Rohloff Hub Gears

[Brendan Halpin]

David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:

> It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
> smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
> fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a bicycle
> moving promptly.

Saying "it's not my opinion, it's a fact!" doesn't make it so.

Like I said before I routinely drop from 48/17 to 38/24 (I said
38/21 before but that was a typo). That's a factor of 1.78 -- I
don't know what the Rohloff drop would be, but this is a
substantial drop, and it simply makes it easier to get going under
full control at a much lower speed than my cruising speed. It's not
as if it's difficult or onerous to change down (except you have to
anticipate, giving the advantage to the Rohloff) and then up again.

It's not necessary, but it's easy and useful. The Rohloff just
makes it even easier.

B
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
> smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
> fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a bicycle
> moving promptly.

Nobody said he *needs* to. But he said he /likes/ to.

> But that doesn't make it of any particular value to a third-party.

Though nor does it necessarily render it unattractive to that third
party.

> If you
> like pointless gear changes, fine - but you might as well advise a third
> party to hang streamers off the end of the handlebars because you
> personally like them.

I might say "I find streamers attractive, you may wish to consider
them". That's more useful than either saying "you should get
streamers, period" or "you shouldn't get streamers, period" because
it admits to a degree of subjectivity.

The changes apparently aren't pointless to Tom, because he finds it
worth making them. Perhaps he likes them because it's a
demonstration to himself that he can make any cahnge he wants any
time he wants with no worries about missing it and/or throwing the
chain, and he just likes using good engineering? I don't know, but
some boat-floating seems to be going on at some level. What is
your *problem* with that, for goodness' sake?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 26 Jun 2007 17:53:04 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
>smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
>fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a bicycle
>moving promptly.

Who said anything, apart from you, about *need*.

Here's what you asked and my brief answer:

=====

>Why would you _want_ to change down eight gears just to pull away from the
>lights?

Because I can.

=====

No *need* there.

And I note that you have chosen not to answer my basic question about
how many gear inches you would recommend for a standing start on a
level surface.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:ehl*[email protected],
David Damerell <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

> It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
> smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
> fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a
> bicycle moving promptly.


When riding gears, I'll use:

38/34 (Speedmachine)
42/30 (Trice)
32/30 (MTB)

to get away from the lights. I don't /need/ to do this, as I can get away
quite happily with the 44/18 on the fixer, but it makes for noticeably
brisker initial acceleration, it's easier on the legs an it may quite
possibly once[1] have Saved My Life(tm).

1 - see
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...f139c7f36b0?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#80b27f139c7f36b0

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Life - loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <kCl*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>Quoting Alan Braggins <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> In a city with proper hills you wouldn't be shifting down eight
>>>gears at a set of traffic lights because you wouldn't have eight more
>>>gears to shift.

>>That you are going to pull away from a junction uphill doesn't mean that
>>you were necessarily travelling uphill shortly before arriving at the
>>junction.
>
>Yes, lots of gears can provide a real benefit in hilly terrain. Is anyone
>disputing that?

Not as far as I've seen, but if you feel the need to repeat a statement
no-one is disputing, feel free.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In news:ehl*[email protected],
> David Damerell <[email protected]> tweaked the
> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
>> smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
>> fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a
>> bicycle moving promptly.
>
> When riding gears, I'll use:
>
> 38/34 (Speedmachine)
> 42/30 (Trice)
> 32/30 (MTB)
>
> to get away from the lights. I don't /need/ to do this,

In other words, as the gears you start in are around 28" - 30", and I'm
assuming your cruising gear is around the 90" mark, you are changing down
exactly eight clicks on a Rohloff. Just like Tom (and rather more than
me).

Which is beginning to look as if everyone's out of step except Mr Damerell.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> in message <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> In news:ehl*[email protected],
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> tweaked the
>> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>
>>> It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
>>> smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of
>>> normal fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to
>>> get a bicycle moving promptly.
>>
>> When riding gears, I'll use:
>>
>> 38/34 (Speedmachine)
>> 42/30 (Trice)
>> 32/30 (MTB)
>>
>> to get away from the lights. I don't /need/ to do this,
>
> In other words, as the gears you start in are around 28" - 30", and
> I'm assuming your cruising gear is around the 90" mark, you are
> changing down exactly eight clicks on a Rohloff. Just like Tom (and
> rather more than me).

