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

Nederlander low gear innovation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 15th 20, 07:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,271
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

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.* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.* 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.

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.




--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #22  
Old February 15th 20, 07:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,271
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

On 2/15/2020 1:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 15 February 2020 11:53:32 UTC-5, 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.* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.* 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
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 The BPA power-towers on Lolo Pass are such an eye sore, but you can cut cheap Christmas trees from the right of way, assuming you want to risk your life driving on narrow, snow covered mountain roads to cut a Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

-- Jay Beattie.


I've ridden on heavily overgrown logging/mining roads/trails and on trails where I'd be riding up a hill on the trail with poor sight lines and then find that the trail took a hard turn and a greatly increased incline. I can see where a single chainring setup would be beneficial there since it can be hard to get from the middle ring to the granny ring in such a short period of time.


So are you switching to 1x?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #23  
Old February 15th 20, 08:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 682
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 7:40:07 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2020 1:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 15 February 2020 11:53:32 UTC-5, 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.* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.* 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
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 The BPA power-towers on Lolo Pass are such an eye sore, but you can cut cheap Christmas trees from the right of way, assuming you want to risk your life driving on narrow, snow covered mountain roads to cut a Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

-- Jay Beattie.


I've ridden on heavily overgrown logging/mining roads/trails and on trails where I'd be riding up a hill on the trail with poor sight lines and then find that the trail took a hard turn and a greatly increased incline. I can see where a single chainring setup would be beneficial there since it can be hard to get from the middle ring to the granny ring in such a short period of time.


So are you switching to 1x?


--
- Frank Krygowski


What is that for a stupid question. There are other requirements you know that determine ones choice.

Lou
  #24  
Old February 15th 20, 09:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,575
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

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.* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.* 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.
  #25  
Old February 15th 20, 11:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,392
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 3:12:01 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:39:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


Well, that's all there is to it then. No discussion about what's good
about it vs. what's bad. It's taking over. So ya gotta keep up!

Will those of us with two or more chainrings still be allowed to post
here?

- Frank Krygowski
  #26  
Old Yesterday, 02:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-8, 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.


The linked article is about a kludge accomplished by someone who
actually wanted 1X on his clearly custom bike. 1X has the benefit of
being a rock-solid set-up in rough terrain. You should read about it.
https://tinyurl.com/v3un986


I tried to read that, but all I got was a photograph.

You constantly bad-mouth basically anything you don't own and with which
you have zero experience.


I have test ridden a couple 1x bikes, but not for long. The longest was
when the president of the local mountain bike club met me in our forest
preserve to look at possible trail work projects. We traded bikes for
maybe half an hour on the back trails. His bike (I don't recall the
brand) was super light, rigid, with probably 4" tires, disc brakes and
1x transmission.

It shifted very nicely, but when I asked about it, all he said was "I
never have to worry about a front shift." OK, for the twisty, lumpy
single track trails in this little forest I could see that being nice.
(The only time I ever broke a chain was in there, trying to hit the
granny gear for a quick super-steep rise.)

But otherwise, ISTM front shifting is a big benefit. Look ahead, see
"this is going to be steep" and execute one front shift that gives you a
whole range of low gears, with the lowest being lower than a 1x could
get. (I think my lowest is a 24 - 34 and it can be shifted with very
ordinary derailleurs.)

You certainly loose potential range, but there isn’t a problem getting to
low gears with 1X systems due to the fact that modern cassettes are 10-50
so the modern equivalent of my MTB which is 2x10 has broadly the same range
as the modern 1X12 the modern is just slightly lower geared, at both ends.

But having low gears or high gears isn’t a problem though with older
systems you have to make a choice, as my commute bike with 1X9.

The main reason wasn’t chain slap etc, or throwing but frame/suspension
design at least for MTB for gravel bikes etc I’m less convinced.

Meanwhile, people who have owned doubles, triples, 1X, IGH, etc., etc.
make reasoned decisions to run -- or not run -- 1X. They're not crazy.
They're not deceived. Guys who are kludging expensive SRAM systems
obviously believe in the superiority of 1X, just like you believe in the
superiority of triple cranks and cantis -- crap I dumped long ago and never looked back.


But can't we discuss? When is 1x more sensible than 2x? Or 3x? When is
it not? What are the advantages and disadvantages?


Roger Merriman

  #27  
Old Yesterday, 02:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,392
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-8, 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.

The linked article is about a kludge accomplished by someone who
actually wanted 1X on his clearly custom bike. 1X has the benefit of
being a rock-solid set-up in rough terrain. You should read about it.
https://tinyurl.com/v3un986


I tried to read that, but all I got was a photograph.

You constantly bad-mouth basically anything you don't own and with which
you have zero experience.


I have test ridden a couple 1x bikes, but not for long. The longest was
when the president of the local mountain bike club met me in our forest
preserve to look at possible trail work projects. We traded bikes for
maybe half an hour on the back trails. His bike (I don't recall the
brand) was super light, rigid, with probably 4" tires, disc brakes and
1x transmission.

