Hills killing me

[Sheldon Brown]

David Damerell wrote:

>>>I don't have the teeny jumps you do, but they are not really useful for normal riding.

The Pomeranian replied:

>>By definition, they are useful if they are used and I would hardly call it *not* normal -- a lot
>>of people use it and enjoy it. I used a 12-21 8sp almost exclusively for the 6 or so years I owned
>>it before 9sp's came out. If riders didn't perceive and advantage to "small" step sizes, they
>>wouldn't bother with tight cassettes. They recognize the tradeoffs. Once one is wont to "close
>>spacing," it is hard to give up. I've done a lot of experimenting with step sizes. I find I like
>>resolution at or below 9%.

Chalo wrote:

> Wow. This is kooky stuff to me; it carries a whiff of obsessive-compulsive behavior with it.
>
> I mean, when you walk at varying speeds, you don't endeavor to maintain the exact same cadence by
> subtly varying your stride length, do you? If you're like me and most people, you step faster to
> go faster. That method is built in and need not be learned.

Hmmm, generally I _do_ vary my stride length to vary my walking speed. The human leg in walking acts
as a pendulum, having a natural period which is mainly a function of its length. In normal walking,
the leg moves at its natural swinginging cadence.

For running or extra-fast walking, one does, indeed force the leg forward faster than its natural
period, but this is not sustainable for nearly as long as walking with a natural leg swing.

> Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> transmission ratios on your daily driver. It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating
> useful low gears, while offering in return a "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.

Some folks like to do that, and buy cars with manual transmissions even though they can afford
automatics. Not a choice I'd make, but if they enjoy it, where's the harm?

Mostly I ride fixed gear, but when I ride multispeed, I like LOTs of gears, nice and close together.

Sheldon "De Gustibus" Brown +-------------------------------------------------+
| What is good for you is what is good for you. | --Peter Chisholm |
+-------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[The Pomeranian]

I don't even need to crack the can of spinach yet.

A trolling Bluto wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David Damerell wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have the teeny jumps you do, but they are not really useful for normal riding.
> >
> > By definition, they are useful if they are used and I would hardly call it *not* normal -- a lot
> > of people use it and enjoy it. I used a 12-21 8sp almost exclusively for the 6 or so years I
> > owned it before 9sp's came out. If riders didn't perceive and advantage to "small" step sizes,
> > they wouldn't bother with tight cassettes. They recognize the tradeoffs. Once one is wont to
> > "close spacing," it is hard to give up. I've done a lot of experimenting with step sizes. I find
> > I like resolution at or below 9%.
>
> Wow. This is kooky stuff to me; it carries a whiff of obsessive-compulsive behavior with it.

How's that?

> I mean, when you walk at varying speeds, you don't endeavor to maintain the exact same cadence by
> subtly varying your stride length, do you? If you're like me and most people, you step faster to
> go faster. That method is built in and need not be learned.

Why are you talking about walking?

> Therefore having to spin up a _whopping 25%_ or so before shifting to the next gear should come
> pretty naturally and have negligible impact on efficiency.

How would you know? It doesn't matter in any case, because I like the feel of small step sizes, and
so do a lot of other riders. Why should I spin-up, spin-down, or do anything regarding pedaling I
don't want to do if I have a choice? It's my bike -- I'll ride it however I want to. It turns out a
lot of folks like the same thing I do: small step sizes. Most people like small step sizes if they
can afford them.

> Witness track racers: slow or fast, they pedal to match the pace. Doesn't seem to slow them
> down a bit.

The reason people put gears on their bikes is to go faster. Go on a group training ride sometime and
note that all the track racers go to the trouble of putting gears on their road bikes so they can go
fast. So I guess the implication is: only having one gear would indeed slow those "track riders"
down a bit.

> > I think even casual riders might want to occasionally see "how hard they can go." In this case,
> > I believe they will appreciate tight gear spacing from time to time, although the cost might not
> > be worth it to them.
>
> The cost of the psychological need for more gears has been borne by all riders.

It turns out it is a physical need. I've worn out cassettes where the 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19
all start skipping at about the same time. If I wear them out, I was using them. So I guess I
needed them.

