Gears beyond 99 or 100

Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large front
gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other
front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.

 

>Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large front
>gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear.

I think a gear in the 108 region is pretty nice, a 48-12 would do the trick. I have a bike that has
a 98 inch top gear and it is OK but I would like something taller, especially for down hills.

jon isaacs

 

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:05:21 -0500, no wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Wayne T
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large
>>front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The
>>other front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
>
> Depends on what kind of riding you do. Even a moderate paced recreational club ride can hit 25 mph
> on long stretches of flat pavement.

And most riders can handle that well with a 100 inch gear. People used to race with gears no bigger
than that, and track riders still use gears in the low 90s.

The concept that an average recreational rider has a use for a 53/11 is rather silly. Gears like
that are sold to assuage the rider's ego, not fit his/her needs.

The only time anyone is "spun out" on a gear like that, he is headed downhill on a long straight
stretch. You might as well just get in a tuck and coast.

Yes, racers can benefit from high gears, but only under limited circumstances.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve _`\(,_ | death. And some that die
deserve life. Can you give it to (_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. -- J. R. R. Tolkein

 

"Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear?

Depends on what you're doing. I have 115.4" top (53/12). Only really use it when speeds get over
60kph (37mph) - i.e. sprinting or downhill. 92"
(15T) or 99" (14T) are fine round 50kph (32mph). You need to keep pedal pressure within limits so
your leg muscles don't seize up. That means fairly high cadences at high speeds. Your heart
can recover in a short time but the legs may take days.

> I'm trying to decide which large front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or
> 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other front sprockets would
be
> 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
>
You need to say what you're doing. 99" is heaps for solo riding. Mark Lee

 

In article <[email protected]>, Wayne T
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large front
>gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other
>front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.

Depends on what kind of riding you do. Even a moderate paced recreational club ride can hit 25 mph
on long stretches of flat pavement. A selection of bigger gears is real helpful on these kinds of
rides. On the other hand, if you mostly do loaded touring, then you want a good selection of
slower gears.

Ken

 

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Wayne T
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying
to
> >decide which large front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear.
A
> >48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other front sprockets would
be
> >36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
>
> Depends on what kind of riding you do. Even a moderate paced recreational club ride can hit 25 mph
> on long stretches of flat pavement. A selection
of
> bigger gears is real helpful on these kinds of rides. On the other hand, if you mostly do loaded
> touring, then you want a good selection of slower gears.

I will mostly be doing club rides. However, the lower end is covered by the 22 T front with a 34 T
rear for heavy touring rides. Would a 108 be efficient for straight aways? Or would a 103.5 or 99
be better?
>
> Ken

 

Wayne T wrote:
>
> Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large
> front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The
> other front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.

As a young tourer I couldn't find a big enough gear; 100 being about the highest I could assemble,
and fairly common (52 and 14). I had a 25 mile downwind stretch home along I-70 many weekends that I
wanted to cruise faster.

My 14-tooth cog wore out first every time.

Perhaps that is the test though of whether you'd use a higher gear, whether you hook the small
cog first.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

"David L. Johnson >" <David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The concept that an average recreational rider has a use for a 53/11 is rather silly. Gears like
> that are sold to assuage the rider's ego, not fit his/her needs.

I think it has more to do with style than ego, at least I hope so in my case. I find that I prefer
low cadences when riding fast on flats or slight downhills, I use the 53 x 11 combo a lot.

 

"David L. Johnson >" <David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:05:21 -0500, no wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Wayne T
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large
> >>front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The
> >>other front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
> >
> > Depends on what kind of riding you do. Even a moderate paced recreational club ride can hit 25
> > mph on long stretches of flat pavement.
>
> And most riders can handle that well with a 100 inch gear. People used to race with gears no
> bigger than that, and track riders still use gears in the low 90s.
>
> The concept that an average recreational rider has a use for a 53/11 is rather silly. Gears like
> that are sold to assuage the rider's ego, not fit his/her needs.
>
> The only time anyone is "spun out" on a gear like that, he is headed
downhill
> on a long straight stretch. You might as well just get in a tuck and coast.

