Hills killing me

[Bill Davidson]

The Pomeranian wrote:
> extra cog(s) is typically introduced (and it is usually only *one* extra cog that entices
> replacement -- that should point to the strength of motivation). It is typically experienced
> riders that buy at the top-of-the-line, not newbies. The evidence does not support you.

Experienced riders can be just as sucked in by it as anyone. When I bought into 7 speed I was doing
300 miles a week every week. If I had it to do over again I would have gone with a 6 speed system
but I was younger and more easily seduced by marketing and the "more is better" mentality.

> > You actually said a 1T difference is too big.
>
> Then you won't mind citing that, I'm sure. You can't do it because it doesn't exist.

Perhaps it was someone else but someone said that here. I thought it was you. I appoligize if I
misattributed that to you.

> That's 11%. Guess what, 3 of your steps are more than that. So in that sense, you don't meet your
> own goal. Two of your steps are within my stated goal of "Try to get spacing under 10%," and one
> of your steps is at 11%, so you apparently are at least in close to agreement with me on those,
> even though you don't seem to even know it. Maybe I should thank you for the agreement, but I
> can't see that you know what you have, or what you want (from an analytical perspective, not from
> an experiential perspective). But yet you imply others are stupid or crazy.

I've been double shifting since I got my first 10-speed in the 1970's, before I even started riding
a lot. You can effectively do less than 1T jumps if you know your gears. I can certainly do less
than 2T jumps with my setup. It's called "knowing how to shift". You might want to look into it.

Meanwhile, the push to have smaller jumps and thus more cogs has made good road gear under 8 speed
extinct, and 8 speed almost extinct. Sure you can still get 7 speed if you get very low end MTB gear
but you don't have the support of road style shifters (be they downtube, bar ends or brifters). I
don't even know of any six speed gear you can buy though I have seen some on the Kmart $100 MTB's.
Road wheels are rediculously overdished and more sane choices are limited to low end gear. Moreover,
the thinner cogs and thinner chains are less durable. The costs, which are significant, outweigh the
benefits which are minor at best. I wouldn't mind but I can't even buy
6/7 speed gear because everyone had bought into the "more is better" mentality to the point that the
major gear companies don't feel that lower numbers of gears are economically a good idea.
Meanwhile, most of the people with these 9-speed bikes are stomping around in the wrong gear at
45-65 rpm's most of the time anyway or the bike is sitting in the garage unused because it makes
their knees hurt.

Chances are that when my drive train needs to be replaced, I'll be going with a 9 speed system,
primarily because my choices are limited and not because of the need for more gears.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

 

[Bill Davidson]

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Yes, if you're one of the teensy percentage of cyclists who races.

Exactly. That was my point before the Pom jumped all over me. Most people don't race, even most
people with racing bikes don't actually race.

> Likewise, if you race automobiles, fuel efficiency doesn't matter a bit. Neither does mechanical
> wear, which is why racing car engines run at such high rpms.

True.

> However, for most cyclists and motorists, efficiency does matter, as does avoiding excessive
> loading to the knees and other joints.

I couldn't agree more; especially as I get older and the knee issues become more worrisome.

> I don't believe this thead is about racing.

It certainly shouldn't be but the Pom keeps trying to pull it into that with some success.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

 

[Robert Chung]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
> > Second, and paradoxically, the near-flatness of the cadence curve
doesn't
> > say that a rider should be indifferent to a particular gear. This is
where I
> > think Terry and Frank went wrong. After all, the rider has got to
produce
> > the torque necessary to move the bike, so the rider may very well choose
a
> > gear based not on cadence, but on the torque he's comfortably able to produce.
>
> I made this same point earlier, (renamed "Preferred Cadence"):
>
> "So if aerobic efficency is the only goal, always pedaling at one's preferred cadence is a poor
> strategy. Preventing muscle fatigue is another important issue, however. For that, I suggest the
> most important factor is maintaining peak pedal forces below a threshold that would cause fatigue.
> Having a low enough gear to stay at or below this pedal force would then be the goal of gear
> selection. This is a different criteria than simply choosing enough gears to be able to pedal at
> one's preferred cadence at any speed."
>
> ref: http://makeashorterlink.com/?B32A12853

Ah, good. You were following this little subthread. I think that's sort of it, but I don't think
that it's quite exactly right either, since the goal isn't to stay below a fatigue threshold -- this
rider is trying to minimize his overall time. His pedal force (or torque) is definitely reaching
into the fatigue zone.