> It takes the form of fragile, comically dished rear wheels; fast-wearing narrow chains, cogs, and
> rings; poor chainlines; increased complexity, cost, and weight of bikes and components; and
> diminished availability and quality of simpler, more robust componentry.

My drivetrains don't break. I could not care less about chainline -- more gears is an easy choice to
make. I don't have a problem with the dishing either. Chains are cheap, although not as cheap as I
think they should be ($6). I don't get what is "complex" about my bikes. And I thought I got "a
deal" on most of the stuff. I just don't break drivetrain components.

> I frequently use a bike with a single 47t ring and a 14-38 5sp freewheel. It works great, has a
> zero-dish rear wheel, is fun and fast to ride, and completely obviates the need for a front
> changer for all-purpose riding. Thanks to gear proliferation and a prevalent wannabee-racer
> marketing approach, this fun and useful bike of mine is not supportable with replacement
> freewheels.

It's not "supportable" because people don't want that stuff. They'd rather have more gears. It's
fine if you like it, but your vision of what a bike should be is shared by few people. Once again
the world's problems are echoed in the whiner-victim cry "the marketing departments decide what we
can and can't do. We have no choice."

> Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> transmission ratios on your daily driver.

I have three race bikes, one tourer, one MTB, and one TT'er. The race bikes and TT'er have many 1t
steps. That's the way I like it. What would I do with a 38t cog? Saw wood or something? What is a
"recreational bike?" I wear out all those cogs, so I guess they come in handy.

> It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating useful low gears, while offering in return a
> "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.

Seems "worth it" to me. That's why I go for 1t steps if it can be afforded.

> I believe that serious market demand for more and more speeds would not have materialized had most
> enthusiast-level bikes not been crippled with too-tight gear ranges all along.

Funny. Do expand.

> 25% intervals across seven gears would be about 3.8:1 overall, a huge range. The industry does not
> provide such a thing, of course.

Hardly anyone wants that stuff, that's why no one makes it.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Bluto wrote:
>
> Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> transmission ratios on your daily driver. It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating
> useful low gears, while offering in return a "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.

Bluto, Bluto, Bluto!

Everyone _knows_ a ten speed is twice as fast as a five speed, and a fifteen speed is that much
faster! ;-)

Me, I'm looking forward to the day when the entire space between the rear dropouts is filled with
thin little cogs. I bet they're working on that right now. And when they get it in production,
people will realize having only ten cogs (or - gasp! - nine!) is almost unrideable.

So get with the program, man!

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

The Pomeranian wrote:
>
> The guys that don't "need" a 12 don't go very fast...

Yeah. Like that Belgian guy with all the consonants in his last name. Remember? Never was that fast.
Any decent roadie with a 12 would drop him in a second!

;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Bluto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Pomeranian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David Damerell wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have the teeny jumps you do, but they are not really useful for normal riding.
> >
> > By definition, they are useful if they are used and I would hardly call it *not* normal -- a lot
> > of people use it and enjoy it. I used a 12-21 8sp almost exclusively for the 6 or so years I
> > owned it before 9sp's came out. If riders didn't perceive and advantage to "small" step sizes,
> > they wouldn't bother with tight cassettes. They recognize the tradeoffs. Once one is wont to
> > "close spacing," it is hard to give up. I've done a lot of experimenting with step sizes. I find
> > I like resolution at or below 9%.
>
> Wow. This is kooky stuff to me; it carries a whiff of obsessive-compulsive behavior with it.
>
> I mean, when you walk at varying speeds, you don't endeavor to maintain the exact same cadence by
> subtly varying your stride length, do you? If you're like me and most people, you step faster to
> go faster. That method is built in and need not be learned.
>
> Therefore having to spin up a _whopping 25%_ or so before shifting to the next gear should come
> pretty naturally and have negligible impact on efficiency. Witness track racers: slow or fast,
> they pedal to match the pace. Doesn't seem to slow them down a bit.
>
> > I think even casual riders might want to occasionally see "how hard they can go." In this case,
> > I believe they will appreciate tight gear spacing from time to time, although the cost might not
> > be worth it to them.
>
> The cost of the psychological need for more gears has been borne by all riders. It takes the form
> of fragile, comically dished rear wheels; fast-wearing narrow chains, cogs, and rings; poor
> chainlines; increased complexity, cost, and weight of bikes and components; and diminished
> availability and quality of simpler, more robust componentry.
>
> I frequently use a bike with a single 47t ring and a 14-38 5sp freewheel. It works great, has a
> zero-dish rear wheel, is fun and fast to ride, and completely obviates the need for a front
> changer for all-purpose riding. Thanks to gear proliferation and a prevalent wannabee-racer
> marketing approach, this fun and useful bike of mine is not supportable with replacement
> freewheels.
>
> Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> transmission ratios on your daily driver. It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating
> useful low gears, while offering in return a "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.
>
> I believe that serious market demand for more and more speeds would not have materialized had most
> enthusiast-level bikes not been crippled with too-tight gear ranges all along. 25% intervals
> across seven gears would be about 3.8:1 overall, a huge range. The industry does not provide such
> a thing, of course. Thanks.
>
> Chalo Colina now with onboard variable speed control

