sjanzeir

I can't ride with just 60! I could really, really use 61!

genejockey 

And even that can change with mood. Sometimes, I want to ride my bikes with 2x6 gearing. Sometimes 2x11.

ofajen

That might be a bit harsh. It depends on the kinds of numbers you prefer.

60 is composite, colossally abundant and superabundant, so it’s a fairly special number.

59 (and 61) are both sexy primes (53 and 67 are also prime) so they are also special.

42 may be the answer to the ultimate question of life, the Universe and everything, but 43 is both a sexy prime and part of a prime triplet (37 and 41 are also prime), so it’s pretty cool, too.

Still, even 42 is too many, IMO. 😊

Otto

indyfabz

Can’t see much overlap.

Riveting

TWO gears is the right answer. One for the flats at 80 rpm (at endurance output of 80% of FTP), and one for steepest uphill YOU will encounter at 80rpm (at endurance output). Anything more than TWO is just for ease or speed. If there's no hills (aka Florida), then ONE is the right answer.

Maelochs

So, did ease or speed not hug you enough while you were growing up or something?

indyfabz

I'd like this post but the like button has disappeared for me. Maybe one like button was too many.

PeteHski

Are you kidding?

indyfabz

No. What am I missing.? The 32.8 is the only one I see repeating.

Riveting

Growing up I only had one rusty ratio on my bmx's, so I learned to get by without ease and speed in my life.

Now I can't imagine life without my 2x11 Di2, spinning up 9% grades with a 1:1 ratio, and flying down with a 1:4.55, and dumping the whole cassette with a single press and hold of a button. So I've learned to embrace ease and speed, but I'd survive without them in my life.

Bald Paul

All you have to do is to look at a snowmobile driveline, and envision something lighter that was calibrated to the torque and speed of a rider and bicycle.

base2 

I think his point is that any ratios ~1 gear inch different (or ~2% or so) are meaninglessly different. They are effictively duplicates.

Here: Same data viewed in a different format.

Maelochs

yeah, but as we all know, it is a combination of available ratios and ease of access. The bugaboo of "overlap" matters when you have a 2x6 .... a 2x11 or 3x9, not so much. In fact, as I have said too wordily elsewhere, I have always liked knowing where near duplicates were so i could pre-shift---get into teh top of the small ring from the middle of the big ring at the base of a tough climb, for instance, or go from the middle of the small ring to the bottom of the big ring when i was coming to a corner so i could maximize ease of acceleration out of it.

The biggest issue I see with indyfabz' chart is big jumps, particularly at the ends. The chart indicates why 3x11 would be a superior touring/randonneurring set-up.

tcs

Oh, like:

www.treadlieengineering.com

You Tube

Heavier, bulkier, less range than Eviolo's CVT hub, though.

indyfabz

When you are slogging up a rough, 15 mile unpaved pass fully loaded even a small difference can make a difference. I am probably going to drop the 24t to a 22t for next season. Got a trip planned in VT with some steep, unpaved sections.

tcs

In a few years we'll all be on Stringbikes.

https://www.stringbike.com


Or not.

indyfabz

I got the cog numbers from Shimano cassettes I found on line since I am not at home to count mine. I am assuming they are what I actually have. I would definitely like to tighten it up at the low end, especially since I have gotten older and don't train (as) much. Don't really care about the very high end. Even when touring or commuting on flat roads I am not concerned about the high end. On steep descents I am almost always coasting anyway.

tcs

252 gears, 3000% range, couple of years back, off the shelf parts:

base2 

I don't disagree with either. 3x9 covers just about everything exceedingly well. That's the reason I picked up the Sturmey Archer cassette/3 speed hub linked to a few pages back. There is a limit of practicality though for most uses/users in most cases. Duplucates can be either a blessing or a curse depending on how they are being used. A blessing if intimate knowledge of your set-up is something you posess; Pointless if "more gears is better" is abused as a marketing ploy.

If it were me, & I too were bound by minimalism I'd do away with the middle ring altogether & live with regular double shifts if there was that one "magic" ratio I needed. The environment in practice is such that most times, by the time you find it, or can get to that magical ratio needed, the goal posts have moved. Long steady climbs, with heavy loads & lots of time to figure it all out (like a mountain pass) being the exception for the bulk of the miles rode by bicycle buying public. Such is life.

Cross-chaining be damned, (shamefully, myself included) people often tend to operate their bicycle as a 1x high range & 1x low range, & in the case of a triple a 1x midrange anyway. It's no wonder the middle ring has fallen out of favor as a redundent production cost, on a marginal gain, most customers don't know how to use properly anyway.

I'm seriously tempted. Just so that I have it around for a future project.

indyfabz

Very true, which is why I think my situation is out of the ordinary when it comes to my view on triples for the type of touring I sometimes do. Road bike-wise, I have no desire for a triple.

tomato coupe

I'm going to go out on a limb and state, unequivocally, that 252 gears is more than most people need.

seypat

And, except for the very outer range each way, you can get around through your range with a lot less physical shifting. That's important for all day riding. Most importantly, you have options to match the grade or wind when enduring the slogs you are talking about. Half the time, I might not even know which cog I'm on in back. I have to look down/back to see which cog I'm on and which way I want to go. But, I have options, That's all that matters to me.

tomato coupe

I'm sure that gearing works well for you but, by any objective measure, there is a lot of overlap.

PeteHski

Think of it like this. On your small chainring you have only 3 gears that are significantly lower than the lowest gear on your middle ring. Then on your large chainring you only have 2 gears higher than the highest gear on your middle ring. The rest are all overlapping even though they are not identical duplicates, except for the 32.8.

livedarklions

247, tops. Anything more is overkill.