The cadence-power plot (and the pedal force-power plot) don't show changes over the course of the
race. You have to look at other plots, time-series or distance-series plots similar to the ones at
the top of that page, to see the sequence of events.

If you download the data and create a plot of gear choice by distance or time, you can see where
this rider changed gears. (In fact, it's possible to discern exactly the chainring and cogs he was
using so that if one were really interested, one could determine the amount of time spent in a 39x17
vs. a 39x15, but that's a side issue to this point). Anyway, if you zoom in to a couple of places
where he changed gears, you can look at his cadence and pedal force just slightly before and
slightly after he changed gears. I think I know what I see, but I'd be interested in someone
else's eyes. Is the rider changing gears in response to pedal force or to cadence?

 

[The Pomeranian]

Bill Davidson wrote:
>
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > Yes, if you're one of the teensy percentage of cyclists who races.
>
> Exactly. That was my point before the Pom jumped all over me. Most people don't race, even most
> people with racing bikes don't actually race.

You told Mark Lee he was "mental" when he was explicitly refering to performance oriented riding.
It's right there for perpetuity in black and white (via deja). You wrote it.

I made it quite clear what I was talking about and put qualifications in my comments right at the
start. Just because people don't race doesn't mean they wouldn't like small step sizes (many do).
They don't need you saying they are mental just because you are happy w/ a 6sp.

> > However, for most cyclists and motorists, efficiency does matter, as does avoiding excessive
> > loading to the knees and other joints.
>
> I couldn't agree more; especially as I get older and the knee issues become more worrisome.
>
> > I don't believe this thead is about racing.
>
> It certainly shouldn't be but the Pom keeps trying to pull it into that with some success.

Nonsense. _First off_, before Bluto came down on me as kooky and obsessive-compulsive and Matt
O'Toole started nodding his head "yes, oh yes," I wrote: "For causal riding, it is much easier to
tolerate, and even 'not notice' larger step sizes." I never tried to turn this into a "race thread,"
and not that it would matter since I forthrightly qualified the performance aspects of my *opinions*
at the very start. Anbody who wasn't interested in that aspect could simply ignore it. It is all
there in black and white.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Bill Davidson]

The Pomeranian wrote:
> You told Mark Lee he was "mental" when he was explicitly refering to performance oriented riding.
> It's right there for perpetuity in black and white (via deja). You wrote it.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WORDS IN ENGLISH?!

I said "It must be a mental thing". I didn't call him mental. Learn to read. You keep amplifying
everything and adding new meaning. This is obviously a very emotional issue for you. The fact that
it upsets you so much suggests that you might need mental help.

> Just admit you were wrong and move on.

You're a lunatic, but not because you like large numbers of gears with small steps.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

 

[The Pomeranian]

Bill Davidson wrote:
>

> I said "It must be a mental thing". I didn't call him mental. Learn to read.

Right Bill, keep telling yourself that. Squirming and worming in rbt.

> You keep amplifying everything and adding new meaning.

I'll admit to amplifying, but not to adding meaning. I think amplifying helps you understand what
you wrote.

> This is obviously a very emotional issue for you. The fact that it upsets you so much suggests
> that you might need mental help.

Here we go with that "mental" thing again.

> You're a lunatic, but not because you like large numbers of gears with small steps.

I may be a small dog, but I rarely howl at the moon.