Cruising is more likely to be around the 65-70" mark on the recumbents, nut
it's still four or five clicks on the rear shifter and dropping onto the
middle chainring.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Dead pigs make perfect, if heavy, earrings.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Brooke <[email protected]>:
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>>It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
>>smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
>>fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a
>>bicycle moving promptly.
>OK, shall we simply accept that neither Tom nor I are of 'normal fitness'?

I've read your ride reports. If you tell me you can't pull away from the
lights without changing down eight gears, well, you're lying for the sake
of the argument, quite frankly, because you've got to be twice as fit as
me.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Tuesday, Presuary.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
>>smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
>>fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a bicycle
>>moving promptly.
>Who said anything, apart from you, about *need*.

The original question was about the benefits of a Rohloff. I think it's
important to distinguish benefits which meet real needs cyclists are
likely to have from the fact that it can meet a desire to play at being a
lorry driver.

I'm not saying you shouldn't play at being a lorry driver if you want to!

>And I note that you have chosen not to answer my basic question about
>how many gear inches you would recommend for a standing start on a
>level surface.

I think I already mentioned in the thread that about 70" seems to do
perfectly well.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Tuesday, Presuary.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Brendan Halpin <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:
>>It's not a matter of what I regard as unnecessary. There's a lot of
>>smokescreening here to conceal the simple fact that a person of normal
>>fitness does not need to change down eight gears in order to get a bicycle
>>moving promptly.
>Saying "it's not my opinion, it's a fact!" doesn't make it so.

Yes. What makes it a fact is that if you keep your eyes open you will see
for yourself plenty of riders who do not (or cannot) engage in pointless
gear shifting and still can get away from lights in a perfectly sensible
fashion.

The most obvious example is fixed riders (because you don't have much work
to do to verify that they aren't changing gears). Do they struggle
desperately to get going? No. Do people often ride fixed in cities which
combine perfectly flat conditions with constant stop and go traffic? Yes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Tuesday, Presuary.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Brooke <[email protected]>:
>Which is beginning to look as if everyone's out of step except Mr Damerell.

And Mr Brandt, for one, who had a very similar discussion with most of
the same suspects denying much the same facts.

You lot can froth all you like but, as long as a bike starts fine in a
gear of 70" or so, it's all a bit pointless.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Tuesday, Presuary.

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> The original question was about the benefits of a Rohloff. I think it's
> important to distinguish benefits which meet real needs cyclists are
> likely to have from the fact that it can meet a desire to play at being a
> lorry driver.

Yet real cyclists here (by my definition of use cycles to get about) are
willing to use gears in a way you see as only fit for driving lorries.
Perhaps your definition of "real" needs work?

>> And I note that you have chosen not to answer my basic question about
>> how many gear inches you would recommend for a standing start on a
>> level surface.
>
> I think I already mentioned in the thread that about 70" seems to do
> perfectly well.

Not for me it doesn't. I usually start my Brom in 1st (ca. 30") for
anything other than downhill. Around 70" is 3rd, which I only use
downhill or with at speed with a tailwind, never starting.

I guess I can't be real then. This is pretty good typing for someone
who's a figment of their own warped imagination...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> I've read your ride reports. If you tell me you can't pull away from the
> lights without changing down eight gears, well, you're lying for the sake
> of the argument, quite frankly, because you've got to be twice as fit as
> me.

You still aren't doing very well differentiating between "can" and
"prefers to". I like pulling away in low gears, typically around 30" on
any of my regular bikes, so that's what I do. I don't *need* to, but I
find it suits me better if I do. So I do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Peter Clinch <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>I've read your ride reports. If you tell me you can't pull away from the
>>lights without changing down eight gears, well, you're lying for the sake
>>of the argument, quite frankly, because you've got to be twice as fit as
>>me.
>You still aren't doing very well differentiating between "can" and
>"prefers to".

That's exactly the difference here. You might prefer to shift eight gears;
you might prefer to put streamers on the handlebars, or to ride in clown
shoes. That's fine, but it's not a sensible basis for a recommendation to
someone who might not share those preferences.

