Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 406
  1. #201
    Ding! Bandera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    1,608
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanC View Post
    Bandera can stick to his penny-farthing and be done with it.
    Nathan,

    How very snide.

    Although I do of course own a penny-farthing and a very nice unicycle it seems that you are implying Luddite tendencies to myself due to my considering the current crop of E-shifters somewhat less than optimal. A bit funny to me actually as I have over the last 40 years been an "early adopter" and promoter of a few cycling innovations. Here's a list in no particular order that bucked the cycling status quo:

    Clipless Pedals
    Hardshell Helmets
    Dura-Ace Components
    130 BCD/ 39T
    Indexed Shifting
    American Framesets
    High Performance Clincher Wheel Sets
    Cassette Gear Sets
    Aero TT Bars
    Aluminum Race Frames
    Cyclo-Cross Racing
    Moulded Saddles
    Mountain Bike Racing
    Cyclo Computers
    Aero Brake Levers
    Moulded Shoe Cleat Mounts
    Synthetic Chamois

    All of the above received a hearty "that's not how it's done" in the community but now they seem the obvious norm to those who weren't there and don't know the technical history of the sport. I've never jumped on the band wagon of the latest fad, and there have been lots of them that never went anywhere, just because it was new/cool and massively marketed. Successful innovation involves requirements planning, cost/benefit analysis, extensive field testing and sometimes several generations of design. Good mechanics are both skeptics and open minded, some find current fads amusing, the answer to the question that no one asked or simply overpriced Fred magnets. Some don't.

    Must go adjust the spoon brake on the Penny-Farthing, good thing it's not hydraulic actuation.


    -Bandera
    Last edited by Bandera; 05-23-13 at 06:35 AM. Reason: editing
    '74 Raleigh International - '77 Trek TX900FG - '92 Vitus 979 - '10 Merckx EMX-3- '11 Soma Stanyan

  2. #202
    Ding! Bandera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    1,608
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bah Humbug View Post
    I'm much more concerned about low-end than high-end.
    42/24

    "For climbing, a narrow range of gearing was the norm, but also bigger gears than those used today. Eddy Merckx, for example, was a big fan of the 44-tooth chainring (typically paired with a 53) for climbing with a 6-speed freewheel 13-19; for particularly tough mountain races or stages he would opt for a 13-21.

    By Hinault’s time, the chainring set-up was typically 53-42 with a 7-speed cluster. Hinault’s gear evolved from a low gear of a 42-22 to a 42-24 (47.3 inches compared to 45.8 inches for today’s popular 39×23) as he changed his climbing technique to focus more on seated efforts. As he said: “I sit further back and pedal more smoothly.”"


    http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/18
    '74 Raleigh International - '77 Trek TX900FG - '92 Vitus 979 - '10 Merckx EMX-3- '11 Soma Stanyan

  3. #203
    Senior Member spectastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    texas
    My Bikes
    road bikes
    Posts
    1,833
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    someone brought up a good point. With a compact, most people would be able to use a fuller range of the cassette while on the big ring, and use the 34 as more of a bailout for really steep climbs.
    5/20

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    My Bikes
    S-Works Roubaix SL2, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
    Posts
    2,391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RT View Post
    Unless something has changed with this new dark magic, big/big will create the same chainline on any drivetrain where the cassettes are the same width, regardless of cog count. I could be wrong.

    I bet BDop could jump in here and blow our minds with drawings, graphs and anecdotes.
    I was thinking with chain rub, the chain is deflected to the edge of the derailleur over a shorter distance and therefore at a higher angle.

    Anyway, I don't worry my little head about cross-chaining. I don't do it that often, so I expect that the wear from normal riding will bring me to chain replacement long before any theoretical additional wear from cross-chaining.

  5. #205
    token triathlete Bah Humbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the trainer
    My Bikes
    Cervelo New P3 Cervelo S1
    Posts
    5,942
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spectastic View Post
    someone brought up a good point. With a compact, most people would be able to use a fuller range of the cassette while on the big ring, and use the 34 as more of a bailout for really steep climbs.
    That's exactly what I do - 50t with the 12-27 covers most things, and I drop to the 36t for nasty climbs.