 

[Tom Nakashima]

I do get caught up in the Tour, especially when Ligget commentates. I can see how his mastery of the
game takes over and he can over react with excitement. And me "Ligget gullible" and just as excited,
can buy into his cycling lingo. OK, embarrassed now, just glad he didn't say 70+ mph.

On the death ride two years ago, I hit 47mph, and my friend hit 52 off of Ebbetts Pass. We both set
our cyclometers to zero that day and bet dinner on who would have the highest speed. Come to think
of it, I never did check to see if he was calibrated right. 47mph is my fastest recorded time, and I
didn't know until I reached the rest stop and looked at my max speed. If I would have known I was
that close to 50, I would have tried to get it. That's why when I reviewed the tape of the 1986
Tour, thought it could be possible for LeMond & Hinault to hit 60mph. -tom

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:_8B%9.63748>

> 60mph is generally a figment of Phil Liggett's imagination. 60mph is not possible on most tour
> classics, be that TdS, GdI or TdF. Typically, in all of Bob Roll's racing, he only once reached
> 100km/h and that event is what caused him and Alcala to block the next stage start in protest to
> the crash that was caused; the stage start in question having been down the descent that reached
> this speed.
>
> Ligget cavalierly describes the 7-8% descent of the twisty Galibier as 60mph when all riders are
> pedaling continuously except in corners. The public has been led to believe these tales having
> heard them so often. I recall being credited with a 60mph descent in a Berkeley Hills race on a
> section that even 45mph is only possible with favorable wind. Of course back then we had no
> Cyclometers and could not verify that these were lies.
>
> Consider that increasing speed of 1mph at 60mph takes about 13.8 times the power of doing so at
> 25mph. Pedaling at over 40mph is useless, and what you saw was probably at less than 40 if it
> wasn't a short burst for a finish line, in spite of the announcers BS.
>
> Thats (60/25)^3 = 13.824
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Terry Morse]

Tom Nakashima wrote:

> On the death ride two years ago, I hit 47mph, and my friend hit 52 off of Ebbetts Pass. We both
> set our cyclometers to zero that day and bet dinner on who would have the highest speed. Come to
> think of it, I never did check to see if he was calibrated right. 47mph is my fastest recorded
> time, and I didn't know until I reached the rest stop and looked at my max speed.

One needn't go to Ebbett's Pass to break 50 mph. The straight section of Los Trancos Road in
nearby Portola Valley is sufficient, as long as you get a running start. I'm not recommending it,
but it's possible:

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=10&n=4134343&e=570972&s=25

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Terry Morse writes:

>> On the death ride two years ago, I hit 47mph, and my friend hit 52 off of Ebbetts Pass. We both
>> set our Cyclometer to zero that day and bet dinner on who would have the highest speed. Come to
>> think of it, I never did check to see if he was calibrated right. 47mph is my fastest recorded
>> time, and I didn't know until I reached the rest stop and looked at my max speed.

> One needn't go to Ebbetts Pass to break 50 mph. The straight section of Los Trancos Road in nearby
> Portola Valley is sufficient, as long as you get a running start. I'm not recommending it, but
> it's possible:

> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=10&n=4134343&e=570972&s=25

I prefer not to tell people HOW fast in ride reports because I don't like to encourage people to
attempt high speeds. A few years ago a rider died on Los Trancos Rd from hitting a deer (something
cars do more often) at the bottom of the "dip". I have had deer cross in front of me on Sanborn Rd,
another favorite fast spot, that should not be taken fast for that reason. The back side of Mt
Hamilton also has a high speed section with a cattle guard in a right angle (10mph) turn at its end.
That section and the little straight run into Portola State Park have great similarities because
they both can achieve a "magic number" speed, and both require hard brakes at the lower end.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Nakashima wrote:
>
> > On the death ride two years ago, I hit 47mph, and my friend hit 52
off of
> > Ebbetts Pass. We both set our cyclometers to zero that day and bet
dinner
> > on who would have the highest speed. Come to think of it, I never
did check
> > to see if he was calibrated right. 47mph is my fastest recorded
time, and I
> > didn't know until I reached the rest stop and looked at my max
speed.
>
> One needn't go to Ebbett's Pass to break 50 mph. The straight section
of
> Los Trancos Road in nearby Portola Valley is sufficient, as long as
you
> get a running start. I'm not recommending it, but it's possible:
>
> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=10&n=4134343&e=570972&s=25