Good point. When I go downhill, I find it faster to go into a tuck instead of pedaling. And it saves
energy for the next up hill. Thanks.
>
> Yes, racers can benefit from high gears, but only under limited circumstances.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> __o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve _`\(,_ | death. And some that
> die deserve life. Can you give it to (_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out
> death in judgement. -- J. R. R. Tolkein

 

"Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear?

Depends on who you are and how fast you like to pedal. Personally, when I'm going well I'll time
trial in a 53 x 11 (130"), and a 55 x 13 (114") felt just fine in the one pursuit I did.

Andy Coggan

 

"Mark Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Wayne T" <[email protected]r.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear?
>
> Depends on what you're doing. I have 115.4" top (53/12). Only really use it when speeds get over
> 60kph (37mph) - i.e. sprinting or downhill. 92"
> (15T) or 99" (14T) are fine round 50kph (32mph). You need to keep pedal pressure within limits so
> your leg muscles don't seize up. That means fairly high cadences at high speeds. Your heart
> can recover in a short
time
> but the legs may take days.
>
> > I'm trying to decide which large front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear.
A
> > 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other front sprockets
would
> be
> > 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
> >
> You need to say what you're doing. 99" is heaps for solo riding. Mark Lee

Fast club rides. No races. So, in that case, it sounds like a max gear of 99" is really all I need.

 

"Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote
> Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear?
>
For the average recreational rider, maybe not. My first adult 10 speed had a high of 50/14; taught
me how to spin. Not knowing that I was geared too low to keep up with the others, I managed to do it
anyway. As a result, I still find 90 rpm a leisurely pace and 100 rpm quite comfortable. That will
get me 30 mph, which not being a racer is usually fast enough for me. If I want to go faster, I can
manage a few more rpm for short distances.

George F. Johnson

 

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:
>Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large
>>front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The
>>other front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.

You may as well get the 48 - its range would still overlap comfortably with the 36, and I presume
you're not planning to double-shift ordinarily.

>Depends on what kind of riding you do. Even a moderate paced recreational club ride can hit 25 mph
>on long stretches of flat pavement.

Uh, so? 25mph is about the point where I consider changing out of my 91.5" 52x15 into the 52x13
105.5" - if I didn't have the 52x13 I'd be just fine at 25mph.

[Also, I do wonder about US recreational riding - every time I read about it here you're always
zipping about the place at enormous speeds in huge gears. Don't any of you like to pootle from one
teashop to the next?]
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

In article <[email protected]>, David L. Johnson <David L. Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The concept that an average recreational rider has a use for a 53/11 is rather silly. Gears like
>that are sold to assuage the rider's ego, not fit his/her needs.
>
>The only time anyone is "spun out" on a gear like that, he is headed downhill on a long straight
>stretch. You might as well just get in a tuck and coast.

There may be a physiological advantage, depending on terrain: if you go over a fairly good-sized
steepish hill, your legs may benefit from the spinning on the far downhill side. Blood circulation
in the legs is significantly boosted. Sure, it would be great if I could spin at over 134 rpm
(40mph, 100" gear on one of my former commutes -- and it's not uncommon to reach 50mph on that
hill), but frankly I'm not up to it, and it wouldn't be nearly as refreshing. It may be suboptimal
in terms of speed, but not in terms of my physiology. However illusory, the feeling that the legs
are 'working' on a high-speed descent is delicious, even if it's less aerodynamically efficient.

-frank
--

 

Wayne T wrote:

> Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large
> front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The
> other front sprockets would be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.

My top gear is 42-11, which I think is 99". It's plenty for flat ground, but I could definately use
a notch taller gear -- maybe 108" -- for long stretches of gentle downhill, or tailwinds. (On steep
downhills it's better to just coast.) There are a couple of places around here where the lack of a
taller gear is annoying.

