Why so many gears?.....

[Marazzi Mick]

I hope you don't have to ride up Ramsbottom Rake at the end - it half killed me when I did it, many years ago!

Are you doing it the 'scenic' (tough!) way (West Yorkshire Cycle Route) or the 'easy' way (valley roads and cycle paths)? (If you haven't heard of the WYCR, your local Tourist Information Centre should have the free guide leaflet for it and lots of websites give details.)

If you haven't found it yet, lots of us recommend cycle.travel to help in planning rides.

Hi Collin,

I have never heard of Cycle Travel but just had a look and it looks very interesting. I note it’s 66 miles and indeed does go through Todmorden and I would prefer to keep away from cycle paths if possible. It’s my goal for 2018 but I’m already feeling the benefits from the modest rides I have done so far.

Thanks for the info.....

 

[Marazzi Mick]

@Marazzi Mick good to hear you're enjoying the new bike. I'm just east of you, in the Vale of York, and can happily get around on a three speed most of the time in this neck of the woods. I wouldn't worry too much about cadence yet, until you get a bit further down the road with cycling. You'll spend a little while going through the gears till you learn what you feel good with for which hill etc. As your legs get stronger, you may find you don't change gear so often, and just decide to push a bigger ring further.
A more useful thing to concern yourself with for cycling efficiency is chainline (more critical on a triple front ring but still important for a compact double) - pick the better, straighter chainline if you can, to help reduce component wear and drivetrain friction.
Eventually, you'll be such a strong rider you'll sell your Willier and buy a fixed or singlespeed, and drone on here about how you did Midhopestones with one leg tied to the crossbar.
In hilly country, in a headwind, with a tent and a crate of beer on board, you never have too many gears. it's not gears you need, it's lungs.
If you want to measure your cadence, i was told a method which seems to work, when checked against a Garmin with a sensor. Count one knee reaching apex for 19 seconds - on your stopwatch function on your Casio watch or whatever - and multiply by pi. For training I like to reach and stick to 90 if I can; it's where I seem to be able to sustain power for longest (which isn't that long!) And fool myself into thinking I'm at 90 the whole run, burst back into the house and declaim to anyone listening what an athlete I am.

That’s a lot to think about W
The chain line thing you mention is interesting and I guess the worst thing you can do is be on a large cog at the front and large at the back or have I got that completely wrong?
Good luck on the three speed and the Wilier is going nowhere just yet - I love it!

 

[Racing roadkill]

That’s a lot to think about W
The chain line thing you mention is interesting and I guess the worst thing you can do is be on a large cog at the front and large at the back or have I got that completely wrong?
Good luck on the three speed and the Wilier is going nowhere just yet - I love it!

On a modern bike, with a quality chain and gearing, it’s not the issue it once was. It’s still inefficient, because of the added friction, but if you can avoid wonky chain lines, it’s better. SRAM 22 groupsets have a ‘yawing’ front mech, which helps with this.

 

[raleighnut]

That’s a lot to think about W
The chain line thing you mention is interesting and I guess the worst thing you can do is be on a large cog at the front and large at the back or have I got that completely wrong?
Good luck on the three speed and the Wilier is going nowhere just yet - I love it!

Yep, try to avoid big/big and small/small too.

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

What you need to do is work out what gear ratios you like to use and then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket.

By way of an example that is all I have done on my current tour bike, I use a 13t-29t Campagnolo 10 speed cassette set up with a chainset that 26-36-46t chainrings to give the the gear ratios I am after​

I like gears of around 60”, you will see that I have got those on both middle and outer ring. I have done this essentially because this is a bike I use for two roles, solo rides of 15-20mph and touring rides of 12-15mph, to save repeated chain ring changes I can essentially use the big ring mainly for solo rides and the middle ring for more sociable rides. Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out, for 15-20mph cruising I have ratios that I like available mid cassette on the 46 ring, this I find is the perfect set up for me. Of course everyone is different, some prefer a lower low gear and a higher high gear, horses for courses as they say