The east side of Ebbett's would be one of my last choices for a speed record because the steep
sections are really narrow and have turns and the straight sections at the bottom are too flat. The
west side is better, but Monitor and Carson have more straight, steep sections. I hit 61.5 mph on
Carson on the Death Ride, which is an excellent ride to attempt a personal best because the passes
are closed to traffic. I used to be good at carrying speed through corners, but after crashing on a
couple of wet descents and growing older, I've slowed down quite a bit. Going fast on a straight
descent only takes weight (which I have), but cornering hard takes skill and faith, which I have
lost. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Jay Beattie <[email protected]> writes:

>> One needn't go to Ebbetts Pass to break 50 mph. The straight section of Los Trancos Road in
>> nearby Portola Valley is sufficient, as long as you get a running start. I'm not recommending it,
>> but it's possible:

>> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=10&n=4134343&e=570972&s=25

> The east side of Ebbetts would be one of my last choices for a speed record because the steep
> sections are really narrow and have turns and the straight sections at the bottom are too flat.
> The west side is better, but Monitor and Carson have more straight, steep sections.

Ebbetts pass is only steep on Cadillac Curve on the east slope, a hairpin, and on the esses of
Pacific Grade, so there isn't any opportunity for speed. Most people believe that if they weren't
afraid that the descent would be much faster but it isn't true. These people would be surprised how
little more speed would be achieved if they made themselves small on the bicycle and let it roll. It
takes a 13% grade to reach 60mph without assisting wind. The east side of the Fedaia Pass in the
Dolomites has such a straight section as does the Timmelsjoch (aka Passo Rombo). I think they are
safely far away that there won't be a large outing in hopes of a high max speed.

> I hit 61.5 mph on Carson on the Death Ride, which is an excellent ride to attempt a personal best
> because the passes are closed to traffic.

You didn't say where and what sort of wind that took. I am not aware of suitable straight sections
on that road.

> I used to be good at carrying speed through corners, but after crashing on a couple of wet
> descents and growing older, I've slowed down quite a bit. Going fast on a straight descent only
> takes weight (which I have), but cornering hard takes skill and faith, which I have lost.

I don't see the connection. Descending at sixty miles per hour and cornering have nothing to do with
each other.

http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps_Gallery/ti-
retest.jpg

This picture involves cornering, but it's less than 40mph.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Tom Nakashima]

That's leaning pretty far! I tried to measure the angle from viewing your picture, looks like you're
close to 45 degrees. I don't think I've been over that far.

How far can you lean a bike over in a turn? I always thought the faster you go, the further you can
lean the bike over? -tom

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I don't see the connection. Descending at sixty miles per hour and cornering have nothing to do
> with each other.
>
>
http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_
the_Alps_Gallery/tiretest.jpg
>
> This picture involves cornering, but it's less than 40mph.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Tom Nakashima writes:

> How far can you lean a bike over in a turn? I always thought the faster you go, the further you
> can lean the bike over?

The angle between road and plumb line of bicycle and rider is limited by the friction coefficient
between tire to road. That angle is about 45 degrees for a smooth tire with appropriate inflation
and cross section independent of speed.

