A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tested wide range gears Saturday



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 5th 04, 01:33 PM
Doug Goncz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

We rode from Bluemont Park in Northern Virginia down parallel to I66 on the
Custis Trail, for me a challenging ride of many short hills and down slopes
requiring lots of shifting. All the way to Rosslyn, then a Quizno's, and the
bus back.

The wide range (24 / 35 / 51) x (34 / 24 / 20 / 18 / 16 / 13 / 11) gearing
worked pretty well. On the varying terrain I was able to keep "hooked up" as
pitch and speed changed continuously. This is I think 657% range. The front is
a mite touchy with that big jump. Harris recommended an R443 FD and it seems
just right. A few tuning issues...

The cassette version is 34 / 28 / 23 / 19 / 16 / 13 / 11 and may soon be
installed on a Lightning Thunderbolt if I can resolve a few issues.

This gearing may not be for you. I think it is better for riders with limited
power, as have I. If you can push and spin, you might not like those wide
(though regular) jumps.



My physics project at NVCC:
Google Groups, then "dgoncz" and some of:
ultracapacitor bicycle fluorescent flywheel inverter
Ads
  #2  
Old March 5th 04, 03:58 PM
Jacques Moser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:33:09 +0000, Doug Goncz wrote:


The wide range (24 / 35 / 51) x (34 / 24 / 20 / 18 / 16 / 13 / 11) gearing
worked pretty well. On the varying terrain I was able to keep "hooked up"
as pitch and speed changed continuously. This is I think 657% range. The
front is a mite touchy with that big jump. Harris recommended an R443 FD
and it seems just right. A few tuning issues...


Interesting. I'm no specialist but this is the most extreme range I've
heard of. The cassette steps look a bit unbalanced though: I would have
expected something more like 11/13/15/17/20/24/... because your 13-to-16
step is relatively much larger than the 16-to-18 which is next. Maybe
there is a reason ?
  #3  
Old March 5th 04, 07:10 PM
Robert Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

Doug Goncz wrote:
We rode from Bluemont Park in Northern Virginia down parallel to I66
on the Custis Trail, for me a challenging ride of many short hills
and down slopes requiring lots of shifting. All the way to Rosslyn,
then a Quizno's, and the bus back.

The wide range (24 / 35 / 51) x (34 / 24 / 20 / 18 / 16 / 13 / 11)
gearing worked pretty well. On the varying terrain I was able to keep
"hooked up" as pitch and speed changed continuously. This is I think
657% range. The front is a mite touchy with that big jump. Harris
recommended an R443 FD and it seems just right. A few tuning issues...

The cassette version is 34 / 28 / 23 / 19 / 16 / 13 / 11 and may soon
be installed on a Lightning Thunderbolt if I can resolve a few issues.

This gearing may not be for you. I think it is better for riders with
limited power, as have I. If you can push and spin, you might not
like those wide (though regular) jumps.


I set my sport-tourer up with 26/39/50 x 13/14/15/17/19/21/24/27/30. It
seems to me to be a better solution with more practical cassette spacing.
Even with 7spd it seems like you could improve the gearing. If you're not a
powerhouse, as you say, then I doubt you really need a 51 x 11. On the other
end, I can't imagine needing a 24 x 34. Even touring I rarely have to resort
to my 26 x 30 and I'm not a strong rider. Check out Sheldon's custom
cassettes. I'm sure there's something more suitable there.

Rob Strickland


  #4  
Old March 6th 04, 01:53 AM
Russell Seaton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

The wide range (24 / 35 / 51) x (34 / 24 / 20 / 18 / 16 / 13 / 11)
gearing worked pretty well.



I set my sport-tourer up with 26/39/50 x 13/14/15/17/19/21/24/27/30. It
seems to me to be a better solution with more practical cassette spacing.
Even with 7spd it seems like you could improve the gearing. If you're not a
powerhouse, as you say, then I doubt you really need a 51 x 11. On the other
end, I can't imagine needing a 24 x 34. Even touring I rarely have to resort
to my 26 x 30 and I'm not a strong rider.



I take it you have not imagined loaded touring in the Alps and
Dolomites. A 24x34 is very handy to have. And a 20x34 is even
handier.

