Newbie advice on bikes and gears 1x11 vs 1x10 vs 3x9

[I like Skol]

Quick bit of googling suggests that the HG50 (Sora) can be got in an 11-30 to give slightly narrower gaps.

I wouldn't worry about the gear ratio jumps. Close ratios are all well and good in a race or time trial environment where a little step is needed just to hit the optimum speed v cadence, but in the real world this is far from important. Even running an 11-26(SRAM) or 11-25(Shimano) cassette on my 9spd hybrid I normally drop through the gears 2 or 3 clicks at a time when pulling away from the lights.

@HeebyGeeby don't let all this intense discussion/debate about drivetrain configurations and gear ratios frighten you off, cycling isn't really that involved or complicated (until you get addicted ). Please do come back and post in this thread once you decide what you are going to do and maybe again to let us know how you get on with your choice. This way at least we can see if we are giving valid advice to beginners or just talking out of our collective arris!

 

[HeebyGeeby]

Something I don't understand, with 2x9 gearing say, going from a flat, up a hill which gets progressively steeper, do I not end up going from the smaller front cog with the largest rear, straight into the lowest possible gear the bike has?
Do you tend to change down with the front while simultaneously changing all the way up on the rear?

 

[I like Skol]

Something I don't understand, with 2x9 gearing say, going from a flat, up a hill which gets progressively steeper, do I not end up going from the smaller front cog with the largest rear, straight into the lowest possible gear the bike has?
Do you tend to change down with the front while simultaneously changing all the way up on the rear?

I think you have it the wrong way around? It soon becomes quite intuitive in practice.

On the flat you might be bimbling along on the large chainring and midway on the cassette at the rear then as the road starts to climb you change the rear gears a couple of clicks to the larger sprockets to make it easier. This is where experience comes into play slightly because if possible you want to avoid ending up on the biggest chainring and biggest cassette sprocket. It isn't a disaster (provided the chain length has been set up correctly), and we all do it inadvertently from time to time, but it is just better not to do it. My rule-of-thumb is to avoid the two biggest cassette sprockets when on the big chain ring. This means that as the road steepens and you are getting close to those last two sprockets it is time to shift the front gear to a smaller chainring and, if necessary, adjust the rear gears to suit, although the change from large to smaller chainring is often just what is needed as the climb begins so you may find it isn't necessary to move rear gears unless the gradient changes again.

 

[I like Skol]

Triple is much the same....

Big chainring = full cassette except the 2 x biggest sprockets
Middle chainring = use all the cassette without restrictions, but once you get to the smallest sprocket for any length of time it is probably a good idea to move to a bigger chainring as you are putting a lot of wear through a cog with only 11 or 12 teeth.
Smallest chainring (often known as the 'granny ring') = use the biggest half of the cassette, so on a 9spd this gives you 4 or 5 useable gears when on the granny ring. Avoid the smaller sprockets as this creates a lot of torque at the cogs and wear/tension in the chain. It also helps maintain a reasonable derailleur position so the chain is not too loose feeding into the rear derailleur.

 

[nickAKA]

Something I don't understand, with 2x9 gearing say, going from a flat, up a hill which gets progressively steeper, do I not end up going from the smaller front cog with the largest rear, straight into the lowest possible gear the bike has?
Do you tend to change down with the front while simultaneously changing all the way up on the rear?

Not sure what the exact descriptive term* is here, and I hope I'm not misunderstanding your question, but the gears aren't sequential* when changing beween the crank rings at the front. Generally speaking, in my middle-of-the-road compact chainset setup, if I drop into the small ring on the crank as a gradient increases I need to change up on the rear cassette initally to keep my cadence (pedal rotation) constant & even; the gearing front-to-rear overlaps (if that makes sense).
In the real world (the one you'll find yourself in & soon get used to) what tends to happen is I hit a gradient, I slow down due to gravity, I change down a few sprockets at the rear, I start breathing heavily and slow down some more, I drop into the little ring on the front, then continue changing down at the back until I no longer feel like I'm having a cardiac arrest
Sounds complicated but soon becomes second nature, but dont worry about it too much unless you intend tackling mountain stages.
TL;DR - a 1x11 setup sounds great in theory, but if you'll be going up & down a lot a 9x3 setup is better - 2x11 will cover most eventualities.

 

[Kajjal]

One thing to bear in mind is which gears you use most of the time and the terrain you will be cycling on.

If you are planning to do the Ring of Kerry and go over Connor Pass then I would probably chose a car with a decent engine in.

 

[nickAKA]

I've posted something like this before and it just confused matters. I've not learned my lesson so here it is again.

This is a diagram of the gear ratios on a 50/34 double with an 11-32 cassette. The vertical line of dots above the number 1 are the ratios when in the big (50) ring, and the line above the 2 are the ratios when in the little (34) ring. The dotted lines show the gear changes you get when changing between rings.

