Granny gears

[asterix]

Maybe the question that needs to be asked is why so many bikes are geared so high?

Very true. In the 60's everyone who was cycling had to go out and buy a look-like TdF bike. These almost always had a very narrow range of high gears. Hardly surprising that any resurgence in cycling had to wait for the invention of the MTB and its lower gearing!

Let's not go that way again.


(BTW I do have a double that has a gear low enough to take me up a 1 in 3 such as may be found in Yorkshire, I still prefer the flexibilty of my triples.)

 

[MacB]

yep triples are good though I can see the compact attraction, as you know, and the manufacturers obviously recognise something as well. Shimano going to a 28t cog and SRAM bringing out a 12-32 road cassette for the Apex groupset.

But I do wonder how often some of the high gears actually see action, I've always found Paul Smiths touring and sportive tips section at Corridori very informative:-

http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9

He gives an example of his touring and general bike setup using a 10 speed triple but rings at 46/36/26 and a 13-29 cassette. Not only has he gone for more gears at the low end but he doesn't even countenance an 11/12t cog even having dropped his outer ring to a 46.

If I do change my Burls setup, when I get the Tiagra shifters, it will be to something like this. I like his idea of hard riding = outer ring with middle for steeper bits, slower/laden/longer riding = middle ring with inner if needed. Almost treating the bike like it has two double setups, makes sense to me.

 

[psmiffy]

I have triples on all my bikes because a) I am even worse at walking than I am at cycling b) The shoes are far too expensive to wear out walking in them c) I have got to the age I am without any serious hip or knee problems by simply not being stupid

 

[BigTone0777]

I like his idea of hard riding = outer ring with middle for steeper bits, slower/laden/longer riding = middle ring with inner if needed. Almost treating the bike like it has two double setups, makes sense to me.
[/quote]

Me too, sounds like a great set up to me, especially for my fitness level. I know the smallest ring won't be used all that much but it's good to have sat there for when it's needed.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Paul at corrdori was most complementary about my set up (for a cyclist of my age and (in)experience and goals) when I went there for a bike fit on the black 'un.

52-42-30 campag racing triple
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29 10 speed cassette.

Sheldon says 27.2" to 107" with 28mm tyres. Yes, the odd roadie has looked at the rear mech and screamed but I can't see it from the saddle so I don't care. yes, the steps are uneven and if I was a cadence nazi I'd claim I could not cope.

Most of my time is spent in the 19 or 17. I've yet to use the 30 up front or the 29 at the back, iirc, so far this year so it could be argued it is a setup with excess dead weight. But every dog, and dog is only one letter away from cog, has its day. As a clydesdale class rider it would be stupid for me to worry about the weight of the bike drivetrain. Then again the 13 and 14 see little use, only when I want to go stupid fast downhill and at my avoirdupois that is easily done simply by not braking. Thinks...why is is that most of the people I ride with descend like timid Timothys?

as to why so many entry level bikes are sold with such high gears..... we know a song about that children don't we?

 

[Cubist]

See what I mean, now that's a sensible setup Greg. It's the sort of thing I'd be heading for!

 

[aberal]

That's fine for you to say, but I'm talking about an average cyclist.

Well, I'm 51 years old, 2 stone overweight and although I've cycled for years its only in the last year that I've picked it up again. So all in all I reckon I might be pretty average. And it was the average cyclist that I was talking about.

On my compact I have a 50-36 with an MTB 11-32 cassette on it. My ride home is 6 miles all uphill with a 200 yard flat as the only respite, climbing 1000 feet, with an average of 6 percent for the first 5 miles, with a 20 percenter in the last half mile. I'm sure you may not want to seem like you're bragging, but here in the Pennines there are days when 34 28 would still be too tall. After 5 and a half miles climbing after a long day at work I want to be able to grind a granny up the last bit! My next road bike will be a triple, and I will modify it to take an MTB cassette!

Like I said - horses for courses. That's what suits you and that's fine. Ideal in fact. But I could hardly be bragging about anything here when I myself ride with a triple chainset on both my bikes. My road bike came off the shelf with a 52/42/30 chainset and 13-25 at the rear. As I said elsewhere in this thread, this gives a low gear of 31.7. If I were to change that tomorrow for a double compact with 34 teeth and a 28 at the rear, I would have a lowest gear of 32. Slightly lower than my present triple set up. So if I can get such a low gear with a double, why bother with a triple? Seriously - what is the point?

So my point to the poster who asked whether he needed a triple for Sportives and long leisure rides holds true - no you don't need a triple.

 

[Davidc]

All this makes interesting reading, but it's unlikely that those with the higher gearing are living in the hillier parts of the country!

Yorkshire's mentioned above, a couple of us have mentioned Somerset, and there are a good few other bits of these islands where any decent length and interesting ride is going to involve climbing 20% and 30% hills, often miles long.

For many of us dealing with those, and at the same time being able to enjoy some speed on the corresponding descents, involves a triple, with a very small granny gear on it.

As a general principle I agree with MacB that most bike gearing is too high, but at the same time I think it's something that needs to be chosen for the individual. It depends on likely terrain, preferred cadence, age, fitness, and a few more factors. It's not something where sweeping generalisations help anyone.

 

[phil_hg_uk]

I have a triple because I am an old git and I live in north yorkshire, we have a lot of hills here in fact on all my regular rides it is all up and down hills so sometimes I need the granny gears.

Mind you I feel sorry for those who live in all flat areas it must get very boring.

 

[david1701]

seriously try riding the back roads of cornwall and encountering some of these hills I've just moved from an mtb to having a 30-32 lowest gear and its collossally hard work, whereas the properly fit athletes I've been riding with (and left behind by) have all got a single massive cog at the back to spin up any hill in their path.

and @Aberal, the point is to get a weee bit lower for when you face a row of climb descend climb descends of 1 in 5 hills or millook

 

[theloafer]

was hoped to have my new bike sat shop says blame the b/hols as i am getting on a bit need all the help on the hills .....fav riding place the lakes gone for one of these..

http://www.westbrookcycles.co.uk/bi...ynapse-carbon-sram-apex-road-bike-2011-p88441

 

[JonnyBlade]

For some of the hills I climb you always seem to need another gear and a granny gear would come in bloomin handy

 

[ColinJ]

And as for a century ride that involves riding miles 99-100 up a steep climb into a 20 mph headwind ...

 

[MacB]

For many of us dealing with those, and at the same time being able to enjoy some speed on the corresponding descents, involves a triple, with a very small granny gear on it.

As a general principle I agree with MacB that most bike gearing is too high, but at the same time I think it's something that needs to be chosen for the individual. It depends on likely terrain, preferred cadence, age, fitness, and a few more factors. It's not something where sweeping generalisations help anyone.

I totally agree David and there's not much in the way of a weight penalty to have a little ring sitting at the front, each to their own though.

But I think Col makes a good comparison around what's needed changing as a ride/day progresses and with the conditions.

 

[Sheepy1209]

All this talk of hills - what about the wind?

I've got a 28-38-48 on the front, and around Blackpool it's flat enough that most of the time I'm in the middle.
But when that 'sea breeze' gets going, I've found it handy to have the granny for the headwinds, and the big ring for the tailwinds.

I suppose it should be possible to map wind speeds onto equivalent hill steepness, but I don't think there's such a thing as a gusty hill!