Not sure of the point of the original question asker's cassette. I
put it into a gear chart and it seems like its designed to give a
complete range of gearing from high to low in each chainring. It
seems designed to minimize front derailleur shifting. At the very
high expense of very large and unnatural jumps between gears.

A better 7 speed cassette would be a 14-32, sold by Nashbar for $20.
14-16-18-21-24-28-32. Or a 13-32 from Nashbar for $13.
13-15-17-20-24-28-32. Paired up with normal 48 to 52 outside ring,
and normal 38 to 42 middle ring. A nice progression of well spaced
gears (with plenty of gears in the 80 to 50 range) on each chainring
with the granny 24 as a bailout.
  #5  
Old March 6th 04, 10:56 AM
Robert Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

Russell Seaton wrote:
The wide range (24 / 35 / 51) x (34 / 24 / 20 / 18 / 16 / 13 / 11)
gearing worked pretty well.



I set my sport-tourer up with 26/39/50 x 13/14/15/17/19/21/24/27/30.
It seems to me to be a better solution with more practical cassette
spacing. Even with 7spd it seems like you could improve the gearing.
If you're not a powerhouse, as you say, then I doubt you really need
a 51 x 11. On the other end, I can't imagine needing a 24 x 34. Even
touring I rarely have to resort to my 26 x 30 and I'm not a strong
rider.



I take it you have not imagined loaded touring in the Alps and
Dolomites. A 24x34 is very handy to have. And a 20x34 is even
handier.

Not sure of the point of the original question asker's cassette. I
put it into a gear chart and it seems like its designed to give a
complete range of gearing from high to low in each chainring. It
seems designed to minimize front derailleur shifting. At the very
high expense of very large and unnatural jumps between gears.

A better 7 speed cassette would be a 14-32, sold by Nashbar for $20.
14-16-18-21-24-28-32. Or a 13-32 from Nashbar for $13.
13-15-17-20-24-28-32. Paired up with normal 48 to 52 outside ring,
and normal 38 to 42 middle ring. A nice progression of well spaced
gears (with plenty of gears in the 80 to 50 range) on each chainring
with the granny 24 as a bailout.


Well, even though I have imagined (with my loaded touring bike - 24x32)
touring in the Alps, it seemed to me that the original poster probably
wasn't encountering those kinds of grades in Virginia. Given his comment
about a, "challenging ride of many short hills and down slopes requiring
lots of shifting. All the way to Rosslyn, then a Quizno's, and the bus
back," I'd say a 24x34 is overkill.

Rob Strickland


  #6  
Old March 6th 04, 12:08 PM
Dale Benjamin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday


"Robert Strickland" wrote in message
...
Russell Seaton wrote:
The wide range (24 / 35 / 51) x (34 / 24 / 20 / 18 / 16 / 13 / 11)
gearing worked pretty well.



I set my sport-tourer up with 26/39/50 x 13/14/15/17/19/21/24/27/30.
It seems to me to be a better solution with more practical cassette
spacing. Even with 7spd it seems like you could improve the gearing.
If you're not a powerhouse, as you say, then I doubt you really need
a 51 x 11. On the other end, I can't imagine needing a 24 x 34. Even
touring I rarely have to resort to my 26 x 30 and I'm not a strong
rider.



I take it you have not imagined loaded touring in the Alps and
Dolomites. A 24x34 is very handy to have. And a 20x34 is even
handier.

Not sure of the point of the original question asker's cassette. I
put it into a gear chart and it seems like its designed to give a
complete range of gearing from high to low in each chainring. It
seems designed to minimize front derailleur shifting. At the very
high expense of very large and unnatural jumps between gears.

A better 7 speed cassette would be a 14-32, sold by Nashbar for $20.
14-16-18-21-24-28-32. Or a 13-32 from Nashbar for $13.
13-15-17-20-24-28-32. Paired up with normal 48 to 52 outside ring,
and normal 38 to 42 middle ring. A nice progression of well spaced
gears (with plenty of gears in the 80 to 50 range) on each chainring
with the granny 24 as a bailout.


Well, even though I have imagined (with my loaded touring bike - 24x32)
touring in the Alps, it seemed to me that the original poster probably
wasn't encountering those kinds of grades in Virginia. Given his comment
about a, "challenging ride of many short hills and down slopes requiring
lots of shifting. All the way to Rosslyn, then a Quizno's, and the bus
back," I'd say a 24x34 is overkill.