Note that for off road work, a 42-11 is more than enough. I was perfectly happy with a 46-13 when
I had that.

Matt O.

 

In article <aH*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [Also, I do wonder about US recreational riding - every time I read about it here you're always
> zipping about the place at enormous speeds in huge gears. Don't any of you like to pootle from one
> teashop to the next?]

It's about image and posing in many cases. After all, if your notion of a recreational ride is going
35 mph in a 115" gear for significant amounts of time, you probably should have been a pro, right?

Bigger better faster more is the motto of most Americans.

Personally, I like a hard ride with the club on a summer's eve and call that recreation. And I like
a "pootle" on a nice afternoon and that's recreation too (although of course as an American I call
it a "spin" rather than a "pootle")- but there few teashops anywhere in the U.S. Coffee shops, donut
shops and the like, yes. Tea shops are few and far between. Fewer boulangers or patissiers- thinking
of my waistline, that's probably a good thing.

 

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:18:03 -0500, Frank Miles wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, David L. Johnson <David L. Johnson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The concept that an average recreational rider has a use for a 53/11 is rather silly. Gears like
>>that are sold to assuage the rider's ego, not fit his/her needs.
>>
>>The only time anyone is "spun out" on a gear like that, he is headed downhill on a long straight
>>stretch. You might as well just get in a tuck and coast.
>
> There may be a physiological advantage, depending on terrain: if you go over a fairly good-sized
> steepish hill, your legs may benefit from the spinning on the far downhill side.

In such a situation I do indeed pedal down the other side of such a hill, and it doesn't matter
whether or not the pedals are caught up with the gear.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is _`\(,_ | not that they are
extreme, but that they are intolerant. (_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

 

David L. Johnson wrote:
> In such a situation I do indeed pedal down the other side of such a hill, and it doesn't matter
> whether or not the pedals are caught up with the gear.

I ride the brakes to as to keep the pedals caught up.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]t> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear?
>
> Depends on who you are and how fast you like to pedal.

When I was younger, I would have loved to have a higher gear than my 100 inch. However, I decided
that, realistically, at 56, I would do just fine with a high of 103.5, which is close to 100 anyway.
The other choice would have been 99. Maybe, I will regret it if I decide to get a set of light
weight wheels for my touring bike. Someone suggested American Classic hubs with Velocity aerohead
rims, 28t in front and 32t in back. He said that he spun a wheel with a campy hub next to a wheel
with an AC hub and that the AC hub spun longer. The other nice thing is that these hubs are very
light and sealed.

Personally, when I'm
> going well I'll time trial in a 53 x 11 (130"), and a 55 x 13 (114") felt just fine in the one
> pursuit I did.
>
> Andy Coggan

 

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wayne T wrote:
>
> > Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying to decide which large
> > front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear.
A
> > 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other front sprockets
would
> > be 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
>
> My top gear is 42-11, which I think is 99".

If you use 27" wheel in the formula, then the gear would be a 103". The 46-12 that I decided to go
with is a 103.5. So, since similar to your, sounds like it may be good enough. I only thing that a
higher gear might help pedaling downhill, and I've found that I go just as fast and faster laying
down on the drops and coasting. Going with a 42-11 would have saved me some wait, but my builder
said that his experience is, and I kind of thought it would be, that the 11s wear out faster than
12s do. So, he suggested that I not get a smaller tooth rear gear.

It's plenty for flat ground,
> but I could definately use a notch taller gear -- maybe 108" -- for long stretches of gentle
> downhill, or tailwinds.

This is a good point. Perhaps, I will end up being sorry that I didn't go for the 108 that a 48-12
would have given me. Well, at least the 103.5 is bigger than the other choice, 99 inch, or 44-12.

(On steep downhills it's
> better to just coast.) There are a couple of places around here where the lack of a taller gear is
> annoying.
>
> Note that for off road work, a 42-11 is more than enough. I was perfectly happy with a 46-13 when
> I had that.
>
> Matt O.