You said :
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
It's not a lot different. Shifting the rear tolerates load better than the front. That's the basic premise of it being easier to shift the rear.
Apparently I was not being clear … What I said was
Originally Posted by
Maelochs
The basic premise ,... that it is easier to shift down up front than in back ... bespeaks to me of an inability to use derailleurs properly. Therefore .... you know ...
I said this because the first post said:
Originally Posted by
kyselad
This is sort of a shower thoughts question, but why do bikes favor large numbers of gears in the rear vs the front? I understand why many prefer 1x setups, but when I underestimate a climb and need a bailout gear fast, shifting to a smaller chainring is just mechanically easier than having to push up to a larger rear cog.] {emphasis added}
See ….the OP in the first post advanced the premise that shifting up front was mechanically easier than shifting in the rear …. Which I think both you and I think is completely incorrect.
Which is why I said:
Originally Posted by
Maelochs
If the initial premise is flawed, no amount of reasoning thereafter will lead to the correct solution because the problem is not what one thinks it is.
Which is why I think there must be some misunderstand, based on you saying
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
All this stuff means rear shifting is easier. This shouldn't be controversial (it's pretty clear). Yet here you arguing that it's equivalent.
Pretty much, reading is fundamental, and all that.