Me too, a 1:1 ratio is low enough. I don't really like any of the proposed
cassettes, a 14 high isn't high enough, an 11 needs a 12 and a 12 needs a 13
or else there are really large gaps in the ratios. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19,
24 would be a good 7 gear cassette for touring with a long cage rear
deraileur. And a 52, 40, 24 on the front.

My gut always told me that an optimized top end gave more gain than an
optimized low end, loaf going up hills because one doesn't gain or lose much
time or distance anyway, but really work going down, one gets better cooling
at speed, and gains more.



  #7  
Old March 6th 04, 04:21 PM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

"Dale Benjamin" wrote:

My gut always told me that an optimized top end gave more gain than an
optimized low end, loaf going up hills because one doesn't gain or lose much
time or distance anyway, but really work going down, one gets better cooling
at speed, and gains more.


Your gut lied. ;-)

You lose a lot more time by taking it easy going up than you do going
down.

When you're going up, putting out 25% more power will result in you
going nearly 25% faster - or going 25% further in the same amount of
time.

If you put that same extra effort into a fast gravity-aided descent,
you'll go only slightly faster (since aerodynamics will be the chief
force to overcome). For example, according to the excellent
calculator at http://www.analyticcycling.com ...

If a typical cyclist was descending a 10% hill, and putting out 100
watts, they'd hit a speed of just under 80km/h (or, 50mph).

Increase their output to 125 watts, and the spead "leaps" by a
whopping 0.16km/h (or 1/10th of 1mph).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
  #8  
Old March 6th 04, 04:25 PM
Rick Onanian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

"Dale Benjamin" wrote:
My gut always told me that an optimized top end gave more gain than an
optimized low end, loaf going up hills because one doesn't gain or lose much
time or distance anyway, but really work going down, one gets better cooling
at speed, and gains more.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 08:21:28 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:
Your gut lied. ;-)

You lose a lot more time by taking it easy going up than you do going
down.


Mark is right. But, OTOH, going faster downhill is more fun than
going faster uphill -- so, for those of us just trying to have fun,
the optimized top end could provide more.

Personally, I just want to push both ends to further extremes...
--
Rick Onanian
  #9  
Old March 6th 04, 05:04 PM
Doug Goncz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

Eventually the 34-24-20-18-16-13-11 Megarange freewheel will be a custom
34-28-23-19-16-13-11 cassette. That will give 11 distinct gears.

The purpose is two: wide range. (There's nothing I love better than sprinting
downhill), and an automatic shifter to come, in which gear spacing must be
uniform. The user would be warned of an impending shift by a high or low tone
and would need to feel the same change from gear to gear each time.

Gear charts listed in this group under:

Double step gearing

and other posts.

First to come: a lockout to eliminate 6 of the 21 gears, each of which has a
redundant partner preferred in chainline etc.

Thanks so much for the wide variety of contributions!



My physics project at NVCC:
Google Groups, then "dgoncz" and some of:
ultracapacitor bicycle fluorescent flywheel inverter
  #10  
Old March 6th 04, 05:30 PM
David Reuteler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tested wide range gears Saturday

Rick Onanian wrote:
Mark is right. But, OTOH, going faster downhill is more fun than
going faster uphill -- so, for those of us just trying to have fun,
the optimized top end could provide more.
Personally, I just want to push both ends to further extremes...


hmmmm .. the fastest i ever remember descending was in white bird, idaho
at around 62mph. my gearing had little to do with it, tho since i hadn't
pedaled for all but the very beginning of the descent.

actually .. i normally recover on the descent and put most of my energy
into the ascent. that's the new me, tho. i shaved a lot of time off the
cycle by skipping the 15 minute recovery period/victory dance/brake check/
food & water break at the summit.

actually that's a lie i still do that.

i love that.

i optimize the low end. for normal use that's a 38/28, for touring that's
a 24/28. my top end is a 48/13. i guess i wouldn't mind a 12, tho. thanks
campag.
--
david reuteler

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advantages of Higher and Lower Gears? Elisa Francesca Roselli General 21 April 3rd 04 06:13 AM
Wide gears (11-32) on a 105 hub? Arthur Harris Techniques 1 November 30th 03 07:48 PM
Usable gears on 53,39 x 25,12 9 speed? Mike S. Techniques 4 September 27th 03 02:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.