The lean angle is given by the centrifugal acceleration force divided by gravity. That force is (R *
Omega^2 * Mass) curve radius times the angular velocity times the mass of rider and bicycle.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Jay Beattie]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jay Beattie <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> One needn't go to Ebbetts Pass to break 50 mph. The straight section of Los Trancos Road in
> >> nearby Portola Valley is sufficient, as long as you get a running start. I'm not recommending
> >> it, but it's possible:
>
> >> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=10&n=4134343&e=570972&s=25
>
> > The east side of Ebbetts would be one of my last choices for a speed record because the steep
> > sections are really narrow and have turns and the straight sections at the bottom are too flat.
> > The west side is better, but Monitor and Carson have more straight, steep sections.
>
> Ebbetts pass is only steep on Cadillac Curve on the east slope, a hairpin, and on the esses of
> Pacific Grade, so there isn't any opportunity for speed. Most people believe that if they weren't
> afraid that the descent would be much faster but it isn't true. These people would be surprised
> how little more speed would be achieved if they made themselves small on the bicycle and let it
> roll. It takes a 13% grade to reach 60mph without assisting wind. The east side of the Fedaia Pass
> in the Dolomites has such a straight section as does the Timmelsjoch (aka Passo Rombo). I think
> they are safely far away that there won't be a large outing in hopes of a high max speed.
>
> > I hit 61.5 mph on Carson on the Death Ride, which is an excellent ride to attempt a personal
> > best because the passes are closed to traffic.
>
> You didn't say where and what sort of wind that took. I am not aware of suitable straight sections
> on that road.

I have only done the pass five or six times over many years, so I do not have perfect recollection.
I do remember carrying all my speed through the sweeping left-hand turn near the top (going east)
and hitting maximum velocity about half way between the top and Pickett's Junction. All of the turns
were sweeping -- no hairpins or switch-backs, or anything particularly tight. One thing I do recall
now is that I came up out of a tuck, looked at my speedo and got scared when a car passed coming up
the hill honking in a wide open section with a slight right turn -- which was odd because the pass
was closed (I thought), and it was not that late in the day. There probably was a tail wind because
there was a head wind through Hope Valley.

> > I used to be good at carrying speed through corners, but after crashing on a couple of wet
> > descents and growing older, I've slowed down quite a bit. Going fast on a straight descent only
> > takes weight (which I have), but cornering hard takes skill and faith, which I have lost.
>
> I don't see the connection. Descending at sixty miles per hour and cornering have nothing to do
> with each other.

They may, but that is not my point. My point is that dropping like a rock just takes the right piece
of road and some weight. I was about 205lbs that last time I descended Carson. Keeping up speed on a
twisting descent is far more difficult. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[The Pomeranian]

Bill Davidson wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> > extra cog(s) is typically introduced (and it is usually only *one* extra cog that entices
> > replacement -- that should point to the strength of motivation). It is typically experienced
> > riders that buy at the top-of-the-line, not newbies. The evidence does not support you.
>
> Experienced riders can be just as sucked in by it as anyone. When I bought into 7 speed I was
> doing 300 miles a week every week. If I had it to do over again I would have gone with a 6 speed
> system but I was younger and more easily seduced by marketing and the "more is better" mentality.

There goes that old worn out phoney presumption again (older than the junk it defends). "If you buy
*anything* new you are a marketing dupe," and "only the old stuff is any good."

> I've been double shifting since I got my first 10-speed in the 1970's, before I even started
> riding a lot. You can effectively do less than 1T jumps if you know your gears. I can certainly
> do less than 2T jumps with my setup. It's called "knowing how to shift". You might want to look
> into it.

You might want to review the recent thread _Problem find Chainwheel for Half Step Gearing_. I have
half-steps -- not that it changes anything here regarding my perspective of gear step sizes (it
actually affirms what I've wrote). Make up your mind. Yes, half-steps offer small step sizes: so do
you want small step sizes or not?

> Meanwhile, the push to have smaller jumps and thus more cogs has made good road gear under 8 speed
> extinct, and 8 speed almost extinct.

Not quite true, but so what anyway? Brifters are about the only thing near dead on the 8sp front,
and brand new Sora 8sp brifters can be had.

> Sure you can still get 7 speed if you get very low end MTB gear but you don't have the support of
> road style shifters (be they downtube, bar ends or brifters).