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    My Bikes
    S-Works Roubaix SL2, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
    Posts
    2,391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandera View Post
    42/24

    "For climbing, a narrow range of gearing was the norm, but also bigger gears than those used today. Eddy Merckx, for example, was a big fan of the 44-tooth chainring (typically paired with a 53) for climbing with a 6-speed freewheel 13-19; for particularly tough mountain races or stages he would opt for a 13-21.

    By Hinault’s time, the chainring set-up was typically 53-42 with a 7-speed cluster. Hinault’s gear evolved from a low gear of a 42-22 to a 42-24 (47.3 inches compared to 45.8 inches for today’s popular 39×23) as he changed his climbing technique to focus more on seated efforts. As he said: “I sit further back and pedal more smoothly.”"


    http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/18
    I don't think the gearing that the pros use or used to use is in any way relevant to the gearing that most of us mortals need (especially at the low end). I certainly wouldn't expect to ride up mountains using Merckx's gearing.

  7. #207
    Senior Member oldbobcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder County, CO
    My Bikes
    '79 Gios, '80 Masi, '06 Felt, early '60s Frejus
    Posts
    2,455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSoxYacht View Post
    I'm a bit surprised for the lack of love for a 50/36 12-23 setup. The crankset has the same 14t gap, and the cassette has a very usefull 1tooth increase from 12-19.

    How often do you really need 119.5 GI instead of 109.5 GI?
    Not too often, but with 9 other cogs on board it isn't like the 11 is taking up too much space. If I wasn't living and riding in Colorado, 50/12 would be plenty.

  8. #208
    Senior Member buffalowings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    700
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's silly how people equate standard gearing to stronger riders, some people are more comfortable spinning a lower gear than trying to grind through a hill with a only a 23, if you spin at a higher cadence, you can go just as fast as someone on a harder gear.

  9. #209
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,699
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by banerjek View Post
    Not really. When you consider how much many people spend on bikes, a bit more wear and tear is no big deal.

    A better reason not to cross chain is that it limits your ability to shift to an optimum gear. I see people riding in the bottom two cogs on the big ring all the time. Except when you have reason to believe that you'll only want to upshift, that's just not a great idea. Being in the top cog in the small ring is also not great for the same reason, though I see that less frequently.

    +1. Way to many folks ride almost exclusively on the big ring for whatever reason - machismo - I don't know. When I ride with folks like that, I do a quick mental calculations and figure at the speed we're travelling they can't be turning the cranks faster than 60 RPM. That's not good.

  10. #210
    Senior Member oldbobcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder County, CO
    My Bikes
    '79 Gios, '80 Masi, '06 Felt, early '60s Frejus
    Posts
    2,455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bah Humbug View Post
    What was the biggest, typically? I'm much more concerned about low-end than high-end.
    The limiting factors were the capacity of rear derailleurs to take up chain slack and clear the largest cogs. If memory serves me, Campy Record and SunTour Cyclones were pretty maxed out around 26t. Super Record gave a little more latitude than Nuovo Record. The other consideration was trying to maintain 1t changes at least into the middle of the cluster. That got a little easier with 7 cogs.

    By today's standards we were all hopelessly over-geared at the low end.

  11. #211
    Senior Member telebianchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    My Bikes
    2014 Trek Domane 5.2, 2003 Fuji Cross, 2010 Giant Trance, 2006 K2 Mod 4.0, 2010 Schwinn Madison
    Posts
    1,237
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by svtmike View Post
    I don't think the gearing that the pros use or used to use is in any way relevant to the gearing that most of us mortals need (especially at the low end). I certainly wouldn't expect to ride up mountains using Merckx's gearing.
    Actually it kind of is relevant to us mere mortals when you see that Contador and Saxo Bank used SRAM Apex with a 34x32 low gear in the 2011 Giro on the big climbing days. (http://road.cc/content/news/36163-gi...ador-goes-apex). While I know that on a climb that kills me with 34x28 a pro rider could crush with 39x25, if those guys see a need for compact chainrings and big cassettes then I see no reason that I can't use the same gearing to get over the little mole hills near my home.
    May your tires or beer never be flat.