 

[Greg]

Got myself a 12-25 - HUGE improvement!!!

Now the hills dont seeem so bad Thanks all.

"Douglas Landau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> THANKS Robin!!!
>
> I'm glad you said that. Although I should have already figured it out, I had not. As a latecomer
> to the sport who does not want to concede anything to age, I have always poo-poo-ed triples. Now I
> know what they are for! I had been thinking that my ideal gearing would be
> 11-13-15-17-19-21-23-25, or similar, but was not looking forward to doing without the 12 and 14.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> "Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Those teeny jumps are nice. For the heck of it, I put a 13-21 7sp
cassette
> > on my tourer/commuter, with 48/36/26 triple. I like it *alot* better
than a
> > wide-ranging cassette on the back. I think if you must have wide range gearing, go wide in front
> > and narrow in back. It turns out you rarely
need
> > those low, low gears, so I'd rather have to deal with it occasionally up front.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

I changed the subject line because we're way OT now. Apologies to the original poster. Don't
mind us...

"Bluto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The Pomeranian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David Damerell wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have the teeny jumps you do, but they are not really useful for normal riding.
> >
> > By definition, they are useful if they are used and I would hardly call it *not* normal -- a lot
> > of people use it and enjoy it. I used a 12-21 8sp almost exclusively for the 6 or so years I
> > owned it before 9sp's came out. If riders didn't perceive and advantage to "small" step sizes,
> > they wouldn't bother with tight cassettes. They recognize the tradeoffs. Once one is wont to
> > "close spacing," it is hard to give up. I've done a lot of experimenting with step sizes. I find
> > I like resolution at or below 9%.

> Wow. This is kooky stuff to me; it carries a whiff of obsessive-compulsive behavior with it.

Yup. Nebbishness...

> I mean, when you walk at varying speeds, you don't endeavor to maintain the exact same cadence by
> subtly varying your stride length, do you? If you're like me and most people, you step faster to
> go faster. That method is built in and need not be learned.

> Therefore having to spin up a _whopping 25%_ or so before shifting to the next gear should come
> pretty naturally and have negligible impact on efficiency. Witness track racers: slow or fast,
> they pedal to match the pace. Doesn't seem to slow them down a bit.

There are millions of people around the world who ride single speed bikes more miles weekly than the
average rec.bikes dude rides in a month. They ride over hill and dale, through lousy weather, in
everyday clothing, with huge loads, etc. And I bet they don't obsess over their gearing. I bet they
don't even know what it is. Imagine that.

> > I think even casual riders might want to occasionally see "how hard they can go." In this case,
> > I believe they will appreciate tight gear spacing from time to time, although the cost might not
> > be worth it to them.

> The cost of the psychological need for more gears has been borne by all riders. It takes the form
> of fragile, comically dished rear wheels; fast-wearing narrow chains, cogs, and rings; poor
> chainlines; increased complexity, cost, and weight of bikes and components; and diminished
> availability and quality of simpler, more robust componentry.

How about finicky drivetrains that don't work right unless everything is adjusted to a hair.

