Standard gear ratios

[DaveReading]

My trusty 8-speed tourer came with a 48/36/26 triple and a slightly oddly spaced 11-32 cassette (spec said Shimano but turned out to be a SRAM).

Soon after I got the bike I rashly bought a replacement 11-34 cassette to make the hills easier, but never got round to fitting it and now my legs must have got stronger as I can't see any need for it. In fact there are only a handful of hills around here where I still need to use the granny ring (Colstrope and Luxters spring to mind).

Needless to say, I've got a long-cage RD, though I suspect even that might have struggled to cope with a 45t range.

 

[T4tomo]

to be fair 26-32 is pretty low, although I guess if its a tourer and you get it fully loaded then the lower the better

 

[swansonj]

See, I have a slight problem with the attitude that says you need an excuse to want low gears - you're touring or heavily laden or something. It's the flip side of the attitude that says that real men don't need low gears because you ought to struggle manfully with racing-derived gearing in the interests of not letting the hill beat you. I don't (or try not to) make cycling a macho competitive thing and I want to be free to say I want low gears simply because they make cycling easier and therefore more fun.

 

[Racing roadkill]

It's because everyone is a 'pro' these days. By the power of grayskull, if you can't get up a 25 % gradient on a 50:11,you must not be as pro as meeeeeee, etc etc etc. Basically most manufacturers aim for an 'Everyman' cassette, they cover their bases. I switched to an 11-28 on my ten speed bike, just because it's more comfortable on the hills, and still maintains a sensible range. Nice bike BTW. I've got 3 BTWIN bikes in my collection, they are very good.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Inspired by this thread I went and looked at a few road bikes on a couple of web retailers. I was actually quite surprised to see that the 11-32 is more common that I thought it would be. When I was last in bike buying mode it was relatively rare, IIRC, mainly SRAM Apex. So perhaps sense is prevailing and wider ranges are becoming more common. Someone who actually knows the bike market, and who isn't a big idiot will probably be along in a bit to tell me that I'm talking rubbish.

I think there's a bit of over-sensitivity about using low gears. People "admitting" to using the bottom gear, in case someone else is looking down on them. Actually I don't really think anyone gives a hoot. These macho big-gear advocates, where are they? One or two nitwits maybe, but there are always one or two of anything.

It's a balance between gaps and range and you go for what you want. And it's relatively easy to change (unless you are changing to/from a triple which is more of a faff).

The matter of the 11T sprocket was raised on here a while ago, as in "who needs it? who wants it?". So while riding I started to make a mental note of how often I used 50/11. It was actually much more often than I thought it would be. Which doesn't mean that I zoom around really fast, just that sometimes I pedal really slowly.

 

[Lozz360]

I can understand why people may want lower gears than the standard that their bikes come with. They may live in a hilly area or need to carry stuff. My curiosity is regarding the reason why road bike manufacturers sell bikes with what seems to be unnecessarily close gearing on the cassettes. So far on this thread only one respondent has indicated a preference for close ratio gears. So I may not be alone in preferring a wider range of gears even if the lowest gear gear is rarely used?

 

[DaveReading]

My curiosity is regarding the reason why road bike manufacturers sell bikes with what seems to be unnecessarily close gearing on the cassettes.

Well one of the reasons is obvious. For example if I were to swap my 8-speed 11-32 mount for one with an equivalent range 11-speed cassette and mech, then by definition I'd have much closer ratios.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Inspired by this thread I went and looked at a few road bikes on a couple of web retailers. I was actually quite surprised to see that the 11-32 is more common that I thought it would be. When I was last in bike buying mode it was relatively rare, IIRC, mainly SRAM Apex. So perhaps sense is prevailing and wider ranges are becoming more common. Someone who actually knows the bike market, and who isn't a big idiot will probably be along in a bit to tell me that I'm talking rubbish.

I think there's a bit of over-sensitivity about using low gears. People "admitting" to using the bottom gear, in case someone else is looking down on them. Actually I don't really think anyone gives a hoot. These macho big-gear advocates, where are they? One or two nitwits maybe, but there are always one or two of anything.

It's a balance between gaps and range and you go for what you want. And it's relatively easy to change (unless you are changing to/from a triple which is more of a faff).

