Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?

I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the rear
hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I thought
it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a pleasure to
ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector chain)
Anyway, on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing but city
streets) I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear
wheel and just use the three gears on the crank. So, why not offer a
bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear
bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?

On Aug 21, 12:12*pm, 21trumpets wrote:
I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the rear
hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I thought
it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a pleasure to
ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector chain)
Anyway, on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing but city
streets) I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear
wheel and just use the three gears on the crank. So, why not offer a
bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear
bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?

Most folks don't shift as you do (using the 3 chain rings on the crank
instead of the rear). I live where it's mostly flat and I rarely shift
out of the middle chain ring. I do run the full 8 speed cassette in
the rear. So yes, it's nice to have lots of gears. Shifting is not
that complex with index shifting and just a bit of getting used to how
to shift efficiently.

-Tom

In article
,
21trumpets wrote:

I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the
rear hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I
thought it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a
pleasure to ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector
chain) Anyway, on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing
but city streets) I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for
the rear wheel and just use the three gears on the crank. So, why not
offer a bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of
multi-gear bicycles? It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills
and speed, but do bicyles really need 18 choices?

Well, your MTB is a little behind the times since you can get 27 now!

"Do bicyclists need so many gears" depends on the purpose of riding a
bike. For a 3 mile round trip on flat terrain to the coffee shop, one
gear would probably be enough. For a 3,000 mile ride across the US, all
27, would likely be used. For bike racing, all those gears can be
helpful.

I've got a 14 speed bike, a 16 speed bike, an 18 speed bike and a 24
speed tandem. On most rides I use some but not all of the gears, but
over the course of a year I use all the gears on all the bikes.

I've also got a 3 speed hub geared bike which I use for commuting and
errands as well as for fun rides. It's got a wide enough range of gears
for most of the terrain around here, but the jumps between gears are big.

As someone whose 1st bike was a 3-speed Schwinn with a Sturmey-Archer
hub, I can say that it is really nice to have the 21 gears on my city
bike. I'll call the front 3 ranges under, middle, and over. 1st under is
great for really steep hills that you'd have to walk a 3-speed up. 7th
over is needed for downhills. Under way on the level, I'm usually
shifting between 3rd to 5th middle.

It is nice to not have to get pedalling really fast to get into the next
gear, like you do on a 3-speed.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:12:44 -0700, 21trumpets wrote:

I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the rear
hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I thought
it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a pleasure to
ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector chain) Anyway,
on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing but city streets) I
found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear wheel and just
use the three gears on the crank. So, why not offer a bike with that
configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?

I agree. I @usually@ use 3 or 4 gears however 3 are at one end of the
range and the other towards the other, just that side of middle. Until a
suitable solution with this 3 close range and bail-out gear is available
(ugly looking setup with massive derailer to take up masses of slack just
for the one gear, ew!) I'm happy to stick to my 21 gears (so about 17 in
reality). You could just ride 5/6 in the back and one up front tho.

21trumpets wrote:
I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the rear
hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I thought
it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a pleasure to
ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector chain)
Anyway, on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing but city
streets) I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear
wheel and just use the three gears on the crank. So, why not offer a
bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear
bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?
I live in the flats and my compact crank of 20 gears I use most of them
but no need really for the low gears here. It would be great in the
mountains if I can figure out how to get the bike and me to the mountains.

Given some gears overlap the need for all of them has to do with
shifting and which chain ring you are on. I will take as many as I can
get within reason. In a huge 20 mile wind yesterday up a few rolling his
those lower gears were great I am spinner. Going back with that wind I
manage to get up to 33 mph and did not spin the gear out but I would not
have minded even another gear to push at times.

--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT), 21trumpets
wrote:

I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle.

Do you really need three gears? People have ridden daily in many
parts of the world with just one gear.

It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed,

Do you really need speed? And there are plenty of people in
moderately hilly places who ride with only one gear.

Do you really need three?

On Aug 21, 2:12*pm, 21trumpets wrote:
I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear
wheel and just use the three gears on the crank.

That's one way to do it. Rear shifters seem "easier" to use to me--
certainly less chance of dropping the chain, although current front
derailleurs and chainrings have made dropping chains much, much less
of an issue than it was back in the bad old days.