But a more sensible basis for recommendations is to think of real
technical needs, because those are near universal. The original questioner
might not be a frustrated lorry driver, but they _do_ have to do
maintenance; the lower maintenance of a hub gear is a real advantage. They
do have equipment breakdowns; the high reliability of the Rohloff is a
real advantage. They drop the chain on derailleur systems when they foul
up shifts; the ease of shifting is a real advantage.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Tuesday, Presuary.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Peter Clinch <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>The original question was about the benefits of a Rohloff. I think it's
>>important to distinguish benefits which meet real needs cyclists are
>>likely to have from the fact that it can meet a desire to play at being a
>>lorry driver.
>Yet real cyclists here (by my definition of use cycles to get about) are
>willing to use gears in a way you see as only fit for driving lorries.

Obviously. The question is, does that serve any useful purpose, or is it
as pointless a piece of chrome as streamers?

>>I think I already mentioned in the thread that about 70" seems to do
>>perfectly well.
>Not for me it doesn't. I usually start my Brom in 1st (ca. 30") for
>anything other than downhill.

Well, the B is not _exactly_ as well suited for heavy honking as most
bikes, but humour me, try in 2nd some time?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Tuesday, Presuary.

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Simon Brooke <[email protected]>:
>> Which is beginning to look as if everyone's out of step except Mr Damerell.
>
> And Mr Brandt, for one, who had a very similar discussion with most of
> the same suspects denying much the same facts.

Yes, I can imagine it /was/ similar, with "discussion" meaning "telling
people what is objectively right, and ignoring any practical experience
they may have had to the contrary".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> Obviously. The question is, does that serve any useful purpose, or is it
> as pointless a piece of chrome as streamers?

In my case I find I accelerate better and it's easier on my knees. How
do I know? Comparison of actually trying it. Why would I want to use a
gear which makes me slower off the mark and stresses my knees more when
I have a choice not to?

> Well, the B is not _exactly_ as well suited for heavy honking as most
> bikes, but humour me, try in 2nd some time?

In my case I find I accelerate better and it's easier on my knees. How
do I know? Comparison of actually trying it. Why would I want to use a
gear which makes me slower off the mark and stresses my knees more when
I have a choice not to?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> That's exactly the difference here. You might prefer to shift eight gears;
> you might prefer to put streamers on the handlebars, or to ride in clown
> shoes. That's fine, but it's not a sensible basis for a recommendation to
> someone who might not share those preferences.

Yet you say it's pointless to have the option because it's not
necessary, without knowing if it's preferable. *That* is far less sensible.

> But a more sensible basis for recommendations is to think of real
> technical needs, because those are near universal.

Something like starting with maximum ease and comfort, perhaps? Much
easier in low gear.

> The original questioner
> might not be a frustrated lorry driver

I'm not a "frustrated lorry driver" but I start in low gears, because
it's easier, quicker and more comfortable. I found that having
previously honked off in high ones, and I changed because I found it to
be an advantage to change. You may not *need* comfort, speed and ease
and thus shun suc "pointless froth", but I, and it appears others, do
like them and find them genuinely, practically useful. Possibly the OP
might think that way too.

> but they _do_ have to do
> maintenance; the lower maintenance of a hub gear is a real advantage. They
> do have equipment breakdowns; the high reliability of the Rohloff is a
> real advantage. They drop the chain on derailleur systems when they foul
> up shifts; the ease of shifting is a real advantage.

Isn't it just. So if, like me, like Simon, like Tom, like Dave, someone
happens to like dropping gears for a low start, then that is a
/genuinely useful/ thing to be able to do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Brendan Halpin]

David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:

> Yes. What makes it a fact is that if you keep your eyes open you will see
> for yourself plenty of riders who do not (or cannot) engage in pointless
> gear shifting and still can get away from lights in a perfectly sensible
> fashion.

FACT: plenty of riders who do not engage in gear shifting
OPINION: pointless gear shifting

B
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 27 Jun 2007 14:41:27 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think I already mentioned in the thread that about 70" seems to do
>perfectly well.

At the moment, and until my Thorn is repaired I'm on my old Marin. I
usually change down to 8th gear before arriving at lights or stopping.
Is that unreasonable?