|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many Gear Choices?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do Most Riders Really Need So Many 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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chain Choices Cassette Choices 10 Speed Dura-Ace | [email protected] | Techniques | 24 | December 26th 08 05:35 AM |
Muni Choices!!! | Brian O. | Unicycling | 5 | June 14th 08 10:21 AM |
Transport Choices??? | TrailRat | UK | 16 | February 27th 07 05:07 PM |
DH Rim Choices... | recycled | Unicycling | 13 | June 29th 05 08:16 AM |
HRM Choices | M Powell | General | 2 | September 23rd 04 03:52 PM |