Bandera

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

Bandera

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.”"


https://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/18

spectastic

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.

svtmike

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.

Bah Humbug

That's exactly what I do - 50t with the 12-27 covers most things, and I drop to the 36t for nasty climbs.

svtmike

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.

oldbobcat

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.

buffalowings

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.

rpenmanparker 

+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.

oldbobcat

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.

telebianchi

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. (https://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.

spectastic

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.

[TABLE="width: 704"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64"][/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]14[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]15[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]16[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]18[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]20[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]22[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]52[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.0[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.9[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.6[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]50[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.6[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

It's not very complicated.

Dunbar

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.

Campag4life

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.

Campag4life

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.

clausen

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.

rpenmanparker 

Yes, that discussion was aimed at standard 53/39 cranks.

RT

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.

Gerry Hull

1x10.

Gerry Hull

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.

Bah Humbug

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.

RT

I had a feeling we would see the GH sooner or later!

Bah Humbug

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.

RT

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?

Bah Humbug

1x11. Get with the times, please.