You can see the big overlap between the ranges available in the two rings.
View attachment 432842

That's an excellent illustration... all we need now is some number crunching to convert all those gear inches into speed at 80 rpm cadence, 700c x 25 wheel, on the flat for someone of an average weight, then you can look at your average speed and postulate on how many of those gears you're actually likely to use

 

[raleighnut]

Something I don't understand, with 2x9 gearing say, going from a flat, up a hill which gets progressively steeper, do I not end up going from the smaller front cog with the largest rear, straight into the lowest possible gear the bike has?
Do you tend to change down with the front while simultaneously changing all the way up on the rear?

The smallest front cog and largest rear cog is the lowest gear on the bike.

 

[CXRAndy]

@HeebyGeeby Sorry to be personal, what do you and your wife weigh/age and how fit/healthy currently, eg poor, moderate, good?

This will have bearing on the gearing you might need. Also the terrain you will be riding, is it hilly?

 

[Venod]

Dogtrousers charts are very informative, but if you want to experiment yourself with gear ratios, speeds and cadence, there are numerous calculators on the internet, I use this one quite a lot when tinkering with the gears.

http://www.machars.net/bikecalc.htm

 

[HeebyGeeby]

@HeebyGeeby Sorry to be personal, what do you and your wife weigh/age and how fit/healthy currently, eg poor, moderate, good?

This will have bearing on the gearing you might need. Also the terrain you will be riding, is it hilly?

I'm an overweight 6ft (107kg) but losing a kg per month via a slightly sadistic personal trainer.
My wife is a slim 5 ft 6 and very fit and active.
The area we live and intend to cycle isn't very hilly, I just don't want to end up with a bike that won't get me up a hill one day.

The simplicity of only having to think about one range of 10 or 11 gears is appealing. But that range of gears has to be able to cover anything I want to cycle up.

 

[HeebyGeeby]

The smallest front cog and largest rear cog is the lowest gear on the bike.

I edited that post a few times backwards and forwards and in the end decided that you'd all get what I was trying to say :-)

 

[HeebyGeeby]

Dogtrousers charts are very informative, but if you want to experiment yourself with gear ratios, speeds and cadence, there are numerous calculators on the internet, I use this one quite a lot when tinkering with the gears.

http://www.machars.net/bikecalc.htm

This helps a lot.

 

[HeebyGeeby]

I used that calculator to plot and compare speeds at 80 rpm for each of the three bikes I'd mentioned.
Results are here.

That makes the whole thing much clearer to me, the overlap isn't just between cranks 1&2 and 2&3, it's between 1&3.
In fact there are only 15 "unique" speeds in the range from 27 possible gear combos.

Also, I assumed the gears would be evenly spread whereas they are closer together in the lower gears and farther apart in the top gears so any worries I had about uphill gearing aren't an issue. The limitation of the 10 and 11 speed bikes will be more obvious at higher speeds which I'm less concerned about, though I can see why it would be an issue for some.
There's also little difference between the 10 and 11 speed options.

I'm probably overthinking this so I've decided we're going to rent bikes for a day next weekend which I know have 3 x 9 gears and see how we both get on.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

That makes the whole thing much clearer to me, the overlap isn't just between cranks 1&2 and 2&3, it's between 1&3.
In fact there are only 15 "unique" speeds in the range from 27 possible gear combos.

I'm probably overthinking this so I've decided we're going to rent bikes for a day next weekend which I know have 3 x 9 gears and see how we both get on.

Gear range overlap and ratio duplication is pretty much unavoidable with double or triple chainring derailleurs, but can be minimised with careful gearing selection. The trouble is, what you get is what the bike manufacturer thinks will be popular with the "average" rider - which may or may not suit what you want the bike for.

I do think you're overthinking this issue; essentially all anyone needs is a low gear for hills, a medium gear for flat and gentle gradients, and a high gear for riding with a tailwind or downhill. You don't even need mega high gears for descending; once your legs are going round too fast for comfort all you have to do is stop pedalling and freewheel. A top gear in the 90's is plenty high enough for everyone except the speed freaks whose idea of fun is to bomb down hills under power at 40+ MPH.

I have several bikes, with between 3 and 21 gears. Most of the time, regardless of which bike I am riding, I tend to use only a maximum of 4 or 5 ratios. Today I went out for my regular weekend morning ride, and eschewed my 21 speed MTB for a 45 year old 3-speed roadster. Only having three gears, I did use them all, and I used the High gear more than I expected I would, even though it's around 88 inches. The bike wasn't any slower over my regular riding route despite having seven times less gear ratios to choose from. In fact, I actually prefer my 18 speed bikes (3 x 6) to either my 15 or 21 speeds, as to me, six cogs on the back from 14T-28T gives decent spacing whilst being few enough in number to be able to keep track of which gear you are actually in. If you have loads of gears, but maintain insufficient awareness of what ratio you are currently riding on, then you might make a gearchange that makes matters worse not improves things. I'd also question the need to have gears as low as twenty-something inches for everyday use. Yes, if you're lugging a touring load or a week's shopping up a gradient you might need such low gears, but for lightly-laden recreation or utility riding, I've never found much need for anything much below the high thirties. If I find myself trying to climb anything so steep it pulls me down to a walking pace, TBH, I prefer to get off and walk the bike up and over the top to give my legs a rest by using the muscles in a different way.