  12. #212
    Senior Member spectastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    texas
    My Bikes
    road bikes
    Posts
    1,833
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I feel like I'm missing something... Why is riding a 52 correlated with lower cadence at all? The only difference between them is 1 extra gear on both ends of the spectrum. Everything in the middle is comparable. A quick Excel table shows you nothing about having to pedal at a lower cadence with a 52 (didn't include small chainring for simplicity's sake). just click up 1 gear with a 50 and you'll get the same thing.

    11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 22 24
    52 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2
    50 4.5 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1

    It's not very complicated.
    5/20

  13. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    My Bikes
    Roubaix SL4 Expert
    Posts
    2,322
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rpenmanparker View Post
    +1. Way to many folks ride almost exclusively on the big ring for whatever reason - machismo - I don't know.
    Unless you can spot the difference between a standard and compact crank I don't think you can do accurate mental calculations. The reason I leave my compact on the big ring most of the time is purely functional. The small ring is pretty much "spun out" at about 18-20mph which is precisely where road cyclists spend a lot of time (at or above.) I can't believe riding around on the small-small (or second to last cog) is good for the drivetrain either. The big ring on a compact is completely usable down to about 14mph IME and that's staying off the bottom three cogs to avoid cross-chaining. And lastly, who wants to constantly be shifting the front rings if it can be avoided?

    A standard crank is going to be different since the 39T small ring is usable up to a higher speed.
    Last edited by Dunbar; 05-22-13 at 11:18 PM.

  14. #214
    has a Large Member Campag4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spectastic View Post
    someone brought up a good point. With a compact, most people would be able to use a fuller range of the cassette while on the big ring, and use the 34 as more of a bailout for really steep climbs.
    I think this is a great point. A fuller range cassette also is more forgiving to say using a 50/38 compact like I do...makes the 50 more usable and the 38 is more usable with bigger cogs in back. The downside of more of a pie plate cassette of course is loss of tight cog spacing shift to shift. To me, since there is no gearing utopia, give up of slight tight gear spacing in back is better than the less tolerant 50/34 gap in front shifting which I never liked.

  15. #215
    has a Large Member Campag4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
    Unless you can spot the difference between a standard and compact crank I don't think you can do accurate mental calculations. The reason I leave my compact on the big ring most of the time is purely functional. The small ring is pretty much "spun out" at about 18-20mph which is precisely where road cyclists spend a lot of time (at or above.) I can't believe riding around on the small-small (or second to last cog) is good for the drivetrain either. The big ring on a compact is completely usable down to about 14mph IME and that's staying off the bottom three cogs to avoid cross-chaining. And lastly, who wants to constantly be shifting the front rings if it can be avoided?

    A standard crank is going to be different since the 39T small ring is usable up to a higher speed.
    This is why I opt for neither full size or pure compact...but made up a 50/38 which is pretty easy to do with any compact crankset. I just don't need a 52-53 big ring and a 50 with a wider cassette in back makes that ring more usable.

  16. #216
    Senior Member clausen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northern Ontario
    My Bikes
    Colnago Master XL, Bianchi Via Nirone 7, Marinoni Fango
    Posts
    3,639
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Campag4life View Post
    I think this is a great point. A fuller range cassette also is more forgiving to say using a 50/38 compact like I do...makes the 50 more usable and the 38 is more usable with bigger cogs in back. The downside of more of a pie plate cassette of course is loss of tight cog spacing shift to shift. To me, since there is no gearing utopia, give up of slight tight gear spacing in back is better than the less tolerant 50/34 gap in front shifting which I never liked.
    I like the opposite 50/34 with a 12-23. Tight spacing and roughly the same gears as a 53/39 with a 13-26. The FD shifting issues with a compact are a non issue for me, it's little extra push when double shifting but I don't need to shift it that often.