It shifted very nicely, but when I asked about it, all he said was "I
never have to worry about a front shift." OK, for the twisty, lumpy
single track trails in this little forest I could see that being nice.
(The only time I ever broke a chain was in there, trying to hit the
granny gear for a quick super-steep rise.)

But otherwise, ISTM front shifting is a big benefit. Look ahead, see
"this is going to be steep" and execute one front shift that gives you a
whole range of low gears, with the lowest being lower than a 1x could
get. (I think my lowest is a 24 - 34 and it can be shifted with very
ordinary derailleurs.)

You certainly loose potential range, but there isn’t a problem getting to
low gears with 1X systems due to the fact that modern cassettes are 10-50
so the modern equivalent of my MTB which is 2x10 has broadly the same range
as the modern 1X12 the modern is just slightly lower geared, at both ends..

But having low gears or high gears isn’t a problem though with older
systems you have to make a choice, as my commute bike with 1X9.

The main reason wasn’t chain slap etc, or throwing but frame/suspension
design at least for MTB for gravel bikes etc I’m less convinced.


So you're saying having a suspended rear wheel makes it trickier to provide good
front shifting? If so, I can envision that as a possibility. But I'd love to see
an article on the mechanical specifics.

The 1x bike I test rode the longest (admittedly, not very long) was rigid front
and rear, with something like 4" tires providing all the "suspension." All the
owner told me was "I don't have to worry about front shifts."

- Frank Krygowski
  #28  
Old Yesterday, 02:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-8, 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.

The linked article is about a kludge accomplished by someone who
actually wanted 1X on his clearly custom bike. 1X has the benefit of
being a rock-solid set-up in rough terrain. You should read about it.
https://tinyurl.com/v3un986

I tried to read that, but all I got was a photograph.

You constantly bad-mouth basically anything you don't own and with which
you have zero experience.

I have test ridden a couple 1x bikes, but not for long. The longest was
when the president of the local mountain bike club met me in our forest
preserve to look at possible trail work projects. We traded bikes for
maybe half an hour on the back trails. His bike (I don't recall the
brand) was super light, rigid, with probably 4" tires, disc brakes and
1x transmission.

It shifted very nicely, but when I asked about it, all he said was "I
never have to worry about a front shift." OK, for the twisty, lumpy
single track trails in this little forest I could see that being nice.
(The only time I ever broke a chain was in there, trying to hit the
granny gear for a quick super-steep rise.)

But otherwise, ISTM front shifting is a big benefit. Look ahead, see
"this is going to be steep" and execute one front shift that gives you a
whole range of low gears, with the lowest being lower than a 1x could
get. (I think my lowest is a 24 - 34 and it can be shifted with very
ordinary derailleurs.)

You certainly loose potential range, but there isn’t a problem getting to
low gears with 1X systems due to the fact that modern cassettes are 10-50
so the modern equivalent of my MTB which is 2x10 has broadly the same range
as the modern 1X12 the modern is just slightly lower geared, at both ends.

But having low gears or high gears isn’t a problem though with older
systems you have to make a choice, as my commute bike with 1X9.

The main reason wasn’t chain slap etc, or throwing but frame/suspension
design at least for MTB for gravel bikes etc I’m less convinced.


So you're saying having a suspended rear wheel makes it trickier to provide good
front shifting? If so, I can envision that as a possibility. But I'd love to see
an article on the mechanical specifics.

The 1x bike I test rode the longest (admittedly, not very long) was rigid front
and rear, with something like 4" tires providing all the "suspension." All the
owner told me was "I don't have to worry about front shifts."

- Frank Krygowski


Apparently so more so for more modern MTB which are long slack beasties,
and this is a design rather than a usability issue. Ie it’s a pain
apparently for frame design rather than the rider.

I have converted a MTB from 3X9 to 1X9 and it stopped the having to swap
from one ring to another and then shift up/down the cassette, so since it’s
my commute bike so pan flat the loss of some of the range for a simpler set
up is a boon,

This said my other two bikes a Gravel and MTB are 2X9/10 and frankly I have
no desire to change, both are flexible with using the full range of the
cassette if need be, and as others have said being able drop from one chain
ring to another when you hit a steep ramp is useful.

Triples are a royal pain but doubles for a performance bike I do like.

Roger Merriman



  #29  
Old Yesterday, 03:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
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.* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.* 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
  #30  
Old Yesterday, 09:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,271
Default Nederlander low gear innovation

On 2/16/2020 8:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:


Triples are a royal pain but doubles for a performance bike I do like.


I have four bikes with triple chainrings, all because they were (at
least at some time) used for touring.

These days, the only one that gets any use of the smallest chainring is
the tandem. I don't find any to be a bother. The little ring is there,
but it's easy to not use it.

If I ever load up heavily to go camping, it will still be there.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




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
The lighter side of innovation AMuzi Techniques 2 January 15th 18 09:14 PM
innovation risks Frank Krygowski[_2_] Techniques 28 January 20th 14 10:43 PM
Speaking of innovation... Frank Krygowski[_3_] Techniques 17 October 17th 11 09:34 PM
Racing innovation? DirtRoadie Techniques 39 June 3rd 10 06:52 AM
innovation - pedal grab unigeee Unicycling 28 April 14th 04 04:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.