What is your lowest gear and how low is too low. Are new bikes geared too high?

[Sharky]

Gear ratios/leverage is a combination of several factors ...
Crank lengths, chain ring, sprocket and wheel size

If you change one variable, one of the other variables changes to compensate.

Sheldon Brown describes "gain ratios", which incorporates crank lengths into the calculation.

Personally, I've been riding 150mm cranks for several years now and like the feeling of "zipiness" it gives.

 

[teeonethousand]

I have a gravel bike that came std with 48/32 rings and 11/36 cassette, 172.5 arms.. I managed ok with hills but don't like them and am rarely beaten. I have however ordered a 46/30 crankset and have gone 165 ...I am looking forward to experiencing the/any difference.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Gear ratios/leverage is a combination of several factors ...
Crank lengths, chain ring, sprocket and wheel size

If you change one variable, one of the other variables changes to compensate.

Sheldon Brown describes "gain ratios", which incorporates crank lengths into the calculation.

Personally, I've been riding 150mm cranks for several years now and like the feeling of "zipiness" it gives.

Very much so, when climbing I am generally 2-3 sprockets further up the cassette now to compensate, and maybe 1-2 when pedalling on the flat. For years I have been big gear, low cadence and out of the saddle on climbs. I always thought this was my preferred style, I am now slowly realising this was me compensating for the cranks being too long, I had to get out of the saddle as the leverage was too great when seated.

I am now seated 99% of the time, my gear selection is more appropriate and I am stable in the hips/pelvis, not rocking or jumping in the saddle when putting out more power, as I was before.

 

[freiston]

I haven't read the replies yet. My gears calculated courtesy of gear-calculator.com

• Brompton C (12): 23.6" - 95"
• Old hybrid utility bike (3x7): 27.6" - 102"
• Drop bar tourer (3x9): 20.8" - 119"
• Spa Rove (2x10): 19.1" - 98.7"
• Shand Tam (Rohloff): 18.3" - 96.4"

There's also a Tern C7 that I don't use.

I almost never use top gear on any bike but I do sometimes try to change down when I'm already in bottom gear. I haven't ridden the drop bar tourer for a while but I hardly ever even go onto the big chainring on that (instead using the middle ring top two of 75" and 89"), same with the utility bike. There's a 40T chainring on the Brompton.

Addendum: "Are new bikes geared too high?"

Possibly. I would suspect a lot are. I specified the gearing on the Rove and the Tam when I bought them - so not them. The Brompton was geared too high for me so I replaced the chainwheel (from a 50T to a 40T - so a considerable change). The drop bar tourer (a Jamis Aurora) has had a few changes over its life and the gearing is now lower than what it was when new, but it wasn't far out when new and I do like a lower gearing than some people I know. The utility bike had a Shimano Megadrive freewheel on it and though I didn't find bottom gear too low, I replaced the freewheel with a slightly higher bottom gear purely because the jump between 1st and 2nd was too much for me and ruined my momentum every time I changed (so I stopped using bottom gear). Not sure, but I think I replaced a 6 speed with the 7 speed freewheel.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Going off topic-ish

Biomechanics aside, for a given gear ratio a longer crank will give you a lower effective gear (Sheldon's gain ratio mentioned by @Sharky above)

I mention crank length because I'm about to fit a new chainset. I was surprised to find that I have 170mm cranks. I was expecting it to be 172.5mm, which I used to have but it seems I that when I fitted this chainset I must have done so without checking the length. And I never noticed any difference.

So now I'm pondering what length to go for on my new chainset. I'm tempted to stick with 170 which it currently there. I'm not tempted to try short ones because (a) that would raise my effective gearing - and defeat the object of the new chainset and (b) I might not like them and would have wasted money on them.

 

[freiston]

We have an awful lot of very steep roads and bridleways here!

I did my childhood cycling in the relatively flat terrain around Coventry so it was a real shock to the system to go for my first Yorkshire rides and encounter brutish climbs like Mytholm Steeps...

I'm not doubting how steep it is where you are now, but what side of Coventry were you riding? I have a regular 24 mile circuit to the north-west and it has 470m (1542 feet) of ascent - that's not relatively flat in my mind (but I did grow up in the fens). Round here though, it is rather short ups and downs instead of long slogs

 

[Binky]

I have 165mm cranks on my road bike but whenever i've gone abroad and hired they've always been 170mm+.