> I frequently use a bike with a single 47t ring and a 14-38 5sp freewheel. It works great, has a
> zero-dish rear wheel, is fun and fast to ride, and completely obviates the need for a front
> changer for all-purpose riding. Thanks to gear proliferation and a prevalent wannabee-racer
> marketing approach, this fun and useful bike of mine is not supportable with replacement
> freewheels.

> Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> transmission ratios on your daily driver. It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating
> useful low gears, while offering in return a "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.

Absolutely.

The reason bikes have such close gearing is that corncob clusters *look* racy, and racy *looking*
bikes sell. This phenomena used to be worse than it is. Lately more road race styled bikes have
appeared with triple cranks, wide range gearing, etc. Triples have even appeared in the TdF. So it's
not so severely uncool to have this stuff anymore. The average 20-something poseur these bikes are
targeted at doesn't feel like a dork for buying one now. 20 years ago, these guys wouldn't be caught
dead with a 28t rear sprocket, let alone a triple.

Selling bikes is not like running a restaurant. The customer *is not* always right. It's the
marketer's job to figure out what the customer *really* wants, give him that, and make him feel
good about it.

> I believe that serious market demand for more and more speeds would not have materialized had most
> enthusiast-level bikes not been crippled with too-tight gear ranges all along.

I agree, at least partly. The "more is better" angle is a no-brainer, marketing-wise.

> 25% intervals across seven gears would be about 3.8:1 overall, a huge range. The industry does not
> provide such a thing, of course. Thanks.

Well, they do with mountain bikes, which is one reason mountain bikes became popular in the
first place.

I think you hit the nail right on the head, several times.

Matt O.

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:18:33 -0500, Bluto wrote:

> I believe that serious market demand for more and more speeds would not have materialized had most
> enthusiast-level bikes not been crippled with too-tight gear ranges all along. 25% intervals
> across seven gears would be about 3.8:1 overall, a huge range. The industry does not provide such
> a thing, of course.

Not so in at least one case: Rohloff.

From Sheldon's web site: "The Speedhub 36 500/14 has a gear range of 526%, which means that the
highest gear is 5.26 times higher than the lowest gear. Across the entire range of the 14 gears
shifts increase or decrease in even increments of
13.6%."

 

[A Muzi]

> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:03:04 -0500, Douglas Landau wrote:
>
> > Don't need the 12??? The 12 is my favorite gear! except when I have an 11-28 on my bike in which
> > case the 11 is my favorite gear.
> >
> > I am not a racer just a recreational rider but I like to descend my local mtn road at 46-48
> > which I can't do in the 12. I also like to roll along for a while at 30-35 mph on the level
> > sometimes esp if there is a slight downhill or tailwind.
> >
> > I think I use the 12 and even 11 a lot at speeds under 30, too.
> >
> > I just bought a used wheelset which came with a cassette with a low of
> > 13. Dunno how anyone can stand it! Maybe that's why that's the one which he sold with the wheel.
>
>

"Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> , a man of perfect gearing, wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My top gear is a 48/13, 100 inches. (Incidentally, 100" used to be the top gear for pro racers not
> so very long ago: 52x14, back in the ten speed days.) I can apply useful power at 32 mph. Any
> faster than that on a downhill run, I can easily just tuck and coast. I've had higher gears in the
> past, but I find that on a single they're not useful. (On a tandem, I like a 54/12.) I'd much
> rather have a high gear I can actually use on level ground, tighter spacing at the top end, and
> low low gears.
>
> On the other hand, with a 17" wheel, a 9T can come in very handy!

That's a coincidence. _My_ top gear is 48-13, too, but I can't seem to manage 32mph. . .

I actually ride my 44-20 fixed a lot more often. Can't go 32mph on that either. . .
--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

[The Pomeranian]

Frank the Crank wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> >
> > The guys that don't "need" a 12 don't go very fast...
>
> Yeah. Like that Belgian guy with all the consonants in his last name.

What gruppo was it back then that had a 12t cog? What choice did he have that you can make an
assumption about what he would use today, if he could? How many pro's today decide that they don't
"need" anything more than Merckx had to choose from? (Now's your chance to say how pro's ride
whatever the sponsors tell them to ride, how pro's have a macho complex and won't use "low" gears,
and that your generic amateur rider knows less about what he/she uses out on the road than -- cough
-- Frank. Then make a few statements about the evils of marketing departments.)

