12-27 vs 12-25

[Donald Specker]

I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
type injuries from riding the hills around here.

Thanks.

[Arthur Clune]

dorn > wrote:
: 12-27 shifts perfect and it gives you a bailout gear, plus unless you are
: pretty strong its not that often you need more than a 12.

In fact, why not go 13/25 which would go you a nice close range? If you've got
a 52 or 53 big ring you don't need the 12 anyway.

Annoying Shimano don't offer a 13/27 which would probably be perfect for your
needs.

Arthur

[Precious Pup]

Arthur Clune wrote:
>
> dorn > wrote:
> : 12-27 shifts perfect and it gives you a bailout gear, plus unless you are
> : pretty strong its not that often you need more than a 12.
>
> In fact, why not go 13/25 which would go you a nice close range? If you've got
> a 52 or 53 big ring you don't need the 12 anyway.

How would you know and what does "need" mean anyway?


> Annoying Shimano don't offer a 13/27 which would probably be perfect for your
> needs.

That's the one thing I hate about the aligned cog/cassette system -- not as much freedom to mess around if you
are a gear head. We simply get what "someone else" decided was a good idea. Fortunately some tricks can be
played if one is clever and has a few extra bucks.

[Paul Kopit]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:16:31 GMT, "Donald Specker"
> wrote:

>I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
>I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
>toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
>type injuries from riding the hills around here.
>
>Thanks.
>

In the world of recreational bicyclists, there is little difference in
Shimano's 12/25 and 12/27. 21,23,25 vs 21,24,27 I'd opt for the 27.
A 13/25 is made in Ultegra and 13/26 in 105 and those really my
favorites in Shimano.

Should you want to save $, just take the 11 off your 11/23 and add a
spacer and 26.

[Mike Krueger]

<< >I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
>I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
>toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
>type injuries from riding the hills around here.

Should you want to save $, just take the 11 off your 11/23 and add a
spacer and 26 >>

For this to work, you'll also need a diferent (larger diameter) lockring and 12
or 13T first position cog, which is knurled to mate with the lockring.

[Doug]

[posted to rec.bicycles.tech and mailed to Paul Kopit
>]

>Should you want to save $, just take the 11 off your 11/23 and add a
>spacer and 26.

The smallest cog is special. You'd need to get a replacement for it.

[James Thomson]

"Doug" > wrote:

> The smallest cog is special. You'd need to get a replacement for it.

The 12 of the 11-23 I have in front of me is identical to the 12 of the
12-25. I believe all 12t Shimano sprockets will work in the first position.
You do need to use the correct lockring though.

James Thomson

[Michael]

"Donald Specker" > wrote ...
> I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
> I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
> toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
> type injuries from riding the hills around here.

I went to 12-27 Ultegra a few years ago for the extra gear (actually I
went from 8 speed Ultegra 12-23 or 24 to 9 speed Dura Ace 12-27). I
have no shifting issues at all. I can crank the 12 to 35 mph
downhill; I can't imagine needing an 11.

Michael

[Matt Locker]

Donald:

I use my 12-/25 set but add the 11/12/13 cogs from my 11-23 set for a
final combo of 11/12/13/15/17/19/21/23/25. The shifting between the 13
& the 15 is not perfect but it gives me both a nice high end for the
long downhills and that extra low gear for the big uphills. IMO if you
live in an area that has hills big enough for a 25 or 27, then you will
probably get enough benefit from the 11 to make it worth having.

MOO,
Matt

Donald Specker wrote:

>I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
>I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
>toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
>type injuries from riding the hills around here.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>

[Bill Davidson]

Michael wrote:
> I went to 12-27 Ultegra a few years ago for the extra gear (actually I
> went from 8 speed Ultegra 12-23 or 24 to 9 speed Dura Ace 12-27). I
> have no shifting issues at all. I can crank the 12 to 35 mph
> downhill; I can't imagine needing an 11.

How about if your largest front cog is a 46?

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

[Paul Kopit]

On 24 Jul 2003 17:58:42 GMT, (Mike Krueger) wrote:

>For this to work, you'll also need a diferent (larger diameter) lockring and 12
>or 13T first position cog, which is knurled to mate with the lockring.

The 12 on an 11/12 is actually an end cog with integral spacer.

[David L. Johnson]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:54:06 +0000, Bill Davidson wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>> I went to 12-27 Ultegra a few years ago for the extra gear (actually I
>> went from 8 speed Ultegra 12-23 or 24 to 9 speed Dura Ace 12-27). I
>> have no shifting issues at all. I can crank the 12 to 35 mph downhill;
>> I can't imagine needing an 11.
>
> How about if your largest front cog is a 46?

Mine is, and a 46/12 is quite big enough for anyone who isn't racing.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

[B]

>Mine is, and a 46/12 is quite big enough for anyone who isn't racing.

Mine is 48. 48/12 fits me well.
B

(remove clothes to reply)

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:23:38 -0400, dorn > wrote:

> 12-27 shifts perfect and it gives you a bailout gear, plus unless you are
> pretty strong its not that often you need more than a 12.

Agreed, 12-27 shifts fine on my 2001 105 double rear derailleur. I'd have
liked an 11-27, but I don't think it was available. Around here, there's
lots of [sometimes short] hills where it's easy enough, even with weak
wimpy legs like mine, to use up all my gears and spin up pretty fast, past
my most efficient cadence.

Close-ratio road gears are great for strong, well trained cyclists, but I
could really use a wider total range, myself. Should've bought the
triple...

> Chris
--
Rick Onanian

[Paul Kopit]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:54:05 -0400, Rick Onanian >
wrote:

>liked an 11-27, but I don't think it was available.

11,12,13,14,16,18,21,24,28 A loose cog 11/32 cassette with a 13t or
preferrable 12,13 from another cassette. I put one together for a
650c wheel and 50/40 crankset.

[Douglas Landau]

Here we go with this again. You've got it exactly backwards -
it is precisely because non-racers are not racers that they need
a taller gear.

Doug


"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:54:06 +0000, Bill Davidson wrote:
>
> > Michael wrote:
> >> I went to 12-27 Ultegra a few years ago for the extra gear (actually I
> >> went from 8 speed Ultegra 12-23 or 24 to 9 speed Dura Ace 12-27). I
> >> have no shifting issues at all. I can crank the 12 to 35 mph downhill;
> >> I can't imagine needing an 11.
> >
> > How about if your largest front cog is a 46?
>
> Mine is, and a 46/12 is quite big enough for anyone who isn't racing.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

belij3-<< Mine is 48. 48/12 fits me well. >><BR><BR>

50/13 for me...plenty tall, never 'spin out', even downhill...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[B]

>50/13 for me...plenty tall, never 'spin out', even downhill...

So ........ a 46/12 should do the same?
B

(remove clothes to reply)

[Bill Davidson]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> That's my top end. When I was racing, in the early '70s, most riders' top
> gear was a 52/14, which is about the same ratio. Though probably not
> enough for a downhill sprint, or a professional pack on a flat road, most
> of us will never see those, and the utility of a 53/11 or similar huge
> gears is minimal.

I agree that a 53/11 is a little silly for most riders.

I don't think a 46/11 is rediculous for downhilling. It's only a little
bigger than a 48/12. It's still under 40 mph at 120 rpm and under 33 mph
at 100 rpm.

Not everybody likes to coast down the hills and many people's large
chainring is limited by their small chainring and deraileur capacity.

What about a 42/11? At what point does an 11 become acceptable?

For the record, my top gear is a 48/13 and I do spin out on several hills
around here. I'm not sure what my top rpm's are but based upon Sheldon's
calculator, it's over 120 rpm.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

[Precious Pup]

Bill Davidson wrote:
>

> At what point does an 11 become acceptable?

When you decide you want it. It's your bike, do what you will with it.

[Art Harris]

"Donald Specker" wrote:

> I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
> I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
> toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
> type injuries from riding the hills around here.

I've got 12-25 on one bike, and 12-27 on another. I don't notice any
gaps on the 12-27, and it's nice to have the 27 when I need it. If
you're going to make a change, go for the 12-27.

The only difference is the last two cogs:

12-....21-23-25

vs.

12-....21-24-27

Art Harris

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

belij3-<< So ........ a 46/12 should do the same? >><BR><BR>

yes, but I am a freewheel kinda guy and still have a lot of 13-23 7s
freewheels...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:57:44 -0700, Bill Davidson >
wrote:
>> But too many road bikes are 175mm cranks and a 11-23/53-39...WAY to tall
>> for most riders...
>
> Agreed. That's a racer's setup for a fairly strong rider.

I agree also, with 39 x 23 being the easiest combo, that's tough.
My Giant TCR2 came with 39-52 x 12-25, and that's pretty darn tall
for the hills around here. I went to a 12-27 recently, and once I
get the new stem on for a better fit, I think I'll find it
significantly easier.

But, regarding this whole thread:

I was thinking while riding today (dangerous combination!), and
here's what I don't understand about this thread:

-People who are against wide-range cassettes, or at least
cassettes with 11 at the tall end, feel that close ratios
are better. This is because they feel that pedalling is
more efficient at a constant cadence.

-Yet, they then go on to say "I go XX mph when in XX x XX
gear, by spinning up to XXX rpm".

Personally, I find that putting a larger cadence range into each
gear before shifting, and having wider ratios, is easier for me.

Instead of constantly going 83.213 rpm through each of the 9
speeds of my cassette, then spinning up to 150 rpm when I want to
go faster down a hill, I prefer to let my cadence vary from maybe
70 to 90 in most gears; then in 53 x 11, I can spin up to 120 rpm
and still be putting some _torque_ into it. [Note: I can almost
spin out my TCR2 with it's 52x12, and I could certainly go faster
with 53x11).

With 48 x 13, I spin out completely. As I get closer to 53 x 11,
I can spin up with some actual results.

My MTB has an 11-34 cassette, and the crankset is something to
the effect of 26-36-48 or 28-38-48 (It's a Deore with the smallest
granny ring that fits). I use every combination that doesn't cross
up, very effectively. This is because I'm a clydesdale, and a weak
one at that. ;)

I wish my road bikes had the same gearing except with the 53 large
ring. I'd be unstoppable! I could tow a car, and hit 50mph downhill!

--
Rick Onanian

[David L. Johnson]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:57:44 +0000, Bill Davidson wrote:

> How about a 22-32-42 on the front for a touring bike? I don't it would be
> unreasonable to have an 11x34 in the back.

With the 22 on the front, would you really need the 34 in back? Actually,
though, those cranks are quite fine for touring. But you shouldn't need
such a low gear as the 22/34 unless you are going heavily loaded, long
distance, and pulling stumps along the way for extra cash.

I head out on Wednesday, with a 46/30/20 and a 12/23 rear. Plenty low
enough for a lightly loaded tour.

>*Deraileurs only have so much
> capacity and just because you're loaded with stuff doesn't mean you
> necessarily want to coast down every hill.

My top speed in the past year or so was on a trour. I was still
coasting, though, but at 50 mph.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
> -People who are against wide-range cassettes, or at least
> cassettes with 11 at the tall end, feel that close ratios
> are better. This is because they feel that pedalling is
> more efficient at a constant cadence.

No, I don't - I'm against small 11s because most of the time they're
about as useful as a rubber crutch.

I have a seven-speed 13-34 (not MegaRange) which certainly does not
provide close ratios - close enough for me, but not for the "must pedal at
exactly 85rpm" crowd. I mount a double with as large and as small a
chainring as possible; currently a 52/39, but with a 52/34 on the way.

There's no point in me mounting an 11t - 120rpm in 52x13 on 700x25C is
good for 37.7 MPH, but I would never pedal up to above 30MPH in any case -
but there's a point to the 34t because there's always a steeper hill and a
heavier load.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Rick Onanian]

On 28 Jul 2003 15:55:35 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> There's no point in me mounting an 11t - 120rpm in 52x13 on 700x25C is
> good for 37.7 MPH, but I would never pedal up to above 30MPH in any case -

There's no point for you. That doesn't mean that somebody else
doesn't want to chase some thrills at higher speeds.

> but there's a point to the 34t because there's always a steeper hill and
> a heavier load.

Absolutely, 100% agreed. I wish I could come up with some easier
gearing on my TCR2, but it's just too damn expensive after all is
said and done...

--
Rick Onanian

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
> wrote:
>>There's no point in me mounting an 11t - 120rpm in 52x13 on 700x25C is
>>good for 37.7 MPH, but I would never pedal up to above 30MPH in any case -
>There's no point for you. That doesn't mean that somebody else
>doesn't want to chase some thrills at higher speeds.

These somebody elses could do with considering the very minimal effect of
pedalling at these high speeds - there's a point where flapping your legs
about exerts such an aero penalty as to mean you're not actually doing
any good, and we're definitely starting to talk about those kinds of
speeds.

>>but there's a point to the 34t because there's always a steeper hill and
>>a heavier load.
>Absolutely, 100% agreed. I wish I could come up with some easier
>gearing on my TCR2, but it's just too damn expensive after all is
>said and done...

Gearing's dirt cheap, at least at first - a new cassette and a long-cage
derailleur. When you start to break out of the 130mm BCD jail it's a
little more pricy, unless you had the foresight to get a triple...
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

[Precious Pup]

David Damerell wrote:
>

> These somebody elses could do with considering the very minimal effect of
> pedalling at these high speeds - there's a point where flapping your legs
> about exerts such an aero penalty as to mean you're not actually doing
> any good, and we're definitely starting to talk about those kinds of
> speeds.

Here is a case of someone theorizing about something of which he knows nothing.

[Douglas Landau]

David Damerell > wrote in message >...
> Rick Onanian > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>There's no point in me mounting an 11t - 120rpm in 52x13 on 700x25C is
> >>good for 37.7 MPH, but I would never pedal up to above 30MPH in any case -
> >There's no point for you. That doesn't mean that somebody else
> >doesn't want to chase some thrills at higher speeds.
>
> These somebody elses could do with considering the very minimal effect of
> pedalling at these high speeds - there's a point where flapping your legs
> about exerts such an aero penalty as to mean you're not actually doing
> any good, and we're definitely starting to talk about those kinds of
> speeds.

more rubbish. Aero has nothing to do with it. You've got your
fundamentals wrong; in this case, the rider's goals.

dkl

[Rick Onanian]

On 29 Jul 2003 13:18:39 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>> There's no point for you. That doesn't mean that somebody else
>> doesn't want to chase some thrills at higher speeds.
>
> These somebody elses could do with considering the very minimal effect of
> pedalling at these high speeds - there's a point where flapping your legs
> about exerts such an aero penalty as to mean you're not actually doing
> any good, and we're definitely starting to talk about those kinds of
> speeds.

This may be true at high cadences, but with a tall enough gear,
some speed could be added.

>> Absolutely, 100% agreed. I wish I could come up with some easier
>> gearing on my TCR2, but it's just too damn expensive after all is
>> said and done...
>
> Gearing's dirt cheap, at least at first - a new cassette and a long-cage
> derailleur. When you start to break out of the 130mm BCD jail it's a
> little more pricy, unless you had the foresight to get a triple...

I got a new cassette that's compatible with my derailleur; I had
priced, as a whole, new front & rear ders & cassette & crankset,
which I think required new shifters also, but I hadn't seriously
considered just going to a new rear der and a wide-range cassette.

****. I just wasted a pile of money at the LBS just to get a few
more teeth, when I could have have 10 or 15 more teeth...probably
for not much more $$$. I gotta get the tool for the cassette and
fool with it myself, I guess.

Any reason a long-cage rear der wouldn't replace my short-cage 105
easily? I thought my wrench told me I'd need a new shifter, but
that may have only been part of the triple-crankset conversion
discussion.

--
Rick Onanian

[smokey]

"Donald Specker" > wrote in message >...
> I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
> I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
> toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
> type injuries from riding the hills around here.
>
> Thanks.

i don't think you will have any shifting issues going with the lower
gear. on my own bike, i use an 11-30 MTB cassette with a long cage
shimano deore (off-road) derailleur. it works just fine with both STIs
and bar-con shifters.
smokey

[David Damerell]

Douglas Landau > wrote:
>David Damerell >
>>Rick Onanian > wrote:
>>>There's no point for you. That doesn't mean that somebody else
>>>doesn't want to chase some thrills at higher speeds.
>>These somebody elses could do with considering the very minimal effect of
>>pedalling at these high speeds - there's a point where flapping your legs
>>about exerts such an aero penalty as to mean you're not actually doing
>>any good, and we're definitely starting to talk about those kinds of
>>speeds.
>more rubbish. Aero has nothing to do with it. You've got your
>fundamentals wrong; in this case, the rider's goals.

If the rider just wants to pedal for the hell of it when it doesn't do any
good, the rider's an idiot; and clearly idiots might want any size of
sprocket for any number of reasons.

In terms of actually going quickly, people have won the Tour with a 13t
sprocket - and it's not that they didn't have the option of fitting
taller gears, as larger chainrings have always been available to someone
with a budget.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Douglas Landau]

Still more rubbish. You continue to make the same mistake.

David Damerell > wrote in message >...
> Douglas Landau > wrote:
> >David Damerell >
> >>Rick Onanian > wrote:
> >>>There's no point for you. That doesn't mean that somebody else
> >>>doesn't want to chase some thrills at higher speeds.
> >>These somebody elses could do with considering the very minimal effect of
> >>pedalling at these high speeds - there's a point where flapping your legs
> >>about exerts such an aero penalty as to mean you're not actually doing
> >>any good, and we're definitely starting to talk about those kinds of
> >>speeds.
> >more rubbish. Aero has nothing to do with it. You've got your
> >fundamentals wrong; in this case, the rider's goals.
>
> If the rider just wants to pedal for the hell of it when it doesn't do any
> good, the rider's an idiot; and clearly idiots might want any size of
> sprocket for any number of reasons.

This is the most idiotic thing you have said yet. With such a
definition of "do any good", you include most cyclists, including
yourself, who IIRC likes to poodle from tea shop to tea shop.

[Precious Pup]

David Damerell wrote:
>

> There's no point in pedalling when it won't make you go faster than
> coasting. I don't pedal under those circumstances.



Knucklehead, racers don't pedal when they could coast faster either. I truth, racers are likely *more*
concerned about conserving energy than the run-of-the-mill recreational cyclist. I happen to know since I've
done and do both.

[Douglas Landau]

David Damerell > wrote in message >...
> Douglas Landau > wrote:
> >David Damerell >:
> >>If the rider just wants to pedal for the hell of it when it doesn't do any
> >>good, the rider's an idiot; and clearly idiots might want any size of
> >>sprocket for any number of reasons.
> >This is the most idiotic thing you have said yet. With such a
> >definition of "do any good", you include most cyclists, including
> >yourself,
>
> What the devil are you talking about?

I meant "pootle". Your own pootling from one tea shop to the next
can hardly be considered to be doing any good, and is clearly for the
hell of it, and so is idiotic by your own logic.

> There's no point in pedalling when it won't make you go faster than
> coasting. I don't pedal under those circumstances.

There's plenty of point in it, and there's also plenty of situations
where it will make you go faster, even if you could coast faster than
you generally do. In the specific case of my morning trip up the local
mountain and back, there's no point in coasting when I can pedal.
There's no point in wasting valuable workout time, riding in an
uncomfortable position, and getting to work wishing I had had more time
to ride, when I could have gotten in an final, intense ten minute sprint.

[Ted Bennett]

(Douglas Landau) wrote:

> > What the devil are you talking about?
>
> I meant "pootle". Your own pootling from one tea shop to the next
> can hardly be considered to be doing any good, and is clearly for the
> hell of it, and so is idiotic by your own logic.


That is really funny. Douglas apparently has the view that riding
without the primary aim of maximizing training is not doing anyone any
good.

I suppose my commuting, my shopping and my riding to visit friends is
not doing anyone any good. Pretty rich.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

[David Damerell]

Douglas Landau > wrote:
>David Damerell >:
>>Douglas Landau > wrote:
>>>David Damerell >:
>>>>If the rider just wants to pedal for the hell of it when it doesn't do any
>>>>good, the rider's an idiot; and clearly idiots might want any size of
>>>>sprocket for any number of reasons.
>>>This is the most idiotic thing you have said yet. With such a
>>>definition of "do any good", you include most cyclists, including
>>>yourself,
>>What the devil are you talking about?
>I meant "pootle". Your own pootling from one tea shop to the next
>can hardly be considered to be doing any good,

[For reference; although I have no interest in fantasising that I'm a pro
rider on recreational rides, I commute 11 miles through gently rolling
terrain laden with the usual commuting crap at an average speed of 17.5
mph.]

You are redefining the phrases I am using. It ought to be clear from the
context that pedalling is "doing any good" if it results in a higher speed
than would otherwise be the case, since I started by pointing out that
there are speeds where that is not true.

>>There's no point in pedalling when it won't make you go faster than
>>coasting. I don't pedal under those circumstances.
>There's plenty of point in it,

If you want to twiddle pedals with no propulsive effect, get an indoor
trainer! It is frankly absurd to get a 53x11 so you can spin the pedals
around downhill and pretend you're doing something.

>and there's also plenty of situations
>where it will make you go faster, even if you could coast faster than
>you generally do.

I don't see that that invalidates the point that above a certain speed
pedalling will not in fact increase the speed further. Furthermore, that
speed is determined by the rider's available power - which means it is
lower for us than for the pros, so we have a lesser need for tall gears.

Frankly I don't believe that anyone posting to this newsgroup can get any
utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH, which as I have pointed
out is quite feasible in a 52x13.
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[Andrew Lee]

"David Damerell" > wrote in message
> Frankly I don't believe that anyone posting to this newsgroup can get any
> utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH, which as I have pointed
> out is quite feasible in a 52x13.

The high gear on my bike is 52 - 13 and I have pedalled it up to 39 mph
numerous times. I definitely would have gone SLOWER if I didn't pedal
because it was not a downhill in several instances - just big tailwinds
while riding solo or with one other rider. I can definitely see how a 12 or
11 can be useful with a tailwind if you want to go fast. I definitely could
have used them in those instances. You can have lots of gears available on
your bike. If you want to go fast, I don't see why there is any harm in
having a 12 or even a 11 if you think you might be using it even a little
(OK, not you... but other people). Maybe you live in a place with no winds.
Or maybe you live in a place with only headwinds ;^). But other people do
get tailwinds and some like to go fast in them.

Lots of people like to go fast for various reasons, even if they don't race
(I haven't bike raced in 15 years). It just feels good. My primary
competitive sport now is running, but I have had periods when I don't race.
Am I being dumb if I run fast or sprint even if I don't have to because I'm
not racing or training for anything at the time... of course not.

I'm still riding a 6 speed freewheel. When I get a new bike with a 9 or 10
in the back, it would be silly not to add to the gear range. I could add
one smaller cog (12), a bigger cog or two (say 27 or 29) and still have one
or two additional gears in between to make it closer spaced. What's the
problem with that?

[David Damerell]

Andrew Lee <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>have used them in those instances. You can have lots of gears available on
>your bike. If you want to go fast, I don't see why there is any harm in
>having a 12 or even a 11 if you think you might be using it even a little

It seems like there would be no harm in it, but in fact you have
sacrificed one or more of a lower low gear (and walking up a big hill with
a laden bike is a lot more annoying than not being able to spin pedals at
40mph), closer ratios (not that I care, but a lot of the 53x11 boys seem
to), or a wheel that is stronger by virtue of being less dished.

By avoiding sprockets I wouldn't use, I can have a 34t big sprocket, no
24->34 jump, and a wheel stronger than an 8/9 speed hub.

>Lots of people like to go fast for various reasons, even if they don't race

I'm not saying anything about that - I like to go fast sometimes, such as
in the mornings when every minute on the journey is one fewer minute
asleep in bed. _But_ to pedal when it doesn't actually _make_ you go faster
is daft - and with a toleration for high cadence, that renders most if not
all uses for an 11t sprocket daft [1].

[1] On a 700C wheel. Clearly it's a different story on smaller wheels,
where 11t kit is a good and useful thing - especially where there is an
incentive to reduce chainring size because of the risk of grounding one.
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

"David Damerell" > wrote in message
> Frankly I don't believe that anyone
> posting to this newsgroup can get any
> utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH,
> which as I have pointed
> out is quite feasible in a 52x13.

The final stage of the Fitchburg-Longsjo stage race is a criterium.
It's not especially hilly, just slightly uphill on the front stretch
and slightly downhill on the back. But there is a spot on the
backstretch (just past the pits if you have been there) where if you
are at the back the combination of the slight downhill and the
accordian
effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
which I have done a few times. The race is about 50 laps long and
comes after two days of riding (for me) near the limit of my ability.

There is no coasting in this situation. It is all pedalling, every
possible instant at the back or a gap will open and you will be
dropped.

I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
some relatively "easy" race.. But in those circumstances -- tired,
riding in a field of extremely powerful riders using 53x12 and higher
gears (Lance Armstrong and Dave Mann or Steve Swart lapped the field
one year [1992] and I believe Tyler Hamilton took the overall win in
this stage another year I did it [1994 or 1996]) a higher gear (using
at least a 12) is essential. Without it I would have been dropped
eventually. When I'm on the rivet I can't keep putting out those high
rpms against opposition that is riding bigger gears.

Don't give me any bull**** "learn to spin" crap. There is a physical
cost to spinning very high rpms on the road at times, and there are
times when the bigger gear is critical.

JT

--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

[Paul Kopit]

On 1 Aug 2003 03:47:13 -0700, (John Forrest
Tomlinson) wrote:

>Don't give me any bull**** "learn to spin" crap. There is a physical
>cost to spinning very high rpms on the road at times, and there are
>times when the bigger gear is critical.

You are correct but few people need the 12 and much fewer the 11. In
the 9sp world, riders using something like 12/25 would do much better
getting the 16t cog in a 13/25 vs the 12.

[David Damerell]

John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
>"David Damerell" > wrote in message
>>Frankly I don't believe that anyone
>>posting to this newsgroup can get any
>>utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH,
>>which as I have pointed
>>out is quite feasible in a 52x13.
>effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
>I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
>some relatively "easy" race..

Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.

>eventually. When I'm on the rivet I can't keep putting out those high
>rpms against opposition that is riding bigger gears.

Perhaps, then, you can explain why in the days when 13t was the smallest
available, there was not a chainring size arms race in the Tour?
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

"David Damerell" > wrote in message ...
> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:

> >effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
> >I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
> >some relatively "easy" race..
>
> Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.

That's the point -- there are times when some riders need big gears.
It's one thing to spin a cadence while putting out little power
coasting down a hill when one is fresh. Even potterers can do it.
It's quite another to be tired, going all out against opposition on
big gear and not being able to spin very fast and not get dropped.
It's not a difficult concept to understand and I don't see why you are
acting (I'm being charitable here) so dense about it.

JT

[Douglas Landau]

> If you want to twiddle pedals with no propulsive effect, get an indoor
> trainer! It is frankly absurd to get a 53x11 so you can spin the pedals
> around downhill and pretend you're doing something.

Still making no sense. My goal is neither speed nor efficiency.

> I don't see that that invalidates the point that above a certain speed
> pedalling will not in fact increase the speed further.

It will increase the speed. I don't tuck well and don't care to, nor
do I wear aero clothes or grease my bearings often enough. I'll
definately go faster pedalling.

> It seems like there would be no harm in it, but in fact you have
> sacrificed one or more of a lower low gear (and walking up a big
> hill with a laden bike is a lot more annoying than not being able
> to spin pedals at40mph),

Who cares what the low cog is? If it's a MTB cassette it's fine. My
old bridgstone came used with a 53-39 in front and 7 speed 11-28 in the
back. I pulled a trailer with it from canada to california and
couldn't imagine needing anything lower than a 28 or maybe 30. I never
have to walk my bike not even on tour so I would rather not run out of
gears at the top end, or spin fast when descending.

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:12:59 GMT, Paul Kopit > wrote:
>> I know I'm always happier with wider total range, and sooner
>> or later, I'm going to have 53 x 11 on MY road bike, as well
>> as rather low short gears. I do much better between 75 and 100
>> rpm than I do at 120 rpm; that 25 rpm range allows for larger
>> ratios, but makes extremes difficult without extreme gearing.
>
> Most people cannot rotate a 53/11 at 80-100 rpm for any length of
> time. Few chase a pack going dowgrade at over 40 mph.

I beg to differ...as compared to rotating a lower gear at a
higher rpm for the same speed, I think it's easier to do at
the optimum power point, for me, 75 - 100 rpm. Additionally,
people whose pedal stroke is imperfect (myself included),
benefit from not flopping the bike around when going so fast.

> I own a 12 cylinder car that can really cruise at 150 mph all day. I
> don't have the place, the courage, or the knowledge to drive at that
> speed.

I have the same issues, except that I don't own a 12 cylinder
car. ;)

Why would you own a 12 cylinder car that you can't use to it's
fullest, but then say that nobody should have a 53x11 that you
are sure they can't use to it's fullest? Similar reasons can
probably be applied for the 53x11, with the added bonus that
it's a whole lot cheaper.

--
Rick Onanian

[Precious Pup]

David Damerell wrote:
>

> Frankly I don't believe that anyone posting to this newsgroup can get any
> utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH, which as I have pointed
> out is quite feasible in a 52x13.

This is what defines you as a moron.

[Precious Pup]

David Damerell wrote:
>
> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >"David Damerell" > wrote in message
> >>Frankly I don't believe that anyone
> >>posting to this newsgroup can get any
> >>utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH,
> >>which as I have pointed
> >>out is quite feasible in a 52x13.
> >effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
> >I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
> >some relatively "easy" race..
>
> Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.


So what? It is 100 rpm in a 53x12. What is your point?


> >eventually. When I'm on the rivet I can't keep putting out those high
> >rpms against opposition that is riding bigger gears.
>
> Perhaps, then, you can explain why in the days when 13t was the smallest
> available, there was not a chainring size arms race in the Tour?


Why is this relevent? Racers did use bigger rings from time to time. In any case, the technology available
to each rider at any given time is about equal and that more or less evens the playing field -- everyone has
to more or less pedal the same rpms at the highest speeds. If you think Eddy wouldn't have used a 10sp with a
53x12 or 53x11 if it were available to him, then you are a moron. Well, yes, you are indeed a moron.

[Precious Pup]

Damn Dork Damerell wrote:
>
> Andrew Lee <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >have used them in those instances. You can have lots of gears available on
> >your bike. If you want to go fast, I don't see why there is any harm in
> >having a 12 or even a 11 if you think you might be using it even a little
>
> It seems like there would be no harm in it, but in fact you have
> sacrificed one or more of a lower low gear (and walking up a big hill with
> a laden bike is a lot more annoying than not being able to spin pedals at
> 40mph), ...


Knucklehead, racers don't use "laden bikes." How would you know what is annoying to racers other than dorky
armchair speculators like yourself?


> closer ratios (not that I care, but a lot of the 53x11 boys seem
> to), or a wheel that is stronger by virtue of being less dished.
>
> By avoiding sprockets I wouldn't use, I can have a 34t big sprocket, no
> 24->34 jump, and a wheel stronger than an 8/9 speed hub.


Racers don't care what you do because you are physically weak and consequently your gearing choices are
irrelevent to them.


> >Lots of people like to go fast for various reasons, even if they don't race
>
> I'm not saying anything about that - I like to go fast sometimes, such as
> in the mornings when every minute on the journey is one fewer minute
> asleep in bed. _But_ to pedal when it doesn't actually _make_ you go faster
> is daft ...


Knucklehead, racers don't pedal *unless* it makes them go faster. There is nothing more elemental that this
simple fact that you are unable to grasp.


> - and with a toleration for high cadence, that renders most if not
> all uses for an 11t sprocket daft [1].


Basically, you don't know, but you think you do. I've done hilly races and group training rides where my ass
would have been dropped if I couldn't turn the 39x17 or 39x19 over the top of the climbs (and I could turn
it). So should I ditch the 21t cog on my 12-21 8sp because it is virtually useless? On the other hand, I
actually *used* the 12t cog and that is seemingly offensive to you. I think you have a disease analogous to
"small man insecurity complex." You don't want to admit than many people are a lot stronger than you. If it
makes you feel any better, many racers opted for the 23t tooth cog rather than the 11t cog when 9sp's replaced
8sp's.


> [1] On a 700C wheel. Clearly it's a different story on smaller wheels,
> where 11t kit is a good and useful thing - especially where there is an
> incentive to reduce chainring size because of the risk of grounding one.

Why not let the folks pedalling their bikes decide what is useful to them? I've put plenty of wear into 12t
cogs. It wasn't the first to go, the 14-15-16-17 are the cogs that first started to skip on the 12-21 8sp
cassettes and resulted in the cassettes replacements. But the wear on the 12t was always visible.

[Andrew Lee]

"David Damerell" > wrote in message

> _But_ to pedal when it doesn't actually _make_ you go faster
> is daft - and with a toleration for high cadence, that renders most if not
> all uses for an 11t sprocket daft [1].

Did you notice at all what I was writing about? The major point in my reply
above was to address the situation where you DO go faster by pedaling - in a
tailwind. Have you ever ridden in a tailwind? It doesn't sound like it. I
do have a tolerance for a high cadence... I mentioned going 39 mph in a 52 -
13 (on 700c) wheels. I believe that I could go even faster with a 12 cog in
those situations.

Armstrong might be going 120 rpm at 40 mph in a time trail with a tailwind,
but Ullrich would be going 95 rpm or so at the same speed and the same
tailwind. Whatever works for the individual. If it's a big blowing
tailwind that is pretty constant for a long time (not a gust that you sprint
with for a second or so), I like to pedal at 95-110 rpm or so rather than
120 rpm. That is not a low cadence.

> It seems like there would be no harm in it, but in fact you have
> sacrificed one or more of a lower low gear (and walking up a big hill with
> a laden bike is a lot more annoying than not being able to spin pedals at
> 40mph), closer ratios (not that I care, but a lot of the 53x11 boys seem
> to), or a wheel that is stronger by virtue of being less dished.
>
> By avoiding sprockets I wouldn't use, I can have a 34t big sprocket, no
> 24->34 jump, and a wheel stronger than an 8/9 speed hub.

Didn't I say that if I got a new bike, with say a 10 cogs in the back, I
WOULD add some bigger gears in the back... one maybe even two additional
cogs larger than my current one WHICH I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS with anyway.
You may need a 34T on a road bike, but most people don't. I've never walked
up a hill with heavy laden bike. I climb a lot and even climb up several
mile long steep fireroad type trails in my 42 - 24 low. It would be nice to
have a 27 or 29, but combined with say a 39T chainring, I'm would already be
going to a 20% lower gear with a 27T cog (pretty big drop from something
I'm already comfortable with). Much lower, I might as well get off the bike
and run it cyclocross style... I'm a 32 min 10K runner. So I would get my
lower gear. And I could add a 12, and one or two more intermediate gears.
Wider range on both ends, plus closer spacing than what I am riding now. I
don't see how that's bad. (switching from my 52/42 13-24 six to a 52/39
12-27 or so nine or ten)

[Douglas Landau]

Paul Kopit > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:32:56 -0400, Rick Onanian >
> wrote:
>
> >I know I'm always happier with wider total range, and sooner
> >or later, I'm going to have 53 x 11 on MY road bike, as well
> >as rather low short gears. I do much better between 75 and 100
> >rpm than I do at 120 rpm; that 25 rpm range allows for larger
> >ratios, but makes extremes difficult without extreme gearing.
>
> Most people cannot rotate a 53/11 at 80-100 rpm for any length of
> time. Few chase a pack going dowgrade at over 40 mph.

who cares? I'm more concerned with the dip in the road on my commute
home. I hit 40 at the bottom and try to make it up the other side
as fast as I can. Why should I coast and then start spinning at
120 halfway through the far slope? I don't need anything beyond a
23 for the commute so again... the "this is what works in a race"
arguments are moot.

> I own a 12 cylinder car that can really cruise at 150 mph all day. I
> don't have the place, the courage, or the knowledge to drive at that
> speed.

You are fortunate. Should you ever gain the courage and knowledge but
not the place, you will find that all the fun is gone.

[Andrew Bradley]

Rick Onanian:

> Also, 30.1 mph at 80 rpm sounds nice, with the 53 x 11.

In a good tailwind I like it - stop pedalling and you'll lose a _lot_
of speed!
53X11 is a very worthwhile pedalling gear for some of us occasionally.
Maybe others haven't tried it.

> So, saying "52 x 13 is good enough for everybody" isn't a tight
> enough spec. If you thought everybody was the same, you'd still
> have to say "52 x 13 with 170mm crankarms and 700 x 23c tires
> is enough for everybody".

There should be significant gear variation from rider to rider but I
don't think crank length is going to be much of an indicator in all
this. OTBE a 170 on somebody who is 5ft will be harder to spin than
for somebody at 6ft.

Could try relative crank length as a guide to gear but the precise
relationship between crank length and gear isn't obvious - even for a
given rider changing lengths. 5mm isn't going to have much effect in
any case.


Andrew Bradley

[Bill Davidson]

Andrew Bradley wrote:
> the precise relationship between crank length and gear isn't obvious

It can be precisely defined:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

and measured:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Once I understood what gain ratio meant, it seemed obvious to me but
what is obvious to one person may not be to another. I suppose it's
all in how you look at it.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

[David Damerell]

John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
>"David Damerell" >:
>>John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
>>>effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
>>>I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
>>>some relatively "easy" race..
>>Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.
>That's the point -- there are times when some riders need big gears.

Unless they are trackies, who mysteriously appear able to ride very
quickly without these very tall gears.

At best the leaders of the Tour can make a marginal case for a 53x11 -
clearly the case is marginal because there is no drive there towards
still larger chainrings or 10t rear sprockets. You (and I, and everyone
else on this group) cannot generate as much power as they do and therefore
do not go as fast. Why then do you suppose you need the same high gear
that is only just of utility to the strongest riders in the world?
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[Rick Onanian]

On 04 Aug 2003 15:25:22 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> still larger chainrings or 10t rear sprockets. You (and I, and everyone
> else on this group) cannot generate as much power as they do and
> therefore
> do not go as fast. Why then do you suppose you need the same high gear
> that is only just of utility to the strongest riders in the world?

Speak for yourself...my 210 pounds can generate quite a lot of
power just by putting my weight into it. I can't sustain high
cadences at all, though.

Those strongest riders in the world probably weigh a lot less
than I do, and need to produce that power muscularly. My muscles
are strong from carrying my weight when walking, biking, and
climbing ladders (something I do for my job).

Some people generate power _differently_ than others. Maybe
you can generate a high cadence for a long time; but I can't,
and I find that I _can_ put a lot of force into a slower pedal.

I've confirmed this lately by riding one or two gears taller
than I usually do, and found that my speed and endurance are
greatly enhanced; I can ride at speeds and distances more
common to other riders, and still have enough breath to talk.
As soon as my cadence passes 90 rpm, I feel it, and if I try
to sustain that for any length of time, I can't.

I'm sorry, but one size does NOT fit all.

--
Rick Onanian

[Sam Huffman]

David Damerell > writes:

> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >"David Damerell" >:
> >>John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >>>effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
> >>>I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
> >>>some relatively "easy" race..
> >>Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.
> >That's the point -- there are times when some riders need big gears.
>
> Unless they are trackies, who mysteriously appear able to ride very
> quickly without these very tall gears.
>
> At best the leaders of the Tour can make a marginal case for a 53x11 -
> clearly the case is marginal because there is no drive there towards
> still larger chainrings or 10t rear sprockets. You (and I, and everyone
> else on this group) cannot generate as much power as they do and therefore
> do not go as fast. Why then do you suppose you need the same high gear
> that is only just of utility to the strongest riders in the world?

I've been following this thread with some bewilderment. I've always been under
the impression that my 52/12 provided some usefulness, and I use it
frequently. This weekend I did an experiment.

I rode down the same moderate hill 4 times, pedalling up to around 30 mph,
then coasting until my speed stopped increasing. This occured at right around
38mph each time. In the latter two trials, I started pedalling my 52/12 at
this point. In both cases, my speed increased to 41mph with only moderate
effort.

Following the moderate downhill is a short but steep uphill. In my 52/12 I
could sprint up this hill maintaining a speed of about 30mph at a comfortable
cadence (for me).

For me, pedalling the 12t at 41mph was an uncomfortably high cadence. I'd have
preferred the 11t at that point. The 13t would have been a very uncomfortable
cadence for me. I have no desire to spin.

That's the great thing about gearing, isn't it? You can spin your 13t all you
want, and riders who prefer a lower cadence can achieve the same thing in a
more comfortable fashion.

Sam

[Rick Onanian]

On 04 Aug 2003 08:38:55 -0700, Sam Huffman >
wrote:
> frequently. This weekend I did an experiment.

No fair, doing things right instead of just talking out of
your ass like the rest of us! ;)

> I rode down the same moderate hill 4 times, pedalling up to around 30
> then coasting until my speed stopped increasing. This occured at right
> 38mph each time. In the latter two trials, I started pedalling my 52/12
> this point. In both cases, my speed increased to 41mph with only moderate
> effort.

I bet you would enjoy the 53 x 11.

> Following the moderate downhill is a short but steep uphill. In my 52/12
> I could sprint up this hill maintaining a speed of about 30mph at a
> comfortable cadence (for me).

You must be pretty tough, like Lance Legstrong. Or, you could
be a regular guy making use of the gears you want the way you
want to. That's not allowed, so you must be a TdF rider.

> For me, pedalling the 12t at 41mph was an uncomfortably high cadence. I'd
> have preferred the 11t at that point. The 13t would have been a very
> uncomfortable cadence for me. I have no desire to spin.

Blasphemer! I thought we weren't ALLOWED to be comfortable
when we hit high speeds. We're all supposed to spin 167 rpm.

> That's the great thing about gearing, isn't it? You can spin your 13t all
> you
> want, and riders who prefer a lower cadence can achieve the same thing in
> a more comfortable fashion.

No, we're all supposed to be limited by what somebody else
thinks we shouldn't have.

> Sam
--
Rick Onanian

[Bret Wade]

"Donald Specker" > wrote in message >...
> I currently have an 11-23 on my Ultegra double and need more range. Should
> I go for the 12-27, or are there shifting issues, etc., that would steer me
> toward the 12-25. I can ride the 23, but have developed some "over-use"
> type injuries from riding the hills around here.
>
> Thanks.

SRAM sells a 12-26 cassette thats the same as the shimano 12-25 except
for the 26t cog. That's as large as I can go with my setup, campy 9sp
w/ shimano compatible cassetes. I've tried to use 12-27 in the past,
but the pulley was too close to the 27t cog and would run rough. A
longer angle adjustment screw would likely cure that. One advantage of
the SRAM cassetes is that they can be completely disassembled for
cleaning with a T6 Torx wrench.

Bret

[Bret Wade]

David Damerell > wrote in message >...

> Frankly I don't believe that anyone posting to this newsgroup can get any
> utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7 MPH, which as I have pointed
> out is quite feasible in a 52x13.

Where I live in Colorado we have long descents (15+ miles) where a
fast group ride will be around 40 mph for long periods. I know from
experience that I need a 53-12 to ride comfortably in this situation.
I can stay on the back of the group with a 53-13, but can't take a
proper turn at the front. And then there's sprinting, where I also
find the 53-12 useful.

Gear selection is always a tradeoff between range and resolution. I
wouldn't choose a 12t for the high end unless I really needed it.
Bret

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

"David Damerell" > wrote in message

> Unless they are trackies, who mysteriously appear able to ride very
> quickly without these very tall gears.

When relatively fresh, a rider can comfortable pedal at a higher
cadence. This is well-known in bike racing. And track racers have to
pick a gear that will suit all conditions. Believe me, if road riders
were required to pick a single gear it would not be 53x11 -- more
likely something in the 90s in terms of gear inches.

> Why then do you suppose you need the
> same high gear
> that is only just of utility to the strongest
> riders in the world?

Earlier you wrote "Frankly I don't believe that anyone posting to this
newsgroup can get any utility whatsoever from pedalling above 37.7
MPH, which as I have pointed out is quite feasible in a 52x13" and I
gave a specific example of why I needed a big gear (in that case is
invovled a 12)-- to not get dropped in a race which included at least
one guy who would go on to win the Tour de France. And it also
included a guy who had already won stages of the Tour.

In those situations the choice is simple. I can ride a lower gear and
put out less power and get dropped immediately. Or I can ride a
similar gear and hang on as long as possible. Most people who race
would choose the latter.

Note also that top riders use the big gears more often -- they're
strong enough to do so. And I suspect that if they could get away
with it (wiht more gears in the back so there is not tradeoff on the
low end or in the middle) they would use higher gears. In fact there
is little doubt in my mind that this will be the case -- ten years
from now top racers will be using even higher gears.

> At best the leaders of the Tour can make a marginal case for a 53x11 -
> clearly the case is marginal because there is no drive there towards
> still larger chainrings or 10t rear sprockets.

What I find remarkable about your comments is not just the lack of
logic in them, but the audacity to believe that somehow you have such
deep insight into an issue with which you appear to have little or no
experience, other than sitting in a chair.

I've pottered on a bike and still do. I can ride around for fun
slowly or at whatever speed. Like you.

And I've commuted on the bike a lot, done a little loaded touring,
been paid to deliver things by bike.

And I have raced at a moderate level (category 2, including riding in
fields with riders who are now the best from the US) and coached a
rider to a national championship.

And I am on a first name basis with handful of people who have ridden
at the highest levels in the world (tours of spain, italy, classics,
olympics, etc; also one won a world pro championship and has been on
my couch). So I am moderately knowledgeable about cycling --
espcially athletic cycling like bike racing.

And I recognize that I know just a *fraction* of what the top level
people in the sport know. While I often have doubts about the
explanations that non-scienetists/engineers have about why they do
certain things, I damn well believe that at the top of the sport
common practice has evolved because of what worked.

From the knowlege you have exhibited, I get the feeling that your
knowledge of bike racing is about as far from mine as mine is from the
top people. In other words, *very* low.

To try to suggest that top pros in the Tour de France don't really
need 53x11 is absurd. And your use of the word "marginal" is both
bizarre and telling on your lack of understanding of bike racing. One
of the intersting things about sport is that the closer you get to the
limits of performance, the more important little tiny changes are.

But enough. You've proven yourself to be an armchair theorsit of the
worst sort.

JT

[Precious Pup]

David Damerell wrote:
>
> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >"David Damerell" >:
> >>John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >>>effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
> >>>I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
> >>>some relatively "easy" race..
> >>Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.
> >That's the point -- there are times when some riders need big gears.
>
> Unless they are trackies, who mysteriously appear able to ride very
> quickly without these very tall gears.


Ridiculous. Many "trackies" turn to road racing, and when they do so they put "road racing" gears on their
bikes and turn "road racing" like cadences.


> At best the leaders of the Tour can make a marginal case for a 53x11 -
> clearly the case is marginal because there is no drive there towards
> still larger chainrings or 10t rear sprockets.


A 53x11 may turn out to be near the limit of what folks decide they would want to include on their bikes for
most any purpose. But you are completely erroneous in thinking that amateur racers have some sort of
"standard requisite backoff" from what the pro's use simply because they aren't as "strong" as pros. I can
think of plenty of times I wished for a 53x11-like gear, but didn't have it. Some of those times were on
training rides (and races) with Cat 1's, pro's and ex-pros. When I was "on their wheel,' I was going as fast
as they were. Other times, the simple environmental conditions (hills, course, winds) made a gear like that
quite nice to have.

> You (and I, and everyone else on this group)
> cannot generate as much power as they do and therefore
> do not go as fast.


Pure ignorance. The reason you come up with goofy conclusions is because you have absurd precepts. Such as:
one must be a world-class cyclist to ever have an occurance for the use of a 53x11 gear.


> Why then do you suppose you need the same high gear
> that is only just of utility to the strongest riders in the world?


It is "of utility" if it gets used. It doesn't matter if it only gets used for 10 seconds on a 100 mile
ride. If
someone decides that is more important than something else, then so be it.



Excerpt from the Screenplay: Damn Dork Goes For A Ride
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

PUP: Damn Dork, man you are one slow mother****er. I just dusted you by thirty-five yards at the
intermediate sprint. What is up with that ****?

DD: Well... yes, you beat me, but you did it incorrectly. I noted your cadence was only 110 rpm.
Furthermore, in the wind up I noted you pedaling a 52x12 at only 100 rpm. This 53x12 business is just plain
wrong.


And later on after "Big Ass Climb and Twisted Hell Descent" ...


PUP: Damn Dork, not only are you the slowest fat old master that ever pedaled a bike (I crested the top of the
climb 15 minutes ahead of you), you are also went *down* the hill a minute slower. What is up with that ****?

DD: Well... yes, you beat me, but you did it incorrectly. When you pulled away I noted you were only
pedaling at 70 rpm, which is quite improper. Also, there is no way you should pedal a 53x12 downhill. I
reached "terminal velocity" by simply coasting, and terminal velocity is all that counts when descending. You
must have cheated on the descent -- I can only conclude you were aided by the easter bunny and that is
strictly against cycle racing etiquette.

[Robin Hubert]

Sam,
Do us all a favor and use your HRM for these experiments.


--
Robin Hubert >


"Sam Huffman" > wrote in message
...
> David Damerell > writes:
>
> > John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> > >"David Damerell" >:
> > >>John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> > >>>effect results in momentary speeds of over 35mph in the pro-1-2 race,
> > >>>I can easily spin a gear at 130rpm+ in training, or when needed in
> > >>>some relatively "easy" race..
> > >>Of course 35mph is not 130rpm+ in a 52/13; it's just over 110rpm.
> > >That's the point -- there are times when some riders need big gears.
> >
> > Unless they are trackies, who mysteriously appear able to ride very
> > quickly without these very tall gears.
> >
> > At best the leaders of the Tour can make a marginal case for a 53x11 -
> > clearly the case is marginal because there is no drive there towards
> > still larger chainrings or 10t rear sprockets. You (and I, and everyone
> > else on this group) cannot generate as much power as they do and
therefore
> > do not go as fast. Why then do you suppose you need the same high gear
> > that is only just of utility to the strongest riders in the world?
>
> I've been following this thread with some bewilderment. I've always been
under
> the impression that my 52/12 provided some usefulness, and I use it
> frequently. This weekend I did an experiment.
>
> I rode down the same moderate hill 4 times, pedalling up to around 30 mph,
> then coasting until my speed stopped increasing. This occured at right
around
> 38mph each time. In the latter two trials, I started pedalling my 52/12 at
> this point. In both cases, my speed increased to 41mph with only moderate
> effort.
>
> Following the moderate downhill is a short but steep uphill. In my 52/12 I
> could sprint up this hill maintaining a speed of about 30mph at a
comfortable
> cadence (for me).
>
> For me, pedalling the 12t at 41mph was an uncomfortably high cadence. I'd
have
> preferred the 11t at that point. The 13t would have been a very
uncomfortable
> cadence for me. I have no desire to spin.
>
> That's the great thing about gearing, isn't it? You can spin your 13t all
you
> want, and riders who prefer a lower cadence can achieve the same thing in
a
> more comfortable fashion.
>
> Sam
>

[Precious Pup]

David Damerell wrote:
>

>...I started by saying the 11t is useless, something I still
> maintain.


Speaking of maintenance:

You intentionally maintain your ignorance. That's what takes you across the line from simply ignorant to
being a moron.


> I didn't realise you needed bigger gears because someone _else_ riding is
> fast - I was under the apparently mistaken impression that gears were
> necessary to fit one's own speed.


Moron, if you are following someone's wheel, your speed is the same as theirs.


> >But enough. You've proven yourself to be an armchair theorsit of the
> >worst sort.
>
> Better that than the sort of braggart who believes himself as strong as
> Lance.


No moron, JT has done what you speculate about.


> You're not; you never will be. Get over it!


You are a moron, don't get over it.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

David Damerell > wrote in message news:<MNb*ec-

> Better that than the sort of braggart
> who believes himself as strong as
> Lance. You're not; you never will be.
> Get over it!

I said, quite clearly, that I have in the past suffered to hang on at
the back of a race in which Lance Armstrong was winning (Fitchburg in
1992). And to avoid getting dropped I had to ride big gears like the
guys in front were doing.

If you call that bragging, well fine. I am damn proud to have even
_finished_ that race (in about 105th place). But if you think that is
somehow claiming I as as strong as Lance Armstrong, you're way way out
of touch with what racing is about. I said nothing of the sort.

JT

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

David Damerell > wrote in message news:<MNb*ec-
> However, I started by saying the 11t
> is useless, something I still
> maintain.

You really should manage a pro team so you can stop them wasting money
on useless technology.

JT

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

David Damerell > wrote in message >...
> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:

> >people in the sport know. While I often have doubts about the
> >explanations that non-scienetists/engineers have about why they do
> >certain things, I damn well believe that at the top of the sport
> >common practice has evolved because of what worked.
>
> Did you tie and solder spokes while that was common practice?

This is a perfect example. Engineers can demonstrate that tying and
soldering does nothing to strengthen a wheel, despite the claims of
uneducated bikies. OK But you know what? There was still a value to
tying and soldering regardless of the flawed explanations of cycling
traditionalists: when a spoke broke, not a rare thing in the past, it
was less likely to get tangled up with the rest of the bike and it was
easier to keep riding. There was utility to it.

How about stepping away from your armchair and computer keepboard and
asking yourself "Why am I so much smarter than the dozens or hundreds
of other more experienced people in this field? Why do I understand
bike gearing so much better than they do?" If you can't answer that
with some confidence, you should shut the **** up and
look/learn/listen instead of babbling on.

JT

[David Damerell]

Bill Davidson > wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>I didn't say that; I said that there seems to be no impetus to develop
>>still higher gears. 53x11 has been the tallest available gear for quite
>>some years now.
>That's not even close to true. You can buy chain rings at least as large
>as 62T. I'm not sure why one would do that but it is available.

Let me rephrase that, especially since my father's Bickerton folder has a
60T chainring on (tiny wheels); even though the technology exists to fit
both >53t chainrings and <11t sprockets, there appears to be no impetus to
make this equipment available to the strongest riders in the world,
suggesting that 53x11 is enough for them (and hence too much for the rest
of us?)
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[David Damerell]

John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
>David Damerell >:
[How many times are you planning to follow up to this]
>>Better that than the sort of braggart
>>who believes himself as strong as
>>Lance. You're not; you never will be.
>>Get over it!
>I said, quite clearly, that I have in the past suffered to hang on at
>the back of a race in which Lance Armstrong was winning (Fitchburg in
>1992).
>But if you think that is
>somehow claiming I as as strong as Lance Armstrong,

I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Sam Huffman]

David Damerell > writes:

> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >David Damerell >:
> [How many times are you planning to follow up to this]
> >>Better that than the sort of braggart
> >>who believes himself as strong as
> >>Lance. You're not; you never will be.
> >>Get over it!
> >I said, quite clearly, that I have in the past suffered to hang on at
> >the back of a race in which Lance Armstrong was winning (Fitchburg in
> >1992).
> >But if you think that is
> >somehow claiming I as as strong as Lance Armstrong,
>
> I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
> is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.

No, it's not. But at this point I suspect you fully realize that, and are
merely trolling.

Oops, I guess it worked.

Sam

[David Damerell]

Arthur Clune > wrote:
>David Damerell > wrote:
>>I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
>>is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.
>Have you ever raced. The two statements are very, very different.
>The energy required to sit in a pack at a given speed v being at the
>front can be as low as 30%.

Even the strongest cyclists are not always at the front; sometimes they
will be drafting, and sometimes they will be aiming to push forwards
through such a pack.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

"David Damerell" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur Clune > wrote:
> >David Damerell > wrote:
> > >I don't. The claim that you
> > > need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
> > >is equivalent to the claim that you are as
> > > strong as him.
> > Have you ever raced. The two statements
> > are very, very different.
> > The energy required to sit in a pack at a
> > given speed v being at the
> > front can be as low as 30%.
>
> Even the strongest cyclists are not
> always at the front; sometimes they
> will be drafting, and sometimes they
> will be aiming to push forwards
> through such a pack.