Never really found any issue or difference to be honest. Think some overthink stuff too much plus think "if pros go shorter cranks it must be right for me". Not necessarily the case.

 

[freiston]

I have sometimes wondered about crank length and why it might matter - after all, what you gain at the top of the stroke, you lose on the bottom. I haven't thought it through but I imagine that the differences arise from the various "levers" from the hip to the bottom bracket spindle - and a long or short thigh, and a big or small foot would be big deciding factors in whether one would want a short or a long crank.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I have 165mm cranks on my road bike but whenever i've gone abroad and hired they've always been 170mm+.

Never really found any issue or difference to be honest. Think some overthink stuff too much plus think "if pros go shorter cranks it must be right for me". Not necessarily the case.

Yeah, I just have to make a choice. I'm not going to risk anything wacky like short cranks in case I don't like them, as I'd have to do a load of work on my bike to change them. And I hate that (and it costs).

So I have a choice of 172.5 which I used to have vs 170 which I have now. Seeing that I didn't notice when I accidentally made the change to 170 I think this is definitely a case of overthinking.

 

[Binky]

Yeah, I just have to make a choice. I'm not going to risk anything wacky like short cranks in case I don't like them, as I'd have to do a load of work on my bike to change them. And I hate that (and it costs).

So I have a choice of 172.5 which I used to have vs 170 which I have now. Seeing that I didn't notice when I accidentally made the change to 170 I think this is definitely a case of overthinking.

Go with what you're used to I think and what works for you. Some report hip/knee issues which have been resolved by altering crank length but unless this is a factor why change and risk a different length actually causing a issue. Unless you are super sensitive and can really tell the difference that 2.5mm makes(not sure I would) then don't sweat it.

 

[Dan Lotus]

Personally I would have said the gearing ranges have gotten a LOT better and much wider ranging than they used to be.

I bought a Felt F70 (in yellow) from circa 2003, and that came with a whopping (imho) 53/39 on it, and a 9 spd as it was at the time on the back, with probably an 11-25 on it - brutal on the climbs.

Nowadays all of my proper bikes are 2 cogs up front, my lowest setup is a 48/31 with 11/34 on the back, then I have a couple of 50/34's with usually an 11/32 or 11/34 out back, and I have a couple running 52/36 with 11-30, but an option to change to 11-34 should I need to.

For general use, especially in a hilly environment, imho the 50/34 combined with an 11/34 is the perfect combo for the vast majority of people.
It's better to run out of gears on the downhill than on the uphill for most people.

 

[Dadam]

New road bikes are definitely geared too high, especially entry level. I wonder how many new riders especially who live in hilly areas are put off.

Typically you seem to get 50/34 and 11-32 or 11-34. 1:1 sounds ok until you're down near walking pace on a 20%, getting slower with each stroke, quads burning, lungs gasping, and you desperately try for another gear, surely there's a bigger one? Nope, unclip now or you're falling off. And good luck getting going again, you're walking the rest of it!

They really should at least give the buyer a choice of gearing.

 

[N0bodyOfTheGoat]

My road bike is 34/28 (and it still has rim brakes!). The only hill I haven't been able to get to the top of locally with that gearing is King Alfred's Tower.

Love doing that ~525 feet climb when we go to Longleat Center Parcs, in recent years on a hire ebike, gradient close to 20% near the top is a challenge!

 

[Alex321]

New road bikes are definitely geared too high, especially entry level. I wonder how many new riders especially who live in hilly areas are put off.

Typically you seem to get 50/34 and 11-32 or 11-34. 1:1 sounds ok until you're down near walking pace on a 20%, getting slower with each stroke, quads burning, lungs gasping, and you desperately try for another gear, surely there's a bigger one? Nope, unclip now or you're falling off. And good luck getting going again, you're walking the rest of it!

They really should at least give the buyer a choice of gearing.

Compared to 20 years ago, new road bikes have much lower gearing, even if you think they are still too high.

The norm 20 years ago would have been a 53/39 chainset with 11-28 (or sometimes even 11-25) cassettes. And probably 23mm tyres, pumped up to over 100psi.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Compared to 20 years ago, new road bikes have much lower gearing, even if you think they are still too high.

The norm 20 years ago would have been a 53/39 chainset with 11-28 (or sometimes even 11-25) cassettes. And probably 23mm tyres, pumped up to over 100psi.

True, but it was easier to get a road bike with a triple then.