> Remember? Never was that fast. Any decent roadie with a 12 would drop him in a second!

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This is simply more ******** arguing for
the sake of arguing from slow fat old guys.

 

[The Pomeranian]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> I changed the subject line because we're way OT now. Apologies to the original poster. Don't
> mind us...

It's off-topic and off thread; this now belongs in:

alt.slow.guys.who.hate.tech

alt.victims.blame.marketing

> There are millions of people around the world who ride single speed bikes more miles weekly than
> the average rec.bikes dude rides in a month. They ride over hill and dale, through lousy weather,
> in everyday clothing, with huge loads, etc. And I bet they don't obsess over their gearing. I bet
> they don't even know what it is. Imagine that.

Practice what you preach and start riding a one-speed. You won't miss rec.bicycles.tech one bit.

> > > I think even casual riders might want to occasionally see "how hard they can go." In this
> > > case, I believe they will appreciate tight gear spacing from time to time, although the cost
> > > might not be worth it to them.
>
> > The cost of the psychological need for more gears has been borne by all riders. It takes the
> > form of fragile, comically dished rear wheels; fast-wearing narrow chains, cogs, and rings; poor
> > chainlines; increased complexity, cost, and weight of bikes and components; and diminished
> > availability and quality of simpler, more robust componentry.
>
> How about finicky drivetrains that don't work right unless everything is adjusted to a hair.

How about 9sp Shimano systems that aren't finicky at all? I happen to own one. If I can adjust it,
anyone can. It was so easy to set up and it never seems to go out of adjustment or break.

> > I frequently use a bike with a single 47t ring and a 14-38 5sp freewheel. It works great, has a
> > zero-dish rear wheel, is fun and fast to ride, and completely obviates the need for a front
> > changer for all-purpose riding. Thanks to gear proliferation and a prevalent wannabee-racer
> > marketing approach, this fun and useful bike of mine is not supportable with replacement
> > freewheels.
>
> > Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> > transmission ratios on your daily driver. It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating
> > useful low gears, while offering in return a "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> The reason bikes have such close gearing is that corncob clusters *look* racy, and racy *looking*
> bikes sell.

What a bunch of horseshit. Newbies don't know the first thing about how a cluster "should look."
Folks that have learned about clusters (like the originator of this thread) could care less
about what they "look like," they just want what helps them get down the road in as nice a way
as possible.

> This phenomena used to be worse than it is. Lately more road race styled bikes have appeared with
> triple cranks, wide range gearing, etc. Triples have even appeared in the TdF. So it's not so
> severely uncool to have this stuff anymore. The average 20-something poseur these bikes are
> targeted at doesn't feel like a dork for buying one now.

I remember when I rode a 6sp bike on the Saturday group training ride and it had a 13-19 freewheel.
At the coffee shop afterwards one of the guys, who didn't usually take the more difficult Y-branch
over the large
climb (Idid take the climb branch), commented that my cluster didn't have a very big cog but yet I
was riding the difficult branch. I told him that if you couldn't turn over a 39x19 or 39x17
all the way over the top of the climb, then you would be as good as dropped by the best
climbers. Now I could turn that 39x19 or 39x17, and I did get over the top of the climb in
the front group many times, even though I never considered myself a "climber." The point
is, it had nothing to do with what was "cool." I didn't "need" a cog bigger than a 19t, so
I didn't sacrifice gear spacing just to carry around wasted cogs. I _used_ all of the cogs
I had. There is no point in putting useless cogs on a bike.

It isn't "macho" to get dropped. "Macho" riders will put as low a gear as they think they need onto
their bikes if they think it will get them to the finish line first.

It is humorous that on one hand you talk about how "There are millions of people around the world
who ride single speed bikes... over hill and dale" but then turn around and talk about how "bad"
race bikes with tight clusters are, when those race bikes still have a gear lower than those
one-speeds. Make up your mind.