I think you'll find the 8sp barends that are still available can be made to work with 7sp cassettes,
especially if you replace the spacers w/ the nominally different 8sp spacers (8sp: 3.0; 7sp: 3.1).
Of course that probably means the Sora 8sp brifters will probably work too.

> I don't even know of any six speed gear you can buy though I have seen some on the Kmart
> $100 MTB's.

Yes (gas-pipe bikes are available w/ 6sp), but so what? 7sp cassettes fit in the same width and the
shifting systems are so good now that it is fairly easy to shift 7sp and 8sp cassettes via friction,
although I choose index because there is no reason avoid indexing.

> Road wheels are rediculously overdished and more sane choices are limited to low end gear.

So then why criticize those who decide to suffer the allegedly "overdished" wheel to add a low or
two? In any case, the accusation of "overdished" is subjective at best. My "overdished" wheels work
just fine and so do the wheels of most other cyclists.

> Moreover, the thinner cogs and thinner chains are less durable.

9sp Shimano cogs are 1.78 mm and 6-7-8sp cogs are 1.8 mm wide. That's hardly enough to be concerned
about *and* there are more total teeth to wear out in the 9sp than for 6-7- or 8sp cassettes. Has
anyone actually compared the length of the pin sleeve for 9sp versus 6-7-8sp chains? Produce real
evidence that 9sp systems are less durable. As it stands, your claim sounds like sour grapes stirred
with a few pinches of myth and lore.

> The costs, which are significant, outweigh the benefits which are minor at best.

There really aren't any significant cost differences at the incremental level. That's why so many
cyclists disagree with you.

> I wouldn't mind but I can't even buy 6/7 speed gear because everyone had bought into the "more is
> better" mentality to the point that the major gear companies don't feel that lower numbers of
> gears are economically a good idea.

There you go with the mental/mentality thing again. This is just sour grapes because you're mad that
hardly anyone else wants the stuff you want. I suppose that a company forgoing the manufacture of
stuff hardly anybody wants, when offered a choice of something else, is well justified.

> Meanwhile, most of the people with these 9-speed bikes are stomping around in the wrong gear at
> 45-65 rpm's most of the time anyway...

I guess you haven't been listening to the flat power cult -- they say it doesn't matter how fast one
pedals. Which is it? I see a morass of inconsistancy among the anti small step crowd.

> ...or the bike is sitting in the garage unused because it makes their knees hurt.

I happen to be in agreement with the High Priest on many issues, and "hurting knees" is one of them.
Big gears haven't hurt my knees one bit. Is this "hurting knees" stuff just something you are making
up? Moreover, what does it have to do with 9sp bikes in particular?

> Chances are that when my drive train needs to be replaced, I'll be going with a 9 speed system,
> primarily because my choices are limited and not because of the need for more gears.

Dude, don't worry about it. The only thing that *may* turn out to actually be true regarding
comparative longevity of 9sp's is that of faster chain wear. So what -- you *might* have to replace
the chain slightly more often. That is easy to do and not all that expensive in terms of cost per
hour of use. I don't know what you mean by "the need for more gears." What does "need" mean? Bluto
and Matt claim that folks can get on down the road really well with only one gear. That means you
don't "need" six gears; you only "need" one. Should you consider yourself a gear glutton with two
chainrings and 6 cogs? I guess because you are happy with an 8 oz steak, anybody who wants a 12 oz
steak is a dupe for Outback Steakhouse.

 

[Terry Morse]

The Pomeranian wrote:

> There goes that old worn out phoney presumption again (older than the junk it defends). "If you
> buy *anything* new you are a marketing dupe," and "only the old stuff is any good."

There's an opposite presumption that since the new stuff sells well, it must be better. Neither
argument is very persuasive.

> So then why criticize those who decide to suffer the allegedly "overdished" wheel to add a low or
> two? In any case, the accusation of "overdished" is subjective at best. My "overdished" wheels
> work just fine and so do the wheels of most other cyclists.