It does take a bit of thought as to what you need both in terms of ratios and then equipment choices to achieve them, but it can nearly always be done. In my case for example I did invest in a high quality chainset to get the ring combinations I wanted, as for me personally I find many road specific triples have ring choices too large yet the ATB chainsets too small for what I wanted. Note I said 'wanted' not 'needed', my tour bike is used for tours, often I want to climb a long mountain pass with little effort to take in the scenery, so I chose lower gear ratios on that bike. I bought this bike 10 years ago and my equipment choices were more valid at that time than they are now. These days a compact transmission will often offer a 34t ring and 34t sprocket and get much closer to my low gear than could be achieved back then. Note my bike is an Audax bike, I have mentioned it purely to illustrate the thought process that can go into deciding what gear ratios to go for.

Another important factor to take into consideration as to what gear ratios are required is the 'bike fit'. If you are set up incorrectly that often translates to less power, if you are less efficient than you could be, you will normally be slower than you could be, more tired than you should be and as such require a different set of gear ratios to accommodate these potential deficiencies.

 

[Firestorm]

Everyone's different, the guy I ride with is always getting on to me for adjusting my gears to suit but I tend to ignore him. He likes to pick a gear and get out the saddle and go for it. The words of another guy who was more a runner than a cyclist stick in my mind as well. He reckoned that you only need to get one mile wrong and your plans for the day could be ruined. Probably a bit dramatic but I understood the sentiment. Find your own balance.

I agree with the runners comment. The only marathon I did was blown apart by an incorrect mile marker which ruined my pace judgement.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Most people would dream of having a 16.4mph average

It was 22 miles downhill ;-)

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

, I usually ride an old Raleigh touring bike with a triple front (28/38/48) and six-speed rear (14-28) with friction shifting.

I'd say for around 80% of the time, I'm on the middle 38 chainwheel and use mostly the middle four at the rear, though I do use the full six. So I'd mostly get away with a six-speed bike..

Lately I've been knocking around on 2 bikes, an old 15 speed Apollo rigid 26" MTB and an even older 18 speed Raleigh hybrid. I weigh about 200 lbs dressed to ride and the Apollo weighs 34 lbs and the Raleigh 30 lbs, so neither me or the bikes are super-light. I've got 48/38/28 triple on the front and 14-17-20-24-28 on the back of the MTB This was a very common gearset chosen by manufacturers of mass-produced bikes, before 6-speed rear clusters became popular. The 28 tooth front ring might as well not be there - I haven't used it once!. Most of the time I use the 48T front and the middle 3 cogs on the back, which means I start off in a 52 inch gear, use a 62 inch gear to build up some speed, then change to a 73 inch gear for cruising along. I find the 89 inch top gear a bit heavy going, no doubt due to riding on knobbly 2" MTB tyres and lacking a bit of fitness. If I'm on gravel cycle paths or riding in muddy woods dodging branches, I tend to use the middle 38T ring, combined with the 24-20-17-14 rears. I don't use the 28T rear cog at all. I also tend to use the middle ring on the road if I've got gradients to climb. The middle ring gives me 41, 49, 58, 71 inch gears. I've not found anything yet I couldn't get up with a 41 inch ratio. So, on my 15 gear MTB, I only generally ever use 7 ratios.
The hybrid is a similar story, it also has 28/38/48 front but 14-16-18-21-24-28 on the back. Again, I never use the 28T front at all. I really like the 6-speed rear cluster though, because the high gear gaps are narrower. On my MTB, the gap between 4th and 5th means 4th sometimes feels a bit low, but 5th is a bit of a slog. On the hybrid's 6 speed rear, the 16T rear cog combined with the 48T front gives (on 700c wheels), gives a really useful 81 inch cruising gear, which is high enough to make decent progress but low enough to deal with gentle gradients without changing down. On this bike I tend to use the middle 4 rear cogs when on the big front ring, and all but the largest rear cog when on the middle ring, so generally only 9 out of a possible 18 ratios are actually used.
From this, I've concluded that unless you do heavily laden touring in a really hilly area (which I don't) a 12 speed bike with a 48/38 front and a 14-28 6 speed rear cluster is an ideal choice of gears, and any more is simply unecessary.