> 20 years ago, these guys wouldn't be caught dead with a 28t rear sprocket, let alone a triple.

Ridiculous. Most racers traditionally don't like triples because of a perceived weight penalty and
more importantly all the missed front shifts. Minus Shimano front indexing, front shifting has
always been friction. A binary (double) front shift can be made more reliably than a trinary
(triple) front shift. The binary shift might rub a little before trimming, but it is still a shift
that is never missed because it is essentially "one way or the other." It's much easier to miss a
trinary front shift, especially under racing conditions, where riding is often more reactionary than
casual riding. I know because I own and use both triples and doubles.

No matter what you think, many folks *know* they like small step sizes and are willing to pay a
price to get it. It didn't matter that no racers used a 28t cog back in the good old days because
all the racers more or less had the same equipment constraints. If you had to pedal at 60 rpm up a
wall, the guy beside you had to do the same thing -- the playing field (as far as widely available
equipment goes) was pretty much level, as it still is today.

> Selling bikes is not like running a restaurant. The customer *is not* always right.

Maybe not (and you are included), but it is their money. Besides, people learn from their mistakes.
You apparently would take away the opportunity for people to experiment.

> It's the marketer's job to figure out what the customer *really* wants, give him that, ...

So what?

> ...and make him feel good about it.

Sheesh.

> > I believe that serious market demand for more and more speeds would not have materialized had
> > most enthusiast-level bikes not been crippled with too-tight gear ranges all along.
>
> I agree, at least partly. The "more is better" angle is a no-brainer, marketing-wise.

More *is* better when it comes to gears. The only reasonable question is whether it is worth
the "price."

> > 25% intervals across seven gears would be about 3.8:1 overall, a huge range. The industry does
> > not provide such a thing, of course. Thanks.
>
> Well, they do with mountain bikes, which is one reason mountain bikes became popular in the
> first place.
>
> I think you hit the nail right on the head, several times.

Naw... it reads more like the same old screed that passes for intellect around here. Talk about
marketing BS.

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

"Greg" <gregmcc@hotmail*spam*.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Got myself a 12-25 - HUGE improvement!!!
>
> Now the hills dont seeem so bad Thanks all.

That is very reassuring to hear. I have exactly the same gearing then as you do but I haven't ridden
it yet, not on hills at least. Waiting for the snow to clear away first.

--
Replace the dots to reply

Perre

 

[Bluto]

Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > I mean, when you walk at varying speeds, you don't endeavor to maintain the exact same cadence
> > by subtly varying your stride length, do you? If you're like me and most people, you step faster
> > to go faster. That method is built in and need not be learned.
>
> Hmmm, generally I _do_ vary my stride length to vary my walking speed. The human leg in walking
> acts as a pendulum, having a natural period which is mainly a function of its length. In normal
> walking, the leg moves at its natural swinginging cadence.

Perhaps I should have said, "if you're like me and most people, you _also_ step faster to go
faster." I acknowledge the usefulness of different ratios, but straight blocks serve only to indulge
some kind of fetish. Reducing the granularity to single-digit percentages ignores the body's natural
tendency to adjust cadence as necessary.

> > Sporting one-tooth increments on the cassette of a recreational bike is like running race car
> > transmission ratios on your daily driver. It hurts versatility and rideability by truncating
> > useful low gears, while offering in return a "benefit" of no demonstrable worth.
>
> Some folks like to do that, and buy cars with manual transmissions even though they can afford
> automatics. Not a choice I'd make, but if they enjoy it, where's the harm?

It has a disproportionate cumulative impact because it plays so well to the cheap seats. You and I
are both aware that non-enthusiast cyclists form the bread-and-butter of cycle sales. Most bikes are
bought by riders who don't honestly know what they need, and who want only what they've been told to
want by marketeers and/or folklore. To provide such riders with 9- or 10-speed clusters, at the
expense of characteristics they could actually use to advantage, is cheesy and manipulative.

Most first-time buyers of quality bikes would be much better served by, say, a good gearhub
drivetrain, but instead they get massive clusters that deliver only the opportunity to boast of
dazzling numbers of speeds-- and the illusion of an elite machine, packed with features common to
professional racers' bikes!

