Bandera

I'm much more old school, we only had 5 cogs when I started cycling.
A 13 or 14-21 for general training/racing, a 14-18 for Criterium/TT/flat courses and a 13 or 14-24 for the hills.
Paired with a 52/42 or 52/45 we got it done just fine without undue messing about, so did the guys we looked up to.
How did we "Manage"? We got strong, efficient and tough.



Building base miles on a ~70GI fixed gear developed a supple high cadence pedaling style with grunt and spin on demand for a wide power band that suited the hardware of the day. In fact my favorite gearing "for the Flats" is a 70GI FG >40 years on, sometimes 19th century technology is best for me.

-Bandera

Long Tom

I just swapped my 10-speed 105 winter bike to an 11-32 cassette to go with the 50/34 front end, so I guess that tells MY story.

My main ride is very hilly and they are quite long and steep. My bike had 11-30 and I was really missing that next low gear on some steep climbs; it's the difference between putting undue pressure on my knees or not. Since im not riding pacelines or trying to hit a number on the flat areas i just put it in the gears that feel right and ride.

Horses for courses, right?

stephtu

Yes, but one can construct relatively flat rides staying in the valleys between the hills.

Uh, who has bad reading comprehension? I never, ever said that fine tuning gearing for flats was "useless"; I said if I lived in a flat area I'd also switch to a tighter cassette. I just objected to posts that implied that 11-32 was horribly inefficient or unsuitable for flats, that you should feel a need to change cassettes for each flatter ride even though you need a bigger cassette most of the time. I never said that tighter cassette for flats was "no advantage". I'm just saying that it's not a HUGE advantage.

A person in very hilly terrain, who is undergeared for his power capabilities, is much more disadvantaged than a person in flat terrain with a wide cassette with 2-tooth gaps in the middle rather than 1. The extra cogs aren't "useless", but the gain on flat ground is a lot smaller than the gain from an extra smaller gear on a steep hill near the end of a hilly century when you aren't a very strong rider.

Sure, it makes perfect sense to trade cogs you never use for ones you can. I never said it didn't make sense to do so. I just object to people exaggerating the magnitude of the gain of 1-tooth gaps vs. 2-tooth gaps. It makes for a more pleasant ride, but it's not going to prevent you from getting dropped if you are about to get dropped. You are tired & having a bad day, group is travelling at a constant speed, if you try to hang on in a 50-15 you are going to get dropped, if you try to hang on in the 50-17 you are going to get dropped, but if you only had that magical Goldilocks 50-16 cog gear that gives you 20 extra watts and lets you hang on? I don't think so.

stephtu

So, you considered 5 cogs from 13-21 suitable for general training/racing. Shimano 11-speed 11-32 also has 5 cogs from 13-20. So why is this now unsuitable? Sure it's nice to have some extra cogs in there. But if you got by on 5 cogs in that range back then, what's so horrible about getting by on 5 cogs for the same range now?

Can you not see the massive contradiction in favoring fixed gear for the flats while simultaneously advocating that 11-speed riders change cassettes for flat rides lest they suffer a huge efficiency hit?

Bandera

As 6,7,8,9,10,11 cog set-ups became available we adopted them along with a host of other useful technologies.
In the early 70's a 52/42 13-21 was suitable, 53/39 12-25 is now for this terrain.

Remember this?
Install the low gear you need for the terrain and the highest gear you are willing to push and cram as many in between as possible for efficiency.
Nothing has changed in that dictum in >40 years but the low in now lower and high is taller but the steps between can be small, that's a good thing.

As far as changing gearing goes you may be puzzled by the fact that we even swap wheelsets to match conditions, crazy 'eh?

Life is full of contradictions. I enjoy riding a FG on solo rides, have for decades and probably do so more than most cyclists today.
Another favorite is a 1956 AW/Cyclo drivetrain that sees regular service as well as more "modern" hardware. I ride each as I please.
If that bothers you get over it.

I change my gearing to suit the terrain, if that bothers you get over it.

-Bandera

RJM

Am I the only one here who thinks really tight spacing is annoying? I shift too much when they are too close together.

stephtu

Efficiency has practical limits. At some point the differences become minor & negligible. Or are you eagerly waiting for someone to invent a CVT for bicycles so that you can achieve perfectly constant cadence and reach efficiency nirvana, 1 tooth gaps are too wide for you? At no point have you attempted to quantify the amount of efficiency, all you do is declare it as more efficient.

Yes I can understand a pro racer looking to eke out a few seconds who swaps wheelsets for aero/weight reasons, depending on terrain & crosswinds. But is it really necessary for a recreational rider, or is it merely showing off disposable income on blingy wheels?

