Do we now have too many gears ?

[reohn2]

so from what R2 has said I would suppose that he might support my contention that the main reasons for using a triple are ones of gear accessibility and chainline, rather than having 'more gears' per se.

My reasons for using triple dérailleur gearing with custom cassettes is that I spin a highish cadence,need low gears,don't need high gears,don't like wide chasms between ratios andlike to keep something like a straight chainline for the majority of the time.

I would say that any derailleur setup has the capability (in theory) to be configured to give a special set of ratios. It is mildly diverting to do this and if you get something that meets your needs well it is possibly time well spent (confessions of a gearing nerd... ).

That's certainly applies to me

Having developed a cassette system that made this very easy, Shimano and others have in recent years spent a lot of time and effort making it more and more difficult in various ways. The recent moves to a larger inner ring BCD on road triples are hardly a step forwards....

Utter madness and unnecessary from my POV.
Cassette cogs attached to spiders in groups of three or four,along with different cable pull ratios for different grousets,serves only Mr Shimano and weight weenies/racers
An inner ring BCD that allows only a 30t ring serves no one but the strong or daft!

So if 15% intervals are OK for touring and a range of about 600% is adequate then really we need about 13 good gears rather than those plus a load of others we don't intend to use or that simply duplicate others.

The former dictates the latter and the former is too wide in the gears I use most.

I guess what I'm driving at is that if (say) you could get something a bit like a Rohloff but lighter, cheaper, and with more spoke hole options (something the Alfine 11 could have been but isn't quite) then there would be whole swathes of cycle applications where derailleurs ought hardly to get a look-in.
cheers

The main problem with any IGH is that the ratios are fixed within the hub and can only be altered up or down enbloc,so unless the those ratios suit the rider's riding style,any adjustment has to be made by the rider not the gearing.So for me there simply isn't enough ratios in that they're too far apart.
The Alfine 11 was an opportunity wasted by Shimano IMO and unless it's faults are rectified will turn more people against IGH than it will attract due to it's failure rate,who wants to have to keep sending a wheel back under warrantee or having to buy a new hub after a service life cut short by water ingress,or a a gearchange so finicky that transmission is compromised or sometimes lost altogther?
The Alfine 8 by all accounts is much better and for everyday use for those who don't need a huge range of gearing,will fit the commuting/shopping/get on and go clean trouser leg bike bill.
I can never see an IGH ever filling the boots of a dérailleur system for all the dérailleur's faults.
That said there are those that like 'em ,good luck to 'em,whatever strums yer strings,mine are tuned into a triple and 8or9sp customised cassette though my cycling is purely recreational.

[[XAP]Bob]

I can never see an IGH ever filling the boots of a dérailleur system for all the dérailleur's faults.
That said there are those that like 'em ,good luck to 'em,whatever strums yer strings,mine are tuned into a triple and 8or9sp customised cassette though my cycling is purely recreational.

And I think there lies the nub of the matter...

Recreational vehicles (motor or cycle) don't need to be practical - you *can* use an Atom to do the weekly shop, but when it's wet you might think about taking the Fiesta instead - nice and warm and cosy.

When you are off for a recreational ride the enjoyment of the ride is more important than the practicality of the vehicle. When I commute the practicality outweighs the enjoyment - although I now enjoy having a practical vehicle which is now fun as well.

You wouldn't put a "power sapping" hub dynamo in, or use hub brakes - despite the brakes having enough stopping power to lock the wheels and the dynamo sapping a couple of feet a mile...
Whereas I would fit either in a heartbeat - lighting is part of the vehicle, not something I have to bring along with me - brakes that rarely need feckling and don't break through the rims.
Similarly an IGH will get me where I want to go, within a few percent of the "race car" time, but will last just fine with much less attention than a dangly gear system.

[Mick F]

...... a range of about 600% is adequate ..........

Here we are again talking about percentages again!

Call me picky if you want, but my bottom gear is 26.5" so if I add 600% to that, I get 185" for top gear!

My top gear is 117", so my range is 342% (ish)
ie (26.5 x 342/100) + 26.5 = 117.13

[reohn2]

And I think there lies the nub of the matter...

Recreational vehicles (motor or cycle) don't need to be practical - you *can* use an Atom to do the weekly shop, but when it's wet you might think about taking the Fiesta instead - nice and warm and cosy.

