21 Gears - How Come Only Four Have Any Purpose?

[bovlomov]

Just come in from a ride and thinking about this subject ......... and knowing I'm not a high-revving 2stroke, but a low-revving 4stoke.

Nicely put!

I'm the same. I have thick legs, and they don't appreciate being spun about at high speed.

Perhaps someone has proved that faster is more efficient in a racing setting, but if we're not competing we don't give a stuff about that. We do what works for us. Anyway, who's to say that all those extra rotations don't wear out the body in other ways?

[Mick F]

Just looking at my typo ................
I'm a 4stoke engine.
I have four filthy dirty hairy old old stokers shovelling coal to power me along!

We have discussions on here regarding saddles and riding positions, plus discussions of handlebar heights and reaches, and how we're all different proportioned. We have discussions regarding crank lengths and Q factors, and we have them about cadence too.

All these things are down to personal preferences. We're all different, and we all ride our bikes differently.

I cannot spin for any length of time. It hurts.
I like to feel weight on the pedals as I press and turn the cranks. My legs prefer it.

[Grarea]

I am still a knackered old lawnmower engine in need of a service.
I need all the gears I can get.

[philvantwo]

Mick F's bike has got 20inch wheels so does that make a difference?

[Mick F]

One of my bikes has 20" wheels.
The other one is a Mercian with 700c.
Before that, it was a Raleigh Clubman with 27" wheels.

I've always pedalled the same. Spinning hurts me.

[woodface]

Glad this turned into such an interesting discussion. Cadence seems to be a case of 'different 2-strokes for different folks'

Had time for a close look at the chainrings and counted 42-34-24.

Very happy with the bike. The fact I won't use most gears is irrelevant if I have the ones I need. Some of us old-timers remember being grateful for three from Sturmey Archer on our boneshakers...

[Mick F]

Yes, we were grateful for three of them.

The issue here, is that we need gears that suit us, and not what suits the bike designers.
In all my adult cycling life - commuting and touring - I've fretted and worried about gear ratios. It's only comparatively recently that it's occurred to me that I need lots of them - "a gear for every occasion".

Someone said on here - and forgive me, I can't remember who it was - said that you should pick the lowest gear you can considering climbing the steepest hill fully loaded and with a hangover .......... and pick the highest gear you can find ........... and then fit as many in between as you can afford.

[hamster]

42T does sounds rather small for a big chainring...even to an inveterate spinner with knees that complain after a day out mashing big gears.

I suspect that the clue is that it's an e-bike. A high gear would give a low motor speed and high current draw, potentially cooking the motor and/or drive circuits if pulling away from standstill in top.

[Postboxer]

Will it be designed to go at 15mph, so the gearing and motor are set up to facilitate that, without planning that the rider might want to pedal the bike faster?

[gaz]

Will it be designed to go at 15mph, ...

Assuming it's a UK legal EAPC the electric assistance will be designed to cut out at 15mph, the bike can still be pedalled or freewheeled faster if the rider so wishes and is able to do so.

My usual top is 38 x 14 on 700C, a lower gear than the OP but I can wind it up and sustain 20mph comfortably on the flat should the moment take me (which it rarely does).

[Randy_Butternubs]

Just come in from a ride and thinking about this subject ......... and knowing I'm not a high-revving 2stroke, but a low-revving 4stoke.

Because I love being pedantic: generally speaking 2-stroke engines have lower rev limits than 4-stroke ones. But they fire twice as often per revolution.

[RickH]

It's more efficient to spin your legs faster than to grind a big gear. If you look at seasoned riders they typically pedal at something like 90+rpm. You can ride slowly (say 10-12mph on the flat) turning the pedals slowly but it's pretty hard to do so at 18mph.

You cannot ride comfortably for long distances or ride fast with slow pedal rpm (cadence). As you get fitter you will probably increase your cadence - it will also reduce the loading on your knees.

Utterly incorrect.

.............. or at least for me.

I cannot be the only cyclist that doesn't like a high cadence.
When I had a cadence sensor, my average cadence was 67rpm. I find that anything over 80rpm is hard work and very very tiring.
Give me a nice high gear on the flat - 100+ gear inches at circa 15mph.

I'm probably at the opposite extreme - my average cadence in the last 6 months is 86 & will be brought down by a combination of the 250ft in 1/2 mile climb to our house at the end of most rides (where I'm slogging away at around 50-60rpm in bottom gear - 36F/42R ~24") & various rides with others that go extremely slowly (moving average speeds around 8mph or less). It isn't uncommon for rides that don't have either of those factors to have an average in the mid 90s. A gear of 100" or above is only ever used if I'm doing more than 30mph (according to Garmin Connect I peaked out on a downhill stretch yesterday at 121rpm & 35.6mph before I stopped pedalling & concentrated on my "aero tuck" ).

I'm not sure I have a natural high cadence but probably more of a habituated one having practised when I got into cycling as a teenager having been told that a higher cadence was better. It definitely improved a friend's performance - there were 3 of us used to ride together quite a bit. We were similar ages & fitness but 2 of us were "spinners" & one was a bit of a "grinder". He was the one always getting left behind until we got him to practice a higher cadence, after which time we were all pretty evenly matched.

[ianrobo]

It's more efficient to spin your legs faster than to grind a big gear. If you look at seasoned riders they typically pedal at something like 90+rpm. You can ride slowly (say 10-12mph on the flat) turning the pedals slowly but it's pretty hard to do so at 18mph.

You cannot ride comfortably for long distances or ride fast with slow pedal rpm (cadence). As you get fitter you will probably increase your cadence - it will also reduce the loading on your knees.

Utterly incorrect.

.............. or at least for me.

I cannot be the only cyclist that doesn't like a high cadence.
When I had a cadence sensor, my average cadence was 67rpm. I find that anything over 80rpm is hard work and very very tiring.
Give me a nice high gear on the flat - 100+ gear inches at circa 15mph.

and has you suggest everyone is different, I used to be like that higher gear lower cad and then reading up I switched to higher cad/lower gear.

The difference for me at lest it is has built up a tremendous aerobic base for my longer rides and is much easier on my thighs etc.

However even in the pro peloton it is no different and we only have to compare Froome against Contador to see that.

Saying all that I do a lot of climbing, I like it and no question when going up spinning more in lower gears is far less taxing and which is why I try to get an average cad of over 80 on any significant ride I do.

[Mick F]

I do a lot of climbing too. In fact, I climb hills each and every single ride. It's a symptom of living in Cornwall.

I find that I have a higher cadence climbing than on the flat, but not much. I tend to treat my gearing as a Constant Velocity Gearbox - or as near as I can get it. Constant cadence suits me fine, but I know I can't have it. It would be the Holy Grail for me.

My Moulton is now 90sp bike. Bottom gear 16" and top gear 134"

[ianrobo]

nice large range for you !! I am actually trying to find a ride down in cornwall/devon 2018 to do with loads of climbing, any pointers ?