Many riders concern themselves with chain angularity, trying to keep
the chain as "straight" as possible. That is, using 2 or 3 cogs (rear)
that line up well with the chainring (front) being used. (Excuse me if
you're way ahead of me here): Spending a few minutes with a gear chart
might show you different combinations that give you the same gear inch
ratio as the three you speak of using while giving a straighter chain
line.

I have a triple on an old 8sp Ergo (Campagnolo) bike that works well
to give three gear ranges, from a fairly low low gear (30t x 23t) to a
fairly high high gear (52t x 12). With a 42t middle chainring, that's
a fair number of gears in between low and high, that are pretty well
closely spaced. Fair enough, works well.

But... I ride sometimes in groups of racers, guys who are generally
(ahem) faster than me. The more one-tooth gaps between gears, the
better-- for me. Some deny this, but for me (and I'm not alone), for
example, a 17t cog might be a little small, giving an uncomfortable
pedaling tempo at a given speed, while shifting to a 15t cog might be
a different uncomfortable pedaling tempo, where a 16t cog might put me
right in the groove. And of course, if you don't have the cog
available, you can't shift into it g.

I have a 9sp bike also, haven't gone to 10 or 11 as of yet, but for my
use, the 9sp cog set gives one more cog that fills in a two-tooth gap.
Ten speed or 11 would be two more gaps filled. There's no real
increase in complexity per se as chainrings and cogs go up in number,
but cassettes and chains are more (sometimes much more) expensive, and
might not last as long, either.

So, why not offer a
bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear
bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?

As others have said, that depends on use. Look around, there are all
kinds of "for sale new in the bike shop" solutions available, all with
loyal users and adherents, from fixed-gear single speed, to dual-sided
fixed or freewheel hubs, to derailleurs with 33 nominal choices (3
'rings, 11cogs, and duplicate or near-duplicate gears fairly abounding
g, as can be seen by using a gear chart) and hubs with internal gear
sets that have lots more gear ratios choices than the old Sturmey-
Archer three speed setups.

Internal geared hub, belt drive, "roller" brakes (not familiar with
these, they look like a disc setup):
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/soho/soho/

I don't have any experience with this bike but it looks like the bike
I should have had years ago when I was a two-wheeled commuter in a
town with a few steep little hills on the route. Pretty sweet, at
least in the concept-- no worries about keeping a chain lubed during
the rainy season, and brakes that work when wet, too (assuming).

Cool beans! --D-y

21trumpets wrote:
I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the rear
hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I thought
it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a pleasure to
ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector chain)
Anyway, on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing but city
streets) I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear
wheel and just use the three gears on the crank. So, why not offer a
bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear
bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?

They need a lot more than 18 choices.

I prefer a 14 speed rear internal hub coupled to a quadruple crankset
with a Schlumpf Mountain Drive (internal bottom bracket gearing). That
gives me 112 gear choices.

On Aug 21, 8:12*pm, 21trumpets wrote:
I recently fixed up an older three speed bicyle. The kind where you
shift the gears with your thumb and the gears are internal in the rear
hub. I guess there's many manufacturers of this at one time. I thought
it was a Raleigh, but turns out to be an Eaton. It was a pleasure to
ride. (although a nightmare to adjust the gear selector chain)
Anyway, on my "mountain bike" (which never will see anthing but city
streets) I found it was easier to ignore the gear shift for the rear
wheel and just use the three gears on the crank. So, why not offer a
bike with that configuration to simplify the complexity of multi-gear
bicycles?
It's clear a few gears are neccessary for hills and speed, but do
bicyles really need 18 choices?

No. If you're not racing, that rules out the top end (except for
thrill seekers on downhills) and the other gears can be wider
spaced. Avoiding the steepest hills and getting off and walking
occasionally means you can miss off a couple of your lowest gears. So
even in a hilly area it is possible to make do with about four
different ratios. Say 47", 58", 68", 76" because of forced resting
the legs are fresher for the uphill sections and can manage without
extra low gears such as 32" - 40"

The suggested ratios are met with sprockets 16, 18, 21 & 28 with a 45t
chainwheel on 27"