View Single Post
  #29  
Old February 16th 20, 03:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:39:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2020 11:53 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:17:59 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.Â* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.Â* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.Â* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Open for discussion? Why? The original post was not about single
versus double or triple cranksets. You asked why a single crankset
for the obvious reason being not your choice. Despite that people
tried to answer your question. And now we get a lecture from you.
Nice. Today you can get single, double or triple cranksets with all
possible chainring combo's so 'people like what they like' should be
good enough if they thought their choice over. The downside of a
1*11/12 setup is the limited gear range or big jumps between the
gears which can be perfectly acceptable for some people in certain
riding conditions. So what is your problem?

My original question related to a guy who took a pretty expensive
derailleur, dismantled it to use its cannibalized parts on another such
derailleur, so he could use an enormous 52 tooth cog in back. He also
had to kludge around to build a suitable set of cogs.

Apparently, this was mostly to get a lower gear. It looks like he ended
up with about 40 - 52 or about 21 gear inches, or 1.66 meters development.

If he had instead added a 30 tooth chainring and front shifter, the
original ~42 tooth in back would give him an even lower gear using very
standard parts. A 24 chainring would give much lower gears. So, easier
and more effective.

IME experience, that would have made much more sense, perhaps because I
have front shifting problems approximately never. Yes, his MMV, and
yours might as well. But it's hard for me to visualize.

And you probably go banging down rocky roads at 25mph or downshift on
30% dirt hills approximately never. There is a whole world out there of
approximately never-Frank experiences. That explains why not everyone
is on a 1980s vintage touring bike with a triple and cantis. Not Ohio:
https://cos.ridewithgps.com/edited_i...jpg?1434380547


But I've ridden stuff like that on my mountain bike. Colorado, 1986.
Triple chainrings. Granted, I also walked some of it, but a 1x with not
as low a gear wouldn't have helped.


As did many other people who had problems with chains unshipping or
getting stuck between rings or not shifting or over-shifting after
hitting a rock in the middle of a shift. Mud is another big problem with
FDs and multiple chainrings. Again, non-Frank people have reasons for
choosing 1X. 1X is really taking over the MTB market.

BTW, this is the back way to my brother's house -- which I will do this
summer on my Synapse U Di2 with no fenders and maybe 32mm tires or on
my two-ring gravel bike because of all the road riding:
https://bikeportland.org/2017/07/17/...d-river-235173


Sometimes it's hard to keep all our debates straight. The author did
that on a road bike that didn't seem to be a 1x. And in the comments,
various people discuss the benefits they experience with wider tires and
frame clearance to match.

In any case, I don't see anything there I wouldn't ride with my touring
bike.


I threw in the back way to Hood River because I saw it and liked the
pictures. I need to go out for a ride, but I'm sick of the rain.

You can ride a lot of stuff on a touring bike. A gravel bike is just a
touring bike with fat tires and other changes that make the bike more
robust and problem free -- and much faster over difficult terrain. You
pick your way down a rocky road on a touring bike, and you can blast down
it on a fat tire gravel bike. Take your touring bike on a hard gravel
ride with other people on 40mm tires and watch them sail away.

Unlike you, I understand why some people chose 1X -- they ride harder
than I do and spend more time on gravel or want an aero TT bike. I ride
to gravel and always spend more time on roads than gravel or trail, so I
trend towards two rings. I don't TT, except when I'm late for a dinner
engagement after work, like last night.

-- Jay Beattie.


Single ring started with hard riding MTBers so you could fit a chain
catcher, we do now have mechs with clutches so that’s less of a issue and
with gravel bikes your simply not going to be hitting the ground as hard,
if you are likely to find that chain drop is the least of your worries,
personally I have toned back a bit of my Gravel riding as I was ripping
tyres and cracked rims, no chain drop though!

Roger Merriman
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home