At the event (Fitchburg criterium p-1-2) I used to illustrate why I
need tall gears I never, ever saw the front in several years of doing
that race. The strong riders did sometimes. So they used a certain
gear when they were on the front. They used the same gear, with less
energy, when drafting. I used the same gear with less energy*, when
drafting.

Give it up DD -- you're just sounding like more and more of an idiot
the longer this goes on.

JT

* Actually I may have been putting out more energy than a stronger
rider drafting near the front, because I was at the back suffering
from the accordian effect

--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

[Bill Davidson]

David Damerell wrote:
> The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
> is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.

Nope. You're making a leap there that isn't particularly logical.
Try again.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

[Bret Wade]

David Damerell > wrote in message >...
> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >David Damerell >:
> [How many times are you planning to follow up to this]
> >>Better that than the sort of braggart
> >>who believes himself as strong as
> >>Lance. You're not; you never will be.
> >>Get over it!
> >I said, quite clearly, that I have in the past suffered to hang on at
> >the back of a race in which Lance Armstrong was winning (Fitchburg in
> >1992).
> >But if you think that is
> >somehow claiming I as as strong as Lance Armstrong,
>
> I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
> is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.

I once knew someone who carried a 52-11 specifically because he was a
weak climber. He knew that he would be off the back after any serious
climbing and felt that the tall gear could help him regain contact.
Conversely, the stronger climbers have no need for this tall gear
because there is generally no tactical advantage to forcing the pace
from the lead group on descents.

Bret

[Benjamin Weiner]

David Damerell > wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> >But if you think that is
> >somehow claiming I as as strong as Lance Armstrong,

> I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
> is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.

This exchange is pointless for a number of reasons. There is another
one here, for example: one may need a tall gear to keep up with a
group on a straight descent, however the final selection in a race
is rarely made on such a road. It is often on a hill, where the most
powerful riders will get away, and of course they'll be using a
gear lower than a 53/11. Ultimate strength and highest gear are not
usually applied at the same time (except perhaps by bunch sprinters
like Cipo).

I've used a 12 and 13, on recreational rides, and my power is certainly
not 11/12 that of Armstrong. No doubt the same is true of you and
whatever your highest gear is.

This speaks to the fundamental fact about gearing flamewars: saying
to someone else "You don't really need that gear" is silly. It is
almost as silly when you flame the 11 as when some macho guy makes
fun of triples.

The science journal "Nature" has a quaint and rather British custom.
When some back-and-forth in its letters section has reached the point
where no further progress can be made, they conclude with an
Editor's Note saying "This correspondence is now closed."

[Rick Onanian]

On 07 Aug 2003 14:38:05 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he
> does is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.

No, it could mean that he is built differently, or rides
in different conditions, or has different length cranks
or different size wheels.

I'm no Lance Legstrong but I could go faster in some
situations when I currently spin inefficiently down a
hill in my highest gear.

--
Rick Onanian

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
> wrote:
>>I don't. The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he
>>does is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.
>No, it could mean that he is built differently, or rides
>in different conditions, or has different length cranks
>or different size wheels.

I think there's an implicit "on 700C wheels" in any discussion of the 11t,
yes? Clearly the offroaders with smaller wheels and constraints on
chainrings may well need 11t, and a recumbent on tiny wheels certainly
does.

I've tried to talk about "the strongest riders" precisely to avoid getting
dragged into Lance's unusually high cadences.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Top Sirloin]

On 8 Aug 2003 11:27:03 -0700, (John Forrest Tomlinson)
wrote:

>PS -- I think the photo at the top of this page explains a lot about
>this thread:
>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/

You know he's a geek because he has the requisite "girfriend in Canada".


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

David Damerell > wrote in message >...

>
> However, when someone says
> they "need" a 53x11, (52/53)^3
> is only .94...


Benjamin Weiner raised a good point about a discussion reaching a
point when it can go no further, and gearing discussions being of a
nature where a "right" and "wrong" are not obvious.

But it is a fact that in many aspects of competitive sports there is a
body of best practice. And when a rider will lose (or be dropped
earlier) when he/she does not follow that best practice, then it is
reasonable to say he/she "needs" to do that. In the case of top
riders that Damerell has described, it is a fact that they "need"
gears of at least 53x11 at times, or else they will fail (be dropped
or completely ineffective). Mr. Damerall repeatedly denying that does
not make it any less true. And that needs to be repeated as long as
he continues to deny it.

It's all well and good to say that in riding around for fun, personal
preference is the key thing.

And I think that most stock bikes in bike stores are overgeared for
the typical user. It's probably true that many riders would be better
served by using lower gears all-around.

And it's likely true that for racers, if a trade-off must be made
between having sufficiently low gears and very high gears, the low
gears are often more important. And that most racers would do better
to err toward lower gears whenever possible.

But to deny the need for high gears in certain situations by certain
riders in races is just untrue. This is not a matter of "opinion."
It is a matter of reality. And it shouldn't be accepted.

> Well, I'll stop here, then.

I won't. See above.

JT

PS -- I think the photo at the top of this page explains a lot about
this thread:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/

PPS -- I have 48x13 as the top gear on one of my bikes (I don't race
on it -- and have lent it to a friend for awhile). So does my wife.
That gear is a little tall for her but it's no big disaster, as she
has a low enough gear for where she rides.

[Rick Onanian]

On 8 Aug 2003 11:27:03 -0700, John Forrest Tomlinson
> wrote:
> And I think that most stock bikes in bike stores are overgeared for
> the typical user. It's probably true that many riders would be better
> served by using lower gears all-around.

I can't imagine why many riders on stock bikes would
be better off on a cassette with 9 gears all a single
tooth apart, than they would be on something with more
range.

> And it's likely true that for racers, if a trade-off must be made
> between having sufficiently low gears and very high gears, the low
> gears are often more important. And that most racers would do better
> to err toward lower gears whenever possible.

Why does it always have to be a choice between low gears
or high gears? Why is the whole biking industry obsessed
with close ratio gearing? Am I the only person who can
produce similar torque at 75 rpm as I can at 90 rpm? Am
I the only person who likes to go fast downhill but
doesn't like to pedal 125 rpm? Am I the only person who
likes to go fast downhill but likes to spin leisurely up
a hill in a very low gear?

> But to deny the need for high gears in certain situations by certain
> riders in races is just untrue. This is not a matter of "opinion." It is
> a matter of reality. And it shouldn't be accepted.

The above is on-the-spot, if you remove "in races".

> JT

> PPS -- I have 48x13 as the top gear on one of my bikes (I don't race
> on it -- and have lent it to a friend for awhile). So does my wife. That
> gear is a little tall for her but it's no big disaster, as she
> has a low enough gear for where she rides.

If that gear is a little tall for her, it certainly
shouldn't be a disaster; there's probably at least
18 different gear combinations for her to use.

Really...what's the obsession with close ratios?
Am I special, that I can enjoy a gear within a
15 or 20 rpm _range_?

--
Rick Onanian

[gwhite]

Rick Onanian wrote:
>
> On 8 Aug 2003 11:27:03 -0700, John Forrest Tomlinson
> > wrote:
> > And I think that most stock bikes in bike stores are overgeared for
> > the typical user. It's probably true that many riders would be better
> > served by using lower gears all-around.
>
> I can't imagine why many riders on stock bikes would
> be better off on a cassette with 9 gears all a single
> tooth apart, than they would be on something with more
> range.

Probably. That much really isn't in dispute here.

> > And it's likely true that for racers, if a trade-off must be made
> > between having sufficiently low gears and very high gears, the low
> > gears are often more important. And that most racers would do better
> > to err toward lower gears whenever possible.
>
> Why does it always have to be a choice between low gears
> or high gears? Why is the whole biking industry obsessed
> with close ratio gearing?

Don't know about the "obsession" part. I know I like them. When you have
winds, big mountains, flat criteriums, and on and on, then something has gotta
give if you like close spacing *and* wide range. Some people don't care about
close spacing -- good for them, it makes their choices a lot easier.

> Am I the only person who can produce similar
> torque at 75 rpm as I can at 90 rpm?

That describes 2 different power levels. So it doesn't mean much.

> Am I the only person
> who likes to go fast downhill but
> doesn't like to pedal 125 rpm?

Not at all. That's where the big gears come in. I hated the pedaling bursts at
145 rpm during the course of descending some hills. That was my motivation for
increasing my big gear (back in the 7sp days) from the 53x13 to 53x12. It had
nothing to do with racing since I wasn't racing then.

> Am I the only person who likes to go fast
> downhill but likes to spin leisurely up
> a hill in a very low gear?

No.

> > But to deny the need for high gears in certain situations by certain
> > riders in races is just untrue. This is not a matter of "opinion." It is
> > a matter of reality. And it shouldn't be accepted.
>
> The above is on-the-spot, if you remove "in races".

True, but arguments are stronger (or more clearly illustrated) if cases farther
from the margin are utilized. But Damerell won't listen because he's a
know-it-all. Really he knows nothing and we can pretty well say that it will
stay that way.

> Really...what's the obsession with close ratios?

I don't know about the choice of the language ("obsession"). Close gears are
nice. I know, I've tried it.

> Am I special, that I can enjoy a gear within a
> 15 or 20 rpm _range_?