Except for rubbing brake pads when standing on a climb, I agree. "Overdished" wheels aren't
collapsing at an alarming rate, so they must be good enough. Some might consider the rubbing brake
pads an annoyance, though.

> This is just sour grapes because you're mad that hardly anyone else wants the stuff you want. I
> suppose that a company forgoing the manufacture of stuff hardly anybody wants, when offered a
> choice of something else, is well justified.

That presumes quite a bit of savvy on the general buying public. This is the same public that eats
up colored tires, anodized rims, low spoke count wheels, etc., siimply because these are the things
they are being marketed. They don't buy these things because they've determined them to be better,
they buy them because they don't know any better.

> > ...or the bike is sitting in the garage unused because it makes their knees hurt.
>
> I happen to be in agreement with the High Priest on many issues, and "hurting knees" is one of
> them. Big gears haven't hurt my knees one bit. Is this "hurting knees" stuff just something you
> are making up?

Sore knees are a reality for some people. If you have unbalanced strength in your quad muscles, this
can exacerbate patellar malalignment, a very common knee problem. I've been dealing with it since
high school. A malaligned patella irritate the knee as it rubs against the knee joint. Strength
training can alleviate or eliminate this problem. An untrained person with patellar malaignment,
hopping on a bike and stomping in a big gear, can certainly get knee pain. But if your quads are
strong and you've been riding regularly, knee pain from patellar malalignment is unlikely.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[Jim Quinn]

"Bill Davidson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Meanwhile, the push to have smaller jumps and thus more cogs has made good road gear under 8 speed
> extinct, and 8 speed almost extinct. Sure you can still get 7 speed if you get very low end MTB
> gear but you don't have the

Wow, you really are a retro aren't you. It isn't all that hard to get good New old stock 7spd stuff
if you know where to look for it.

> on the Kmart $100 MTB's. Road wheels are rediculously overdished and more sane choices are
> limited to low end gear. Moreover, the thinner cogs and thinner chains are less durable. The
> costs, which are

Huh, the Wheels that I have seem to do just fine the last 50,000 miles. I have also never broken a
chain 8spd or 9spd. Since I put in more miles on my bicycle than my car that seems just fine. The
real beef I have these days is the price and durability of tires.

> gears are economically a good idea. Meanwhile, most of the people with
these
> 9-speed bikes are stomping around in the wrong gear at 45-65 rpm's most of
the

Most new riders use a low cadence, I did when I started and I was using a 6spd bicycle at the time.
And talk about using a wrong gear. I shifted very rarely back then. When I got the 8spd STI shifters
I probably started shifting at least twice as often as with the 6spd bicycle. The riders I ride with
now probably average around 90 to 100 cadence. I know one guy who consistently averages 120. It
hurts me to look at him but he has a hell of a sprint. Oh and he uses a 9spd groupo.

>
> --Bill Davidson
> --
> Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

 

[The Pomeranian]

Terry Morse wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
>
> > There goes that old worn out phoney presumption again (older than the junk it defends). "If you
> > buy *anything* new you are a marketing dupe," and "only the old stuff is any good."
>
> There's an opposite presumption that since the new stuff sells well, it must be better. Neither
> argument is very persuasive.

New goods have been introduced to the marketplace by companies with impressive market clout. That
alone does not guarantee marketplace success of the product, although it sure doesn't hurt. In the
end, each technology should be evaluated individually rather than making blanket statements that it
is "bad" because it is new or it is "good" because it is new. My perception of rbt is that many
demonstrations of "anti-new" are blanket postures and thus essentially non-technical.

For the specific case of "how many gears on a bicycle are enough," I see the same idea: most
complaints against more gears are more emotional than technical. The judgment of "how many gears is
enough" includes a good measure if subjectivity, as I've been saying all along. That means those
people who favor a lot of cogs and small step sizes are perfectly justified in their technical
choice of having more gears. High numbers of gears is simply not something manufacturers could foist
upon consumers unless baseline performance standards are met. Those standards have been met and
people in turn tend to favor more cogs and gears, all other things equal.