When you are off for a recreational ride the enjoyment of the ride is more important than the practicality of the vehicle. When I commute the practicality outweighs the enjoyment - although I now enjoy having a practical vehicle which is now fun as well.

You wouldn't put a "power sapping" hub dynamo in, or use hub brakes - despite the brakes having enough stopping power to lock the wheels and the dynamo sapping a couple of feet a mile...
Whereas I would fit either in a heartbeat - lighting is part of the vehicle, not something I have to bring along with me - brakes that rarely need feckling and don't break through the rims.
Similarly an IGH will get me where I want to go, within a few percent of the "race car" time, but will last just fine with much less attention than a dangly gear system.

But though my riding is recreational,it's no less practical,an IGH will do what my dérailleur bikes will do but it would need me to retune my cadence range to the ways of the IGH that's a step too far.
For practicality purposes,an IGH in the right place is a handy tool,but the place has to be right.
BTW, my recreational vehicles don't get pampered,they're used on some rough and mucky terrain and in all weathers,the drivetrain take 10 minutes to clean thoroughly and rarely needs adjustment or maintenance,perhaps once a year which will include regreasing or renewing cables.
The most time spent servicing is on tyre checking,a quick inspection and inflation before a ride and a 10minute per tyre inspection including deflating and checking for foreign bodies then inflation once a month or so.
It takes me longer to wash and check the car every month.

[Brucey]

...an IGH will do what my dérailleur bikes will do but it would need me to retune my cadence range to the ways of the IGH that's a step too far.
For practicality purposes,an IGH in the right place is a handy tool,but the place has to be right....

you might surprise yourself yet.. .. after all you are talking about taking some sprockets out of your cassette because you tend just to change two at a time when they are too close together....

I'd be genuinely interested in what you thought of an Alfine 11 or a Rohloff; any loaners in bike shops near you...?

Here we are again talking about percentages again!

Call me picky if you want, but my bottom gear is 26.5" so if I add 600% to that, I get 185" for top gear!

My top gear is 117", so my range is 342% (ish)
ie (26.5 x 342/100) + 26.5 = 117.13

I'm sure you can find many other ways of tying yourself in knots too. But the convention is that gearing steps when presented in %ages are normally indicated as %age increases in each gear (so starting with first gear 100%) and the 'total range' starts at zero.

Why?

Well, it could be because you can always climb off and walk...

cheers

[Mick F]

Yes, I know what the convention is, but it's wrong IMHO.

If I had a bike with a 100% gear range and the bottom gear was 25", what would my top gear be?
50"

If the same bike had a range of 200%, what would the top gear be?
75"

How about 600%?
175"

[reohn2]

you might surprise yourself yet.. .. after all you are talking about taking some sprockets out of your cassette because you tend just to change two at a time when they are too close together....

But that's not to make them as wide apart as an IGH would be,but then I suspect you knew that

I'd be genuinely interested in what you thought of an Alfine 11 or a Rohloff; any loaners in bike shops near you...?

My experience of IGH's is SA 3sp and Nexus 7.
My comments on Alfine 11 is from what I've read of their water ingress failures gear changing problems and wheel removal issues,I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole.
Rohloff,ah,now we're talking quality and class but not without it's issues.Widely spaced ratios,occasional flange breakages,spoke count, and not least of which is a lack of a decent ergonomic dropbar changer.
I've never ridden either and not likely to.
As I said up thread they suit some but not others,I'm one of those others.

[[XAP]Bob]

Yes, I know what the convention is, but it's wrong IMHO.

If I had a bike with a 100% gear range and the bottom gear was 25", what would my top gear be?
50"

If the same bike had a range of 200%, what would the top gear be?
75"

How about 600%?
175"

But put a "proper" low gear in there - 10", and then go up 1200% - 120".
A perfectly reasonable range, nice and low to climb hills whilst towing, decent top end for flying down the other side...

[Mick F]

10 plus 1,200% equals 130

[[XAP]Bob]

10 plus 1,200% equals 130

1200% of 10 is 120

[Mick F]

"of" is another term for "multiply".
Yes, it's obviously true that 10 x 1200% = 120.

My point is that if you had a 100% pay-rise you would have a doubling of your wages.
If you had a bike with a bottom gear of 25" and a 100% gear range, your top gear would be 50".

Using your method, the top gear would be the same as the bottom gear.
25" x 100% = 25"

My method