I have close gears. My cadence is all over the place and I'm quite happy with
that. If I'm time trialing, I'm at 95-105. If I'm cruising home on the last 20
miles of a 100 mi ride, I putt along at 70-80 rpm. If I'm in a comfort zone
"sitting in" in a peloton, I'm at 80-90 rpm. If I'm climbing steep and long
mountain roads, I'm down to 50 rpm at times. Sure, I have all sorts of
cadences. Sure, they're okay. Sure, I like close gears. For a given type of
effort, my cadence seems to be somewhat narrow -- that is the distinction. I
should note that I don't "try to stay within any range for some given effort --
the choice for gear changes (based on pedal pressure) seems to be largely
unconcious as best I can judge myself. Since indexed shifting is so easy, the
shifts require almost no concious effort -- almost like driving a manual
transmission car, people get so accustomed to it they just do it without
thought.

[David Damerell]

Top Sirloin > wrote:
(John Forrest Tomlinson) >wrote:
>>PS -- I think the photo at the top of this page explains a lot about
>>this thread:
>>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/

Another victory for the idiot magnet.

>You know he's a geek because he has the requisite "girfriend in Canada".

Er... actually she's just here.
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:11:28 -0800, Nick Burns
> wrote:
> "David Damerell" > wrote in message:
> The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
>> is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.

This quote reminds me, I did think of something
I have to say about this.

I _am_ as strong as Lance. I may be stronger, in
this context.

My legs can push 300 pounds up a 2 story ladder.
Can Lance do that? I weigh 210 and sometimes need
to carry a 90-pound bundle of roof shingles up the
ladder.

I can't, however, spin up as fast as him; nor do I
have his endurance. In fact, I do best at low
cadences. I sure wished for a 53x11 a bunch of times
today!

> Ever since I started to race over 20 years ago, I can remember all of
> these dorks trying to tell other people what gears they need.

Not just gears, but everything. It's one thing to
say "This works for me"; it's a whole other thing
to say "This won't work for anybody" or "Everybody
needs this".

> Some things never change.

Indeed.

--
Rick Onanian

[Per Elmsäter]

Top Sirloin wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:49:57 -0400, Rick Onanian >
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:11:28 -0800, Nick Burns
>> > wrote:
>>> "David Damerell" > wrote in message:
>>> The claim that you need gears as tall as the very tallest he does
>>>> is equivalent to the claim that you are as strong as him.
>>
>> This quote reminds me, I did think of something
>> I have to say about this.
>>
>> I _am_ as strong as Lance. I may be stronger, in
>> this context.
>>
>> My legs can push 300 pounds up a 2 story ladder.
>> Can Lance do that? I weigh 210 and sometimes need
>> to carry a 90-pound bundle of roof shingles up the
>> ladder.
>
> That's less than 50% of your bodyweight. I'll bet dollars to
> doughnuts Lance can deep squat his bodyweight for 10 reps.

According to Lance himself in CC's book "The Lance Armstrong Performance
program" pp 111-112. This is what he does in late winter after three months
of training in the gym.
Leg press 400 pounds
Hamstring curl 80 pounds
Leg extension 120 pounds
Bicep curl 50 pounds
Abdominal crunches 200 pounds per set
Bench press 125 pounds

8 to 10 reps per set with five to seven sets per workout.
--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:47:37 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:
>> My legs can push 300 pounds up a 2 story ladder.
>> Can Lance do that? I weigh 210 and sometimes need
>> to carry a 90-pound bundle of roof shingles up the
>> ladder.
>
> That's less than 50% of your bodyweight. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts
> Lance can deep squat his bodyweight for 10 reps.

What does Lance deep squatting his bodyweight
have to do with his legs pushing 300 pounds
up a 2 story ladder?

Deep squat bears little resemblance to ladder
climbing. Ladders use only one leg at a time.
If you fail on the ladder, you fall and die.
The ladder is continuous and unstable.

I would not be suprised to find that climbing
a ladder is similar to pedalling. I feel it in
many of the same muscles. Further, the motion
is similar to pedalling; foot up, forward, push
down, pull out, up again; other foot opposite.

> I weigh 15 lbs more than you and can easily deep squat my bodyweight for
> reps,
> but it only counts for cycling performance if you're talking about an
> all-out
> 20-30 second effort (where you also don't care about blowing up
> afterwards).

You are probably a candidate for a 53x11, then,
even if you ride in a completely flat area.

What makes you think that Lance can carry a
total of his bodyweight + load equalling 300
pounds, up a 2 story ladder? AFAIK, he only
needs to push his own bodyweight + bicycle up
hills, and has been known to spin up fast
cadences. That sounds like I need a taller
gear than him.

Note: I am NOT discounting Lance's strength,
ability, or endurance at all. I could never
compete with him. Rather, I'm refuting
somebody's assertion that it is ridiculous to
say that I need a 53x11, due to the faulty
logic that Lance uses it and I can't because
I can't possibly be as strong as him. Strong,
in this context, would seem to mean the amount
of torque available to turn the cranks.

Even if he has stronger arms than me and can
pull on the handlebars harder, my significant
extra weight allows me to put more of my
muscles' available power into the pedals, and
also gives me an inertial advantage while
going downhill that makes it quite reasonable
to think that I could go faster with gears as
tall as his or even taller.

I don't KNOW that all the numbers are correct,
but I _do_ know that I could go faster with a
53x11 than I do now with a slightly lower gear,
and if that means I'm as strong or stronger
than Lance, so be it.

--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:04:42 GMT, Per Elmsäter >
wrote:
> According to Lance himself in CC's book "The Lance Armstrong Performance
> program" pp 111-112. This is what he does in late winter after three
> months
> of training in the gym.
> Leg press 400 pounds

If a leg press is done with one leg (I don't
know gym terminology, sorry), and his numbers
are accurate, then he may well be stronger
than I am. I know I could do 300, evidenced
by the loaded ladder-climbing I mentioned,
but 400 would definately be pushing it.

So, even if we've proved that I'm not as strong
as Lance (entirely possible), I'm certainly
heavier and have more available to put into the
pedals without tearing the handlebar off the
stem, as well as more gravity pulling me downhill.

> --
> Perre
--
Rick Onanian

[Top Sirloin]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:33:57 -0400, Rick Onanian > wrote:

>What does Lance deep squatting his bodyweight
>have to do with his legs pushing 300 pounds
>up a 2 story ladder?

Uh, leg strength? :-)

>Deep squat bears little resemblance to ladder
>climbing. Ladders use only one leg at a time.
>If you fail on the ladder, you fall and die.
>The ladder is continuous and unstable.

>I would not be suprised to find that climbing
>a ladder is similar to pedalling. I feel it in
>many of the same muscles. Further, the motion
>is similar to pedalling; foot up, forward, push
>down, pull out, up again; other foot opposite.

Neither one is really any closer than the other to the action of pedaling IMHO,
but squatting, even though it does have a stability component, is a truer test
of leg strength.

>You are probably a candidate for a 53x11, then,
>even if you ride in a completely flat area.

I could've used one last night trying to chase down the group in front of me,
but I also ended up using my 25 after I blew up and had to crawl home. :-)

>I don't KNOW that all the numbers are correct,
>but I _do_ know that I could go faster with a
>53x11 than I do now with a slightly lower gear,
>and if that means I'm as strong or stronger
>than Lance, so be it.

Gearing has little to do with strength. I'll bet on a usual ride for me I exert
a lot more force going uphill in a 39x19 than downhill in a 53x12. The exception
would be a group ride or race where I _have_ to be fast downhill to catch
someone.


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:41:37 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:
> Gearing has little to do with strength. I'll bet on a usual ride for me I

Maybe, but I was replying to somebody's assertion
that to say that I can use a 53x11 is equivelant
to saying that I am as strong as Lance. I then made
the case that it's not out of the realm of possibility
that I am as "strong" as Lance, due to the fact that
_each_ of my legs can repeatedly push 300 pounds one
foot straight up.

> a lot more force going uphill in a 39x19 than downhill in a 53x12. The
> exception
> would be a group ride or race where I _have_ to be fast downhill to catch
> someone.

I've never gone on a real group ride; I mostly ride
alone. That said, I'm only interested in catching fun.
I can catch more fun with a wider range of gears,
including a 53x11.

--
Rick Onanian

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
>Maybe, but I was replying to somebody's assertion
>that to say that I can use a 53x11 is equivelant
>to saying that I am as strong as Lance.

Gosh, I wonder if "strong" meant "as strong a cyclist" or "able to leg
press as much"? Now, what would the context suggest?
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Rick Onanian]

On 21 Aug 2003 13:51:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> Rick Onanian > wrote:
>> Maybe, but I was replying to somebody's assertion
>> that to say that I can use a 53x11 is equivelant
>> to saying that I am as strong as Lance.
>
> Gosh, I wonder if "strong" meant "as strong a cyclist" or "able to leg
> press as much"? Now, what would the context suggest?

In that context I took it to mean "able to
put as much torque into the pedals", which
is NOT the same as "as strong a cyclist".

According to the numbers quoted in this
thread, I'm not entirely confident that I
could leg press as much.

However, if we take as true that being
able to get some advantage from a 53x11
means I am as strong as Lance, then you
trust me that I could get some advantage
from a 53x11, it follows that I am, in
fact, as strong as Lance.

I don't think his body can do some of the
heavy ladder climbing that mine can, and
mine certainly can't do anywhere near the
heavy uphill cycling; so I may have to
shift out of the 53x11 when the downhill
ends.

--
Rick Onanian