  17. #217
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,699
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
    Unless you can spot the difference between a standard and compact crank I don't think you can do accurate mental calculations. The reason I leave my compact on the big ring most of the time is purely functional. The small ring is pretty much "spun out" at about 18-20mph which is precisely where road cyclists spend a lot of time (at or above.) I can't believe riding around on the small-small (or second to last cog) is good for the drivetrain either. The big ring on a compact is completely usable down to about 14mph IME and that's staying off the bottom three cogs to avoid cross-chaining. And lastly, who wants to constantly be shifting the front rings if it can be avoided?

    A standard crank is going to be different since the 39T small ring is usable up to a higher speed.
    Yes, that discussion was aimed at standard 53/39 cranks.

  18. #218
    RT
    RT is offline
    The Weird Beard RT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    COS
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerull View Post
    People bring up cable failures due to arguments that assume mechanical systems are perfection incarnate and never ever have any issues at all, while electronic systems are likely to explode at any moment.

    Cables fail. Not very often, but it happens. But you know what also almost never happens? Di2 failures. And you don't even have to replace most of the system every 6 months to get that reliability.
    This is just more Kool-Aid. Cables do fail, but under extreme circumstances. I can only base this on the extremely sparse volume of cable-breaking threads in the history of this forum, and my personal experience, which features no cables breaking.

    Would you trust electronic braking? I certainly would not.

  19. #219
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1x10.

  20. #220
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A bit of an aside but since were talking about Koolaid i figure it's ok:
    Man, that new DA 9000 11 speed chain shifts better and runs quieter on my ten-speed system than anything I've ever seen.

  21. #221
    token triathlete Bah Humbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the trainer
    My Bikes
    Cervelo New P3 Cervelo S1
    Posts
    5,942
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spectastic View Post
    I feel like I'm missing something... Why is riding a 52 correlated with lower cadence at all? The only difference between them is 1 extra gear on both ends of the spectrum. Everything in the middle is comparable. A quick Excel table shows you nothing about having to pedal at a lower cadence with a 52 (didn't include small chainring for simplicity's sake). just click up 1 gear with a 50 and you'll get the same thing.

    It's not very complicated.
    At least for me, it's not about the 52, it's about the 39 going up steep hills. I'd have no issue running a 52 except that I still want a 36 for some of the nasty climbs here and want to stick to a 14t shifting gap.

    However, your point is also damning to the "deferred success gearing" crowd. A compact is just another gear or two at the low end. If you use it with a smaller cassette, or don't usually drop to your biggest cog or two... it's like running a standard with a bigger cassette or using the biggest cogs. Gear-inches are gear-inches, and you don't go slower because you use one method of getting there vs another.

  22. #222
    RT
    RT is offline
    The Weird Beard RT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    COS
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Hull View Post
    1x10.
    I had a feeling we would see the GH sooner or later!

  23. #223
    token triathlete Bah Humbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the trainer
    My Bikes
    Cervelo New P3 Cervelo S1
    Posts
    5,942
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RT View Post
    This is just more Kool-Aid. Cables do fail, but under extreme circumstances. I can only base this on the extremely sparse volume of cable-breaking threads in the history of this forum, and my personal experience, which features no cables breaking.

    Would you trust electronic braking? I certainly would not.
    Sure, but it does happen. The argument we have is that Di2 batteries suddenly leaving you without shifting is also extremely rare, in that the only examples of it I've seen are when people were intentionally testing its battery failure mode. Even in the cases of people who (presumably) had a short and excessive battery consumption they just had to charge it more often, on the order of weeks instead of months.

  24. #224
    RT
    RT is offline
    The Weird Beard RT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    COS
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FWIW, after stupidly trying to adjust a 2x9 lever to a triple crank yesterday (I had forgotten the levers were not 3x), I had to tune out the 30t to make it work, and work it did. 42t even around here is plenty with a 12-27.

    Why not 53/42 with a 14-25 in the back for 9 speed?

  25. #225
    token triathlete Bah Humbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the trainer
    My Bikes
    Cervelo New P3 Cervelo S1
    Posts
    5,942
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Hull View Post
    1x10.
    1x11. Get with the times, please.

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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