I am certain without a doubt that most enthusiast-level riders who swear by close ratios are also
far more compelled by the racing glamor of such equipment than by its actual function. Yet I doubt
that any pros were pining for a 10th sprocket; they simply use the equipment that they are paid to
showcase. The proliferation of sprockets has been an expedient to bring poseurs the straight blocks
they think they want along with some of the useful range they actually need.

The industry's pitch to buyers' base instinct of "more is better" has largely relegated much useful,
reliable equipment to the realm of expensive exotica, or else to extinction.

Why do only Rohloff make a Rohloff hub? Because Shimano think, probably correctly, that more chumps
will pony up for 27 random and redundant ratios than for 14 even and reliable ones. Thus the best
drivetrain on the market remains a quirky and precious piece of German wizardry, rather than the
staple item it should be.

Chalo Colina

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > Wow. This is kooky stuff to me; it carries a whiff of obsessive-compulsive behavior with it.
>
> Yup. Nebbishness...

You sure you mean nebbishness? A nebbish is, by definition: a totally insignificant person: cipher,
nobody, nonentity, nothing. Informal : pip-squeak, zero. Slang : shrimp, zilch.

If you were a gearing nebbish, no one would pay attention to you. You'd be in a corner, doing
something with your gears and everyone would be oblivious to your presence.

Maybe the word you are searching for is nudnik, meaning a pesty nagger, nuisance, a bore, obnoxious
person. Nud is Polish I think for "boring" and "-nik" is that familiar suffix meaning a person, like
in beatnik or neatnik.

Best wishes,

Claire Petersky ([email protected]) Du kannst nicht auf meinem rucken pishen unt mir sagen class
es regen ist.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:03:04 -0500, Douglas Landau wrote:
> >
> > > Don't need the 12??? The 12 is my favorite gear! except when I have
an
> > > 11-28 on my bike in which case the 11 is my favorite gear.
> > >
> > > I am not a racer just a recreational rider but I like to descend my local mtn road at 46-48
> > > which I can't do in the 12. I also like to
roll
> > > along for a while at 30-35 mph on the level sometimes esp if there is
a
> > > slight downhill or tailwind.
> > >
> > > I think I use the 12 and even 11 a lot at speeds under 30, too.
> > >
> > > I just bought a used wheelset which came with a cassette with a low of
> > > 13. Dunno how anyone can stand it! Maybe that's why that's the one which he sold with the
> > > wheel.
> >
> >
>
> "Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> , a man of perfect gearing, wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > My top gear is a 48/13, 100 inches. (Incidentally, 100" used to be the top gear for pro racers
> > not so very long ago: 52x14, back in the ten speed days.) I can apply useful power at 32 mph.
> > Any faster than that on a downhill run, I can easily just tuck and coast. I've had higher gears
> > in the past, but I find that on a single they're not useful. (On
a
> > tandem, I like a 54/12.) I'd much rather have a high gear I can
actually
> > use on level ground, tighter spacing at the top end, and low low gears.
> >
> > On the other hand, with a 17" wheel, a 9T can come in very handy!
>
> That's a coincidence. _My_ top gear is 48-13, too, but I can't seem to manage 32mph. . .

C'mon, Andy! That's 107-108 rpm in 100". I can do that ... for about 15 seconds or with a 20mph
tailwind! ;-)

>
> I actually ride my 44-20 fixed a lot more often. Can't go 32mph on that either. . .
> --

Robin Hubert

 

[Suzy Jackson]

All this talk about gearing makes me smile.

The three contributors to deciding what gear ranges to run on your bike are:

1. Your fitness level
2. What (if any) loads you carry
3. Where you ride.

I'm fairly fit. I was awfully pleased with myself yesterday, because I got to work in a PB time. I
race most weekends, and have fairly typical racing gearing; a 12-23 9 speed cassette and a 39/49
double chainrings.

I ride over the same roads through the week. Not particularly flat, but not ridiculously hilly
either. My steepest hill is around 6-8%. What gear I ride such a hill in depends on how fit I am.
When I wasn't so fit, I'd struggle up it in my 39/23. Now, if I'm feeling slack, I'll dawdle up in
the 32 or 31, and if I'm riding hard, I'll sprint it in the 19.

