On 10/20/2014 6:10 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


That or the more common 42 - 24 was a large reason why many
people tried bicycling but gave it up. That low gear wasn't
low enough for many who were just getting into bicycling nor
was it low enough for many who wanted a lightweieght bicycle
for general running around, commuting or to run errands with.
I wonder if during tthe 1970s and 1980s bike nooms if a gear
of even 34 - 24 or 34 - 30 would have kept more would be bicyclists
in the sport? That in turn would h ave made for safer riding due
to far more bicyclists on the road.

I've read many times that hills are one of the big items that dissuade
people from cycling. In general, flat cities tend to have more cyclists
than hilly ones (although of course we'll hear about exceptions).

And I remember letting one friend of mine try my bike with its (then)
newly installed triple crank. His remark: "Wow! It doesn't matter if
there's a hill or not!" And he soon bought a bike with a triple.

But as with most technical aspects of bicycling, people don't understand
what's important, and few salesmen explain it. 12 speeds were always
portrayed as better than 10, 14 better than 12, etc., but few people
bothered to ask about how low the gears were. In fact, a lot of the
gear count was wasted (for non-competitors) on gears above 100 gear
inches. Much better to give them lower gears, even if seldom used.


--
- Frank Krygowski