Do whatever you prefer, why would I care? But if you throw out false information exaggerating the efficiency advantage of doing so, and claim that wider cassettes are unsuitable for cycling performance, I'm going to call you on it. I don't care about people having preferences or what they do for themselves, but if someone asks a question about how limited an 11-speed 11-32 cassette is on the flats, the correct answer is "not very limited", not "it's very limited, very inefficient". Preferrable, slightly nicer to have a tighter cassette, I'm fine with that statement. Horribly limited, you won't be able to keep up efficiently, must change your cassette for each ride, these kinds of statements I challenge as being massive exaggerations.

WhyFi

Let me point out that you don't read so good. First, what you're referring to was in a separate sentence/paragraph from the "fill in the blank" statement that you were riffing off of. Second, he wasn't suggesting anything - he was stating, as a matter of fact, what they did/do in such instances. You might infer that he was suggesting a similar course for others, but in no way was he explicitly doing so.

Bandera

I stated that an 11-32 cassette is not suitable for the flats, that's my opinion based on >40 years of cycling experience.
I change my gearing to suit the terrain, that's what I've done for decades and will continue to do.
I own several bicycles, wheelsets and other gear and use them all as I require.

I've never stated "it's very limited, very inefficient" or "Horribly limited, you won't be able to keep up efficiently, must change your cassette for each ride,". Those are your slightly hysterical sounding mis-statements not mine, and this "conversation" is pointless/over.

-Bandera

UnfilteredDregs

Bwahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!!!

stephtu

So inferring is improper, I can only argue against explicit suggestions? What is the purpose of stating such facts if it is not a suggestion that this is what people ought to be doing? He didn't include any disclaimer saying that this is his preference and that not everyone may feel a need to do this. Also, it's quite amusing to get a lecture on not reading well from someone who writes the phrase as "read so good".


There's a large degree of difference between describing something as "not ideal", and describing something as "not suitable".

Sorry, I misattributed a statement to you that was actually made by UnfilteredDregs. He said "quite limited". Still, you seem to share this general sentiment, even if you didn't use his exact quote. If it is not limited, and not inefficient, then why else would you consider it "not suitable"?

bbattle

Perhaps Bandera and stephtu can take their discussion to a PM.

The question of whether someone is limited on the flats with a 50/34 compact and 11-32 cassette was answered long ago with a clear "Not at all".

WhyFi

>>>>>>>> It

Your head

achoo

And in your day hills were uphill both ways.

I'm not on your lawn.

BoSoxYacht

Wrong answer.

colnago62

I remember those days riding five speed freewheels. You where changing freewheels all the time. Riding was really a matter of managing all the compromises. Rarely were you in a. Optimal gear combination. Where I was riding, you could get away with 42×21 low gear and a 52×13 high. Back then, I climbed with a lower cadence and was out of the saddle a lot more than now. Which classics race was it that always had pictures of riders pushing their bikes the one climb, Flanders maybe?

Bandera

It's a tradition.





-Bandera

Long Tom

I rode muh hillz with my new 11-32 10 sp cassette today... I was like, helloooo Granny! Glad to SEE you again! Welcome back!

Love me some 34/32.

rawly old

I'll go along with Long Tom. I've got 50/34/32/11. I'm an old geezer & this setup is perfect
for me. I ride 34/11 for cruising moderately level ground without cross chaining. The leverage
gained by the 34 allows me to travel fairly fast without a great deal of effort. This is just
ideal for an old guy touring. If things a long & level 50/11 is fine once the 34 gets me up to
speed. Having 34/32 is about the only thing that'll get my fat old butt up a steep grade.

BoSoxYacht

no mater how you slice it, 34x11 IS crosschaining.

colnago62

This is a situation that I have seen a lot at the velodrome, a situation where a rider gears up or down and it has a fairly dramatic effect on their perfoemance. You see it in the sprints where a rider will lose the first round, makes a gear change, then comes back and wins the next two. They needed that extra few mph to overtake their opponent. Many track racers will start in a small gear at the beginning of the season and make one tooth changes, front or rear, till they find the best balance between acceleration and top end. I get what your saying, though. To riders who are not racing or hyper focused on performance, the difference won't matter. I really can see that given the situations that both of you have constructed, you are both correct in your positions.

kv501

That's definitely cross chaining. Why don't you just ride in 50/17? It's practically the same ratio as 34/11 and you still have 3 smaller cogs left.

krobinson103

Nope I agree. Unless I want to ride in a pace line super close gearing doesn't give me much advantage at all.

Homebrew01

Refilled my popcorn :

DinoShepherd

Yup. I find myself having to make two shifts too often.

The gear inch changes get too close at the low end of the cassette.