,
doesn't mean squat for anyone else.

 

[Monk]

First, try to pick a gear you can spin at 90 RPM (that mean counting
one complete cycle).
Second, try to find a combination of front and rear gears the creates a
straight chain line. This will reduce wear. Yeah, its metal, but the
chain will wear, and when the cahin wears, it will wear the front chain
rings and the rear gears (called a "cogset", since it is a set of
different cogs with teeth on them). The front chain rings and rear cogs
are numbered. For fun you may want to count the teeth.
Once you have done that go to this site and enter the data, and you
will learn more about your bike than many people who have been riding
for years:
http://www.arachnoid.com/bike/

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:19:56 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>There are no "statements", since it really doesn't matter much. Geeks
>love to obsess about this stuff, but that's stupid. Sheldon explains the
>basics, how you use them is up to you. On my road bike, I pretty much
>shift to the big ring in June and shift back in October. On my MTB, I
>shift to the big ring when I hit pavement, the middle ring for the woods
>and the little ring for steep trails. On my fixed gear I never shift
>because it has one gear, but it serves to prove how little difference
>all those gears make. Getting a perfect cadence is for pro racers,
>doesn't mean squat for anyone else.

Getting a "perfect cadence" may be for pro racers, but maintaining a
cadence in your comfort zone benefits everyone.

I believe others have shared techniques that make a whole lot more
sense, than basing your chainring choice on the month of the year.

I use my smallest chainring for hills, when necessary. I use the
middle ring for starting out and up to about 15 mph. Varying the
position of the cassette, as needed, to maintain a comfortable
cadence. I shift into the larg ring at higher speeds, and don't shift
down to the middle ring until my cadence is getting low, while the
chain is on about the third largest cog.

This works for me, there are other techniques that work for those
riders. After the OP, gets a basic understanding, they will be able
to fine tune their technique. As others have said, the main thing is
not to cross the chain using large-large or small-small combinations.

That is my opinion, just as above Peter gave his "opinion". Although
it did seem stated as fact, it is still just his opinion.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[[email protected]]

Dumb Newbie wrote:
> I recently purchased (used) a 2005 TREK 1000. Plenty good enough for
me
> at this point. It's the first bike I've had since my Schwinn Traveler

> when I was a teenager, so I'm not fully up to speed with newer bikes.
>
> The 1000 has 3 front gears, and 8 rear. I'm thoroughly confused as to

> which combination of front and rear gears are the best for normal
> riding. I end up shifting around between the two, and never
developing a
> good flow. Do most people use all three front gears in normal
> situations? Do you generally only use one or two? Which ones? I'm
> tempted to leave the front in the middle, and just use the 8 rear
gears,
> but something tells me that's not the most efficient, and that I'd be

> missing out.

First of all, you're right- your bicycle probably *does* have too many
gears. 24 gears will cover (for most people) an extraordinarily wide
range of circumstances, from climbing the steepest hills to pedaling
down them as fast as you can. Unless you are doing serious riding in
mountains you probably don't need all of them.

You're also probably right about something else. I think that it is
very likely that for a new cyclist such as yourself the middle gear on
the front combined with the range of the rear (which is probably pretty
wide), will cover most situations, unless you are very fit to start
with, or are riding in difficult terrain. It probably will work to park
the chain on the front middle ring and shift the rear most of the time.
You would shift to the small front for a long climb on a mountain and
shift to the big front for going down mountains. As you develop more
power you will find yourself able to use higher gears and may reach a
point where the large front provides a better range, but for now I
think you may have settled intuitively on the right place. Ironically,
the setup that would most likely require you to change the front gears
more frequently would be a close ratio rear, and most production
bicycles don't have that. (My definition of a close ratio rear is that
most of the rear cogs have one-tooth steps from one gear to the next.)

I don't agree with a couple of things that are considered common
wisdom. I don't believe that a person will harm themselves pushing
gears that are too "hard" anymore than they are likely to hurt
themselves from spinning at a high RPM. Either one can cause a
repetitive stress injury, but I think you will probably not have a
problem with either if you don't go into it with a pre-existing
condition that makes you susceptible to injury. At least you don't have
to deal with the shock involved in running, and issues like motion
control and shock absorbtion in shoes are much less important in
cycling. I think if you use a pedal system with some float in it you
will most likely be okay regardless of how hard or how fast you pedal.

I also don't believe that "spinning" is an effective way to develop as
a cyclist. I believe that it is more effective to work on gaining
strength (assuming adequate rest between rides) in your legs so you can
start to develop more power. (Theoretically you can increase power by
increasing RPM but in practice I think you wind up putting too much of
your effort into the spin to gain strength.) As your power output
increases, I think you will find your rpm rising also, because it will
start to seem like you can generate power more comfortably at higher
RPMs. For learning cycling as a serious athletic pursuit, I think you
should basically spin the pedals as fast as you want but hard enough
that you feel the work.

This is just my opinion, based on my own experience and observation; it
may or may not be supported by sports physiological research, and
certainly will find disagreement from others on this ng. Bottomline,
though, I think you're on the right track.

