Pretty certain, Tour de France Riders in the 1970's were riding at speeds, the average BF poster only dreams about.

The broader point to all of this is that people often want to point to an equipment limit that's holding them back, and correspondingly a technical magic talisman.

Where in most cases, the answer lies with fitness, technique and savvy, much more than equipment.

Nope... not at all forgotten.

54/42 front, 13/21 rear. Hills, mountains, valleys, whatever. I think I did have a 12T freewheel somewhere, but they were hard to find, and I had too many problems with skipping so I had to take it off.

I did a LOT of riding pegged in my top gear. Ok, never one for high cadence.

So, yes, it isn't bad to get a little lower gearing, especially as I've gained a bunch of years, and a few pounds. But, it is also nice to get that top end gearing that I was missing all those years.

I do find my cadence naturally creeping up the more I ride. :mad: :giver:

And, I don't drop into my highest gears all the time. But, I do some of the time.

Likewise, I don't hit the lowest gears very often either.

Do I need the high gears? Well, I'm not sure. But, if I'm going to upgrade my bike from 5x2 to 11x2 (or 12x2), then I might as well put some of those extra gears at the top end.

Which is why I ride 50/36. Super fast shifting and not as much of a difference on either end. But I haven't seen that argument made in this thread at all, and there are differences on the low end where you are more likely to be at your threshold power or anaerobic where the RPM differences there matter more than at the top end where sitting in is usually below threshold power.

I ride a road triple. You get the old school 52/42 which is great for most riding. You also get a 3rd granny just in case. With the triple you can also skew your gearing high or low. One ride each year the front combo is a 50/36/28 compact/mid compact triple. I am only the 50 for about 20 miles out of a 100 on that ride.