As for a prediction into the future, I often hear here in rbt complaints that the march to more and
more gears is inexorable. This will prove in practice to be untrue. The overwhelming number of
cyclists will never demand much more than 9-10% resolution in gears, any more than most music fans
will demand more than 16 bits of resolution for their stereos (a few oddballs will apparently pay
for 24 bits). Because the total range of needed gears is limited too, we will see a practical end to
the addition of cogs/gears.

> > So then why criticize those who decide to suffer the allegedly "overdished" wheel to add a low
> > or two? In any case, the accusation of "overdished" is subjective at best. My "overdished"
> > wheels work just fine and so do the wheels of most other cyclists.
>
> Except for rubbing brake pads when standing on a climb, I agree.

I don't see it in climbing as much as I hear the brake pad chatter during sprints. Anyway, I choose
the extra cogs, even if it means a little chatter or rubbing.

> "Overdished" wheels aren't collapsing at an alarming rate, so they must be good enough. Some might
> consider the rubbing brake pads an annoyance, though.
>
> > This is just sour grapes because you're mad that hardly anyone else wants the stuff you want. I
> > suppose that a company forgoing the manufacture of stuff hardly anybody wants, when offered a
> > choice of something else, is well justified.
>
> That presumes quite a bit of savvy on the general buying public. This is the same public that eats
> up colored tires, anodized rims, low spoke count wheels, etc., siimply because these are the
> things they are being marketed. They don't buy these things because they've determined them to be
> better, they buy them because they don't know any better.

Each technology must be evaluated for its own merits. Blanket hand waving and canned condemnation
doesn't answer technical questions. No convincing argument has been levied against 9sp and 10sp
cassettes for the riding purposes of most riders. The very *worst* criticism against more gears is
limited (related) to the greater wheel dish and conceivably higher chain wear rate. This may not be
invalid criticism, but it is weak and many riders will gladly trade (balance) these possible
shortcomings for more cogs. The evidence is right there for anyone who wants to see it.

Falling down on a cold wet road with UmmaGummas can not be equally measured against changing a chain
two weeks earlier or having your brake pads chatter for a second during a sprint. You may be right
that many people don't know why they fell down with UmmaGummas, but that lack of technical knowledge
has little consequence to the cog number question. Is really doesn't matter if riders are ignorant
of the dishing and possible chain wear issues associated with more gears. I contend most riders
would still choose the higher cog counts even if they have the information about the possible
shortcomings and even *believed* it. I do not believe they would judge the performance of tires,
when it comes to falling down, the same way. The same is true for thick "anodizing" layers on rims
-- if they knew, they would probably demand rims with either no anodizing or at the most, a thin
cosmetic layer. Most riders would not change their gearing choices ("more" cogs or "less" cogs)
based on any knowledge presented here. Blanket condemnation is a worthless concept.

> > > ...or the bike is sitting in the garage unused because it makes their knees hurt.
> >
> > I happen to be in agreement with the High Priest on many issues, and "hurting knees" is one of
> > them. Big gears haven't hurt my knees one bit. Is this "hurting knees" stuff just something you
> > are making up?
>
> Sore knees are a reality for some people. If you have unbalanced strength in your quad muscles,
> this can exacerbate patellar malalignment, a very common knee problem. I've been dealing with it
> since high school. A malaligned patella irritate the knee as it rubs against the knee joint.
> Strength training can alleviate or eliminate this problem. An untrained person with patellar
> malaignment, hopping on a bike and stomping in a big gear, can certainly get knee pain. But if
> your quads are strong and you've been riding regularly, knee pain from patellar malalignment is
> unlikely.

Fair enough, but no real technical connection is made between bikes hanging in garages and having a
53x12 or 53x11 on that bike. The argument looks at this point to have only emotional appeal, not
technical appeal. In fact, if anything, having "more cogs" cannot be seen as related to hurting
knees at all, if anything, there might even be a marginal benefit to those with sensitive knees.