Many riders are in the same boat as me. They're fit, they don't carry loads, and they ride the same
sort of terrain. They (surprise surprise) tend to run similar gearing.

Then there are those who perhaps aren't as fit, who demand that not only should there own bike have
a triple front and 34 tooth cassette, but everyone elses should as well.

But mountain bikes won't do. They want that 34 tooth cassette on a bike that looks like it came
straight out of the Tour de France. Oh, and they want to fit 38mm tyres in their carbon forks,
because they keep getting pinch flats because they're overweight as well as unfit.

Somehow, it all sounds so... American?

It's an interesting coincidence that the sudden emergence of Dura-ace and Record triples coincides
with the rise in popularity of road bikes in the US, due to a certain Texan winning a French road
race a few times...

And in reality, does it matter? Surely most of these bikes make it no further than the local cafe of
a Sunday morning.

Oh, and in answer to the original poster, the only way to go faster up hills is to go up more hills,
and sprint up them whenever you can. It hurts, but it works.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email protected] http://www.suzyj.net

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Bluto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Why do only Rohloff make a Rohloff hub? Because Shimano think, probably correctly, that more
> chumps will pony up for 27 random and redundant ratios than for 14 even and reliable ones. Thus
> the best drivetrain on the market remains a quirky and precious piece of German wizardry, rather
> than the staple item it should be.

One reason these hubs haven't caught on more is that they're expensive to make. It's *a lot* more
expensive to make gears like those than sprockets, derailers, etc. This is why even a relatively
inexpensve Shimano 4 speed hub still costs more than a whole 21 speed bike from Wal-Mart.

I agree that these hubs would be better for the average rider, assuming they can provide the range
he needs. Add a good chaincase and you've got the ultimate utility bicycle. However, quick release
wheels are still a desirable feature for most riders, and internally geared hubs don't provide
it.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You sure you mean nebbishness? A nebbish is, by definition: a totally insignificant person:
> cipher, nobody, nonentity, nothing. Informal : pip-squeak, zero. Slang : shrimp, zilch.
>
> If you were a gearing nebbish, no one would pay attention to you. You'd be in a corner, doing
> something with your gears and everyone would be oblivious to your presence.
>
> Maybe the word you are searching for is nudnik, meaning a pesty nagger, nuisance, a bore,
> obnoxious person. Nud is Polish I think for "boring" and "-nik" is that familiar suffix meaning a
> person, like in beatnik or neatnik.

Methinks a nudnik is usually a nebbish underneath.

Or, as my mother used to say, "Empty barrels make the most noise."

Matt O.

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:23:20 -0500, Bluto wrote:

> Why do only Rohloff make a Rohloff hub? Because Shimano think, probably correctly, that more
> chumps will pony up for 27 random and redundant ratios than for 14 even and reliable ones. Thus
> the best drivetrain on the market remains a quirky and precious piece of German wizardry, rather
> than the staple item it should be.

You think maybe the fact that the Rohloff costs $850 might have something to do with its limited
popularity?

 

[Frank Krygowski]

The Pomeranian wrote:
>
> Frank the Crank wrote:
> >
> > The Pomeranian wrote:
> > >
> > > The guys that don't "need" a 12 don't go very fast...
> >
> > Yeah. Like that Belgian guy with all the consonants in his last name.
>
> What gruppo was it back then that had a 12t cog? What choice did he have that you can make an
> assumption about what he would use today, if he could? ...

Not pertinent. He was a fast guy - the fastest. He didn't need a 12. I think it's therefore safe to
say, there are fast guys who don't need
12s.

Do you have any proof that a guy whose top gear is, say, 53-12 is consistently faster than he'd be
with a 53-13? Except for brief, special conditions, speed is limited by power output, not by leg
rpm. My bet is, if racing outlawed gears highter than 53-13, you wouldn't detect any difference in
finishing times.

> > Remember? Never was that fast. Any decent roadie with a 12 would drop him in a second!
>
> What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This is simply more ******** arguing for
> the sake of arguing from slow fat old guys.

Or _between_ slow old fat guys? ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]