The matter of the 11T sprocket was raised on here a while ago, as in "who needs it? who wants it?". So while riding I started to make a mental note of how often I used 50/11. It was actually much more often than I thought it would be. Which doesn't mean that I zoom around really fast, just that sometimes I pedal really slowly.

Rubbish. AICMFP.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Of course, mountain bikes are increasingly coming out with single rings, and massive cassettes. It makes them simpler to fix / harder to break, and gives you the same versatility, without the front mech and all its ancillary bits messing up the party.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Rubbish. AICMFP.

I did stipulate "and who isn't a big idiot"
No fiver for you

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I can understand why people may want lower gears than the standard that their bikes come with. They may live in a hilly area or need to carry stuff. My curiosity is regarding the reason why road bike manufacturers sell bikes with what seems to be unnecessarily close gearing on the cassettes. So far on this thread only one respondent has indicated a preference for close ratio gears. So I may not be alone in preferring a wider range of gears even if the lowest gear gear is rarely used?

Make me two, I love my close ratio cassette, i actually have two a 12-27 (12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27) and a 12-23(12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23) of the two I prefer the 12-23 I do miss the 18th coupled with my 50-38-26 chainset I have a range from 25-110" on the 12-27 and 30-110" on the 12-23 which i use will really depend on the riding I am doing, of late I have been doing a commute that is 10-11miles with a bit of baggage and the first thing I face is a 100ft in 1 mile climb nothing major and very rarely use less than a 37-40" or 38x24-27 or 26x-19-17, what I have found is my average gear is about 59-61" or 38x16-17 which gives me a pretty straight chain line, also the change from 12-19 on the 12-23 is between 6-8% so its easier to keep a comfortable cadence I spin between 85-95rpm a change greater than 10% i.e. a 15-17 rear change compared with a 15-16-17 would take me out of that range, but by far the biggest advantage I have found is not so much with hills but wind, with such a range of options there are very few times I can not just hunker down and spin away in the wind.
The point with close ratio triples is they have the range and ratios unlike a 50-34 setup where numerous times people are looking for lower gearing at the expenses of a close ratio, in all honesty around here I could get away with a 50/38 front and the 12-27

 

[Nigelnaturist]

See, I have a slight problem with the attitude that says you need an excuse to want low gears - you're touring or heavily laden or something. It's the flip side of the attitude that says that real men don't need low gears because you ought to struggle manfully with racing-derived gearing in the interests of not letting the hill beat you. I don't (or try not to) make cycling a macho competitive thing and I want to be free to say I want low gears simply because they make cycling easier and therefore more fun.

Where are these macho people when its howling with wind and rain, I tell you wimping it out, (this is aimed at no-one) real cycling is done in all weather conditions and all terrains.

 

[Lozz360]

Well one of the reasons is obvious. For example if I were to swap my 8-speed 11-32 mount for one with an equivalent range 11-speed cassette and mech, then by definition I'd have much closer ratios.

Yes, it is obvious and I can't disagree. The point I was making was that I noticed that road bikes tend to be supplied with cassettes in the range of 11-25 or 12-25. Doesn't matter whether they are triples, doubles or compacts, 8-speed or 11-speed they often tend to default at this relatively narrow range. I just wondered why this was when I was getting the impression that many cyclists would prefer a wider range with the cassette when the trade off in bigger gaps between cogs doesn't appear to notice. Well not to me anyway. As I said, I've just changed from standard 8-speed 12-25 to 11-28 and I couldn't be happier.

 

[swansonj]

Yes, it is obvious and I can't disagree. The point I was making was that I noticed that road bikes tend to be supplied with cassettes in the range of 11-25 or 12-25. Doesn't matter whether they are triples, doubles or compacts, 8-speed or 11-speed they often tend to default at this relatively narrow range. I just wondered why this was when I was getting the impression that many cyclists would prefer a wider range with the cassette when the trade off in bigger gaps between cogs doesn't appear to notice. Well not to me anyway. As I said, I've just changed from standard 8-speed 12-25 to 11-28 and I couldn't be happier.

Oh yes you could ... 11-32...

 

[davidphilips]

Oh yes you could ... 11-32...

or to be even better and happier than a 11-32 win the lottery.