 

[Aravis]

Lately I've been knocking around on 2 bikes, an old 15 speed Apollo rigid 26" MTB and an even older 18 speed Raleigh hybrid. I weigh about 200 lbs dressed to ride and the Apollo weighs 34 lbs and the Raleigh 30 lbs, so neither me or the bikes are super-light. I've got 48/38/28 triple on the front and 14-17-20-24-28 on the back of the MTB This was a very common gearset chosen by manufacturers of mass-produced bikes, before 6-speed rear clusters became popular. The 28 tooth front ring might as well not be there - I haven't used it once!. Most of the time I use the 48T front and the middle 3 cogs on the back, which means I start off in a 52 inch gear, use a 62 inch gear to build up some speed, then change to a 73 inch gear for cruising along. I find the 89 inch top gear a bit heavy going, no doubt due to riding on knobbly 2" MTB tyres and lacking a bit of fitness. If I'm on gravel cycle paths or riding in muddy woods dodging branches, I tend to use the middle 38T ring, combined with the 24-20-17-14 rears. I don't use the 28T rear cog at all. I also tend to use the middle ring on the road if I've got gradients to climb. The middle ring gives me 41, 49, 58, 71 inch gears. I've not found anything yet I couldn't get up with a 41 inch ratio. So, on my 15 gear MTB, I only generally ever use 7 ratios.
The hybrid is a similar story, it also has 28/38/48 front but 14-16-18-21-24-28 on the back. Again, I never use the 28T front at all. I really like the 6-speed rear cluster though, because the high gear gaps are narrower. On my MTB, the gap between 4th and 5th means 4th sometimes feels a bit low, but 5th is a bit of a slog. On the hybrid's 6 speed rear, the 16T rear cog combined with the 48T front gives (on 700c wheels), gives a really useful 81 inch cruising gear, which is high enough to make decent progress but low enough to deal with gentle gradients without changing down. On this bike I tend to use the middle 4 rear cogs when on the big front ring, and all but the largest rear cog when on the middle ring, so generally only 9 out of a possible 18 ratios are actually used.
From this, I've concluded that unless you do heavily laden touring in a really hilly area (which I don't) a 12 speed bike with a 48/38 front and a 14-28 6 speed rear cluster is an ideal choice of gears, and any more is simply unecessary.

Maybe 30 years ago I'd've said much the same, and I know I used to get very sniffy about triples, but today's reality is rather different. I don't have anything like the strength I used to have and the small ring (28) gets used quite a bit on most rides. My absolute bottom, 28/32, is rarely deployed but I'd feel vulnerable if it wasn't there. The 28/28 sees a lot more action.

At the other end I have little or no use for 48/12 and 48/14, let alone the 48/11 which the setup originally had. The days of hammering downwards on 52/12 are well and truly over. My next change will be a 42/32/22 triple instead of 48/38/28, which should enable me to split the effort more equally between the middle and outer rings. At the moment I reckon I'm on the middle ring at least 90% of the time. With those rings the most useful 8-speed cassette looks to be 11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30. I have the hardware ready but I'll eke out what life is left in my existing kit first. Another possibility which could work sensibly is 13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26.

 

[gaijintendo]

It's not the gear inches, it's what you do with it.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I think the thing about cadence and efficiency is more about a higher cadence taxing the heart and lungs, and lower cadence putting more of a strain on the muscles. The heart and lungs recover quickly from a hard efforts, muscles take much longer to recover. So a higher cadence will allow you take tackle hill after hill after hill etc without your heart or lungs getting fatigued. But tackle enough hills at low cadence and muscles will eventually say no more. Of course some riders seem to have ridiculous leg strength and endurance and can keep grinding it out, though many need to get out the saddle to survive the ups, and even that action is not enough after a while.

 

[Alan O]

I find the top end gears a nice to have, but not a necessity. For example yesterday I was charging down the A21 (slight downhill) in 52/11 in a desperate race to hit 161km before the batteries on my GPS ran out. (First world problem. It was jammed in the mount and I couldn't release it to replace them. I had a spare GPS running in the rack bag, but it was a bit of motivation to add to the thought of a sit down and coffee.) In circs like those I find it oddly easier to push a really big gear with tired legs.

My first proper bike was an Ernie Clements Falcon and it had a Campag road racing chainset. I can't remember the size of the big wheel, but it was big. So big that I think I only ever used my biggest gear once, overtaking cars going down here back when I was a 20-year-old student.

It's a route I used to ride regularly, though I was usually relatively cautious on it, especially as there's a right-hander at the bottom that you really need to slow for. But one nice sunny day I thought I just had to go for it and see if I could spin out my top gear.

And for that one ride that one day, it was well worth having that gear - the sheer terror really made it stick in my mind, and the memory is still quite fresh nearly 40 years later.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I think the thing about cadence and efficiency is more about a higher cadence taxing the heart and lungs, and lower cadence putting more of a strain on the muscles. The heart and lungs recover quickly from a hard efforts, muscles take much longer to recover. So a higher cadence will allow you take tackle hill after hill after hill etc without your heart or lungs getting fatigued. But tackle enough hills at low cadence and muscles will eventually say no more. Of course some riders seem to have ridiculous leg strength and endurance and can keep grinding it out, though many need to get out the saddle to survive the ups, and even that action is not enough after a while.

I think your approach to gearing comes down to whether you are a grinder or a spinner. I don't like riding with a high cadence except in very short bursts, I would say I generally pedal at about 50-70 RPM. Most steep gradients tend to be fairly short duration in my neck of the woods, so my approach is to drop down a gear just before the start of the gradient, pedal like fury to get a bit of momentum to get me up the first bit, then grind out the remainder at an ever-decreasing cadence & road speed. I always remain in the saddle though, never stand on the pedals. Most of the time that works for me, although I have sometimes had to get off and walk up at least part of long climbs when I've been riding a Sturmey Archer 3-speed as the "Low" gear on those isn't actually very low - about 52"!.

 

[Alan O]

I think your approach to gearing comes down to whether you are a grinder or a spinner.

Very much so, and I'm definitely a spinner. I'm not really able to measure my preferred cadence, as I don't have a suitable visible timing device when I'm riding, but it's probably around 90. The other thing is, I'm not sure how genuinely representative it would be if I knew my cadence was being measured - blind testing and all that. I think to be meaningful it would need to be measured without my knowing, and I've no idea how to do that.

I go out on group rides and I'm sometimes surprised to be behind someone who's in their top gear and pedaling really slowly, and it really looks painful to me - but they finish the same distance rides at the same pace as I do.

 

[Aravis]

I find the top end gears a nice to have, but not a necessity. For example yesterday I was charging down the A21 (slight downhill) in 52/11 in a desperate race to hit 161km before the batteries on my GPS ran out. (First world problem. It was jammed in the mount and I couldn't release it to replace them. I had a spare GPS running in the rack bag, but it was a bit of motivation to add to the thought of a sit down and coffee.) In circs like those I find it oddly easier to push a really big gear with tired legs.

At the other end of the range, I spend lot of time in 34/32. I'd go lower if I could, but BCD and rear derailleur constraints say that's what I have without major bodge work, so I live with it.

Sounds like the perfect excuse for a new bike.

Nowadays, if I had to make regular use of my lowest possible gear I'd feel vulnerable. If my earlier life I wouldn't've seen it that way - I'd've been more confident of being able to tough it out when I needed to. The ultimate gear - currently 28/32 - does get used, but usually as a pre-planned move to clear a particular obstacle.