Originally Posted by
europa
I'm guessing you're younger than me but no youngster either. It seems you've been on a bike and working those hills for many years. You've probably a reasonable body shape too. Just guess work, correct me if I'm wrong (without embarassing yourself). This suggests that you've built up some genuine strength in those legs and your body is well tuned to the hills you're climbing. This would suggest an ability to ride through a large jump between chainrings. I don't have that and so notice the jump.
Just trying to understand why it works for you in the hope that I'll learn more about making my own choices.
The other thing that comes into the equation these days is the widening number of gears and the skinny chains to suit. I'm still wary of the need to go to 10 gears or beyond, particularly as it increases the amount of cross chaining we do. However, I read recently where someone commented on the flexibility of the new, very thin chains. He claimed that cross chaining just isn't an issue now, something I still regard as marketing hype, however there is probably some truth in it and maybe it is okay to use the full cassette from any chain ring (if your front dr allows it). Richard
Yes and no... I'm in my mid 40's, no, I no longer have a 6pack... I weigh 210 (6ft2)... my ideal weight is more around 175-185, but I was once below 150 when I was in my 20's doing lots of hills. I'm far from being in good shape, after gradually declining fitness, and my knees and back are killing me, every day. But low cadnces in a 170mm is all I can do - I have long legs that are used to moving less frantically (hence my wanting to switch to shorter cranks to spin more). (yet that didn't stop me from approaching 300 rpm cadence going downhill on my track bike for spring training in my late highschool years). I'm building up my track bike again, to be used as a singlespeed again, I'm stripping down my Cannondale back killer, and putting it and my recumbent up for sale on eBay. (I'll make a carbon fiber recumbent to replace it as I mentioned)
Please do take a moment to examine the gear charts I've come up with. And read my reasoning behind it in my previous post (the ~15-17% jump from one gear to the other). You should be able to see that it's pretty good. You can get a 50/34, 50/36, 53/39, depending on if you like to push hard (like me) or spin more (like you), in conjunction with one of those gear ranges in the charts I provided. You know, even with your terrain over there, you might actually like it. I'm not saying change all your bikes... they're probably not all geared the same... but maybe a change to the one that has gearing the least suited for you.... it might be worth a try. It won't replace your bike that has gearing so well adapted for your needs, but it might make a bike under-used more polyvalent.
About the new extra speeds... I totally agree with you. With China gone global and mainstream in manufacturing, and Shimano regularly obsoleting products, prices have nowhere to go but down. I had a sigh of relief when I started getting back into cycling and discovered I missed the wave of 8 speed stuff, so short lived - that's when I finally "upgraded" to 7 speed! LOL Currently, I buy 9 speed, it's cheap - because everything in manufacturing is switching over to 10 and 11 speed now. If 9 was good a year ago, it's good enough for me today! When 12 speeds hit the market, I'll be buying 10, maybe even 11 if it also comes down in price enough at that time.
Regarding mechanical strength, shortening the rivet has no effect on chain strength, since it's strength is dependent on material (the steel alloy used and consistency thereof), and thickness of the plates used. If you're just shortening the pin, no difference... or is there? Well there is actually. When the chain is not in a straight line, but crossing over, then pins and plates on opposing sides on each end are supporting way more than if the chain was taught in a straight line where everything would be suported 50-50 on each side. This discrepancy caused with deflection is reduced with narrower pins being used (simple basic trigonometry). So yes, I believe the theory that a chain can be a bit stronger if it is narrower (for a same plate thickness).
Now one thing that is definitely a nice feature of the new narrower chains, is cramming an ever increasing number of gears into the same space... not that we actually need to increase the total number of gears, now, but rather, the usable amount before your chain deflection starts to affect chain strength or mechanical efficiency (through more rubbing on the cogs), you can shift among more gears before that happens. With 11 speed, I think that compact double cranksets will serve every need.
You see, the probability of having this debate decreases with every extra gear they add on the back.
I mean, on my cirrent 9 speed setup, if I decide to not use the last smallest 2-3 gears with the large chainring, or the largest 2-3 gears with the small chainring, I have 6-7 gears left on each that I use. With a 10, that increases to 7-8, with an 11 it's 7-9. I mean... it seems that not that long ago, I was running a 6 speed freewheel where I was reduced to just 5 useable cogs with each chainring.