 

[Peter Cole]

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:19:56 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>There are no "statements", since it really doesn't matter much. Geeks
>>love to obsess about this stuff, but that's stupid. Sheldon explains the
>>basics, how you use them is up to you. On my road bike, I pretty much
>>shift to the big ring in June and shift back in October. On my MTB, I
>>shift to the big ring when I hit pavement, the middle ring for the woods
>>and the little ring for steep trails. On my fixed gear I never shift
>>because it has one gear, but it serves to prove how little difference
>>all those gears make. Getting a perfect cadence is for pro racers,
>>doesn't mean squat for anyone else.
>
>
> Getting a "perfect cadence" may be for pro racers, but maintaining a
> cadence in your comfort zone benefits everyone.
>
> I believe others have shared techniques that make a whole lot more
> sense, than basing your chainring choice on the month of the year.
>
> I use my smallest chainring for hills, when necessary. I use the
> middle ring for starting out and up to about 15 mph. Varying the
> position of the cassette, as needed, to maintain a comfortable
> cadence. I shift into the larg ring at higher speeds, and don't shift
> down to the middle ring until my cadence is getting low, while the
> chain is on about the third largest cog.
>
> This works for me, there are other techniques that work for those
> riders. After the OP, gets a basic understanding, they will be able
> to fine tune their technique. As others have said, the main thing is
> not to cross the chain using large-large or small-small combinations.
>
> That is my opinion, just as above Peter gave his "opinion". Although
> it did seem stated as fact, it is still just his opinion.

You describe your technique, claim it has benefits, but don't describe
them. I don't describe benefits because I don't think there are any.

 

[Peter Cole]

Dumb Newbie wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>>There are no "statements", since it really doesn't matter much. Geeks
>>love to obsess about this stuff, but that's stupid. Sheldon explains the
>>basics, how you use them is up to you.
>
>
> Since I posted the original question, I'll respond here. The link,
> though I appreciated the pointer, didn't really get to what I was asking
> about...which was how do actual individuals handle the combinations. The
> response by David below was spot-on what I was getting at. I realize
> that it's a personal preference, but that's what I was
> seeking...people's personal preferences as a helpful guide.

Cycling is not like driving a car, you can't say the equivalent of: use
D1 for towing a trailer, D2 for stuck in sand or mud, and D for all
other driving.

You are the engine. What cadence you prefer and how often you like to
shift is up to you. Gear choice is determined by so many factors that
giving rules of thumb is counter-productive. Cycling is a highly
self-optimizing activity. The *really* important thing is to listen
carefully to your body. Arbitrarily picking gear ratios, or even
cadences, do nothing but get in the way of that. Other people's personal
preferences are not helpful, particularly when so many are artificial
and based on misunderstandings (magazine articles). Experiment, do what
feels right. It may take a while to find your groove, but that's just
how it works. Bike fit works the same way.

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:43:39 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:



>>
>> This works for me, there are other techniques that work for those
>> riders. After the OP, gets a basic understanding, they will be able
>> to fine tune their technique. As others have said, the main thing is
>> not to cross the chain using large-large or small-small combinations.
>>
>> That is my opinion, just as above Peter gave his "opinion". Although
>> it did seem stated as fact, it is still just his opinion.
>
>You describe your technique, claim it has benefits, but don't describe
>them. I don't describe benefits because I don't think there are any.

I think the OP was looking for info on how to use the "Too many
gears", more so than dragged out usenet discussion on the theoretical
benefits.

I would think that the benefits would be obvious, without those lower
gears, I wouldn't be able to ride up hills. Without a variety of
gears, I wouldn't be able to maintain a comfortable cadence, in all
the various conditions I ride in.

The actual technique and comfortable cadence will of course vary
between riders. David Johnson gave an excellent explanation, which
could serve as a good starting point for a newbie.

Although there are exceptions, it seems to me that in just about every
type of biking, people choose a bike with multiple gear combinations.
And not just for racing, but for touring, for commuting, for off-road
use, etc. So, that tells me that there must be benefits.

I may not be your average rider, but I see a lot of people out riding
that without a selection of gears, would not ride at all. Or we could
set them up with single speeds, and they would have a choice of going
very slowly or walking the bike up every incline. They certainly
wouldn't be able to go at a reasonable pace [12-14mph], and get up any
hills.

If you see no benefits to a choice of gears, why aren't all of your
bikes fixed gears? Why have all that money tied up in derailleurs,
shifters, and cassettes. Who needs 'em?

Of course, this is my opinion, but it is backed by the above examples.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[Peter Cole]

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:43:39 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>This works for me, there are other techniques that work for those
>>>riders. After the OP, gets a basic understanding, they will be able
>>>to fine tune their technique. As others have said, the main thing is
>>>not to cross the chain using large-large or small-small combinations.
>>>
>>>That is my opinion, just as above Peter gave his "opinion". Although
>>>it did seem stated as fact, it is still just his opinion.
>>
>>You describe your technique, claim it has benefits, but don't describe
>>them. I don't describe benefits because I don't think there are any.

> If you see no benefits to a choice of gears, why aren't all of your
> bikes fixed gears? Why have all that money tied up in derailleurs,
> shifters, and cassettes. Who needs 'em?
>
> Of course, this is my opinion, but it is backed by the above examples.

I'm afraid you missed my entire point. It is not that gears are useless,
it's people's advice about gears that's mostly useless. Gears are just
not as critical as many people assume or claim. Cadence is about the
last thing a newbie should be thinking about.

Shifting and pedaling aren't rocket science, there's no technique.
Everybody will figure out what works best for them eventually. Writing
long-winded how-to's perpetuates the myth that there's a right way and a
wrong way. There isn't.