Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Senior Member kamtsa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,815
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Calculating gear inch for 406 wheel

    When I enter the following to the Sheldon gear calculator:

    Tire: "20 X 1.75 / 44-406 / BMX tire"
    Chainring: 52T
    Cassete: 11T

    I get 88.3 gear inches.

    I presume that the formula is: gear_inch = (52 / 11) x 18.68"

    Where does the 18.68" constant comes from? Is it part of the specification of the rim and/or tire? 406mm is about 16" so is the extra 2.68" the contribution of the tire to the diameter?

    (in my case, I plan to use Schwalbe Marathon Plus 20 x 1.35" (406)).

    Thanks,

    Kam

  2. #2
    jur
    jur is online now
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,181
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have found an accurate enough value is to add twice the tyre width to the wheel bead seat diameter, so 406mm+2*34mm=474.6mm=18.68".
    My folding bike photo essays www.dekter.net/

  3. #3
    Senior Member caotropheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal-Israel
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Usually I am a practical fellow not entering philosophical questions, but don't you guys think that is about time to start using gain ratios instead of gear inches. A bicycle moves forward thanks to a set of levers and the crank is the most important lever. A few millimeters change in the crank length changes the final amount of effort a ride makes for the same gear inches. Gain ratio takes into consideration effort and gear development no.

    About your question, I doubt Sheldon Brown's calculator would not be right.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Auld Blighty
    My Bikes
    Early Cannondale tandem, '99 S&S Frezoni Audax, '65 Moulton Stowaway, '52 Claud Butler, TSR30, Brompton
    Posts
    2,179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Seeing as I can't feel a 2.5 mm difference in crank length, I'm not too interested in gain ratio; though it should make a noticeable difference according to Mr Brown. 'Development' as per the Continental method, that's different.

    Comparisons between one combination of chainwheel/cog ratios and another, they can be in inches, metres or anything else as long as I can understand the relative sizes.

  5. #5
    Senior Member kamtsa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,815
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by caotropheus View Post
    About your question, I doubt Sheldon Brown's calculator would not be right.
    I hope that the knowledge how to compute gear ratio will outlive Sheldon's calculator ;-)

    Kam

  6. #6
    Senior Member parcoju's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LWaB View Post
    Seeing as I can't feel a 2.5 mm difference in crank length, I'm not too interested in gain ratio; though it should make a noticeable difference according to Mr Brown.
    I think that if your legs are either really long or really short or if you make a big jump in crank lengths you should feel the difference. I am not that tall 5"3' and 170mm cranks hurt my knees. And no, I am not a masher, I am a spinner that keeps a really high RPM.

    One of my bikes has 165 mm cranks and another one has 145 mm cranks.

    THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN PEDALING DYNAMICS

    There is significantly less torque since the moment arm is 20 mm shorter in the 145 mm cranks, but it is infinitely easier to spin since the pedaling circumference is
    2 * pi * 145 = 911.06187 mm
    and the 165 mm crank pedaling circle is
    2 * pi * 165 = 1 036.72558 mm,

    1036.7255 mm - 911.06187 mm = 125.66363 mm = 4.94738701 in

    Almost a 5 inch difference in pedaling circumference!

    In short, spinning is a lot easier for shorter cranks, but climbing is easier for longer cranks.

    Anyways, to sort of reply to the original post, Sheldon's calculator doesn't have more tire sizes available for input, but it works well enough!

    I hope we didn't confuse you with really technical jargon

  7. #7
    Senior Member caotropheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal-Israel
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by parcoju View Post
    I hope we didn't confuse you with really technical jargon
    Just a bit of engineering. Since we are talking about engineering an since you started making your calculations in the metric system, I do not see the point on converting it to the imperial system. After all, the Americans in recognition for the help by the French in their struggle for independence, should at least adopt the metric system!

    Oops, it seems that I have hijacked the thread again

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,296
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by caotropheus View Post
    Usually I am a practical fellow not entering philosophical questions, but don't you guys think that is about time to start using gain ratios instead of gear inches. A bicycle moves forward thanks to a set of levers and the crank is the most important lever. A few millimeters change in the crank length changes the final amount of effort a ride makes for the same gear inches. Gain ratio takes into consideration effort and gear development no.
    The problem I see with using gain ratios is that, unlike cog/wheel ratios, crank length also has biomechanical ramifications due to differences in bone size:


    So although gear inches don't tell the whole story, at least they can be compared among different individuals without taking body measurements.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Speedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Boston Area
    My Bikes
    Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti
    Posts
    1,998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kamtsa View Post

    Where does the 18.68" constant comes from? Is it part of the specification of the rim and/or tire? 406mm is about 16" so is the extra 2.68" the contribution of the tire to the diameter?

    (in my case, I plan to use Schwalbe Marathon Plus 20 x 1.35" (406)).

    Thanks,

    Kam
    Jur has it right, you take the 406 mm diameter of the rim and add twice the diameter of the tire to get the overall diameter. I generally just use the spec diameter of the tire. That's worked pretty well for me. Schwalb has a page on tire dimensions. At the top of their table they have some 406 mm tire examples. Take the 40-406 as an example. I would calculate the diameter as 2*40+406=486 mm. The tire circumference is given in the table as ~1530 mm. That tire circumference corresponds to a diameter of 487 mm. So, for the kind of accuracy that I require (not much) just using the specified tire diameter works pretty well.

    To get back to inches divide by 25.4 in/mm

    Speedo

  10. #10
    Senior Member Speedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Boston Area
    My Bikes
    Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti
    Posts
    1,998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LWaB View Post
    Seeing as I can't feel a 2.5 mm difference in crank length, I'm not too interested in gain ratio;
    +1

    I go back and forth between bikes with 170 mm and 175 mm crank arms. The bikes are different, so I notice a difference between bikes, but I really can't feel anything different in the crank motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by parcoju View Post
    In short, spinning is a lot easier for shorter cranks, but climbing is easier for longer cranks.
    Part of every ride I'm spinning and part of every ride I'm climbing! What's a guy to do?

    Speedo

  11. #11
    Biker looking for a ride!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmond Oklahoma
    My Bikes
    Kuota Kreedo...looking for something different.
    Posts
    1,480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I get 94.5 in?

  12. #12
    Senior Member Speedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Boston Area
    My Bikes
    Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti
    Posts
    1,998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by caotropheus View Post
    After all, the Americans in recognition for the help by the French in their struggle for independence, should at least adopt the metric system!
    Amen to the metric system. But, in the end, it's just a number and, with experience, you get to understand what that number means to you. So, for example, I know that I really don't need a high gear any higher than about 103 inches. I know that with an unloaded bike I can climb the steepest steep hills comfortably with a 22 inch low, and that lower doesn't help. I could express these numbers in mm, m, or furlongs, or I could use development or gain, as long as I understand what they mean to me.

    I kind of like the gear inches. Sort of archaic and quirky.

    Speedo

  13. #13
    Senior Member dorkypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by caotropheus View Post
    Just a bit of engineering. Since we are talking about engineering an since you started making your calculations in the metric system, I do not see the point on converting it to the imperial system. After all, the Americans in recognition for the help by the French in their struggle for independence, should at least adopt the metric system!

    Oops, it seems that I have hijacked the thread again
    I'm all for metric/SI, but some things in cycling are still in inches: 1" and 1-1/8" steerer diameters, BB shell threads in TPI, ... And I still think in psi for tire pressures rather than bar, atmospheres or kpascal; and chain wear limits in fractions of inches.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Gain ratios are fine and dandy, but i've been used to thinking in terms of gear inches that I'd rather keep to what I know. Besides, all my cranks are the same length, so it wouldn't matter to me.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by biffstephens View Post
    I get 94.5 in?
    You, Sir, are a man among boys.

  16. #16
    rhm
    rhm is offline
    multimodal commuter rhm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NJ, NYC, LI
    My Bikes
    1945? Fothergill, 1948 Raleigh Record Ace, 1954 Drysdale, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1972 Fuji Finest, 1983 Trek 720, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
    Posts
    12,368
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedo View Post
    I go back and forth between bikes with 170 mm and 175 mm crank arms. The bikes are different, so I notice a difference between bikes, but I really can't feel anything different in the crank motion.
    I can't tell the difference between 170's and 175's either, because they both fit me the same: too big!

    Seriously, you're talking about a 3% difference in crank size. That's almost nothing. Try alternating between 180's, 170's, 155's and 140's for a while; not only will you feel a difference, but you will quickly learn which is the best size for you.

  17. #17
    PDR
    PDR is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cheshire, North West England, UK
    My Bikes
    Brompton S2L-X, Bridgestone Moulton, 1963 & 1966 Moultons, Scott Mountain bike
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I rather like the gear inch system; the reason being is that you can get a fair idea of how a bike will perform regardless of the wheel size. I currently have a Dahon MU SL and should be getting my new Brompton in a couple of weeks, but I already know how the gears will compare between the two bikes.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Auld Blighty
    My Bikes
    Early Cannondale tandem, '99 S&S Frezoni Audax, '65 Moulton Stowaway, '52 Claud Butler, TSR30, Brompton
    Posts
    2,179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rhm View Post
    I can't tell the difference between 170's and 175's either, because they both fit me the same: too big!

    Seriously, you're talking about a 3% difference in crank size. That's almost nothing. Try alternating between 180's, 170's, 155's and 140's for a while; not only will you feel a difference, but you will quickly learn which is the best size for you.
    I have, somewhere between 167.5 mm and 175 mm works for me. 180 and 177.5 cranks hurt my joints (don't know why) and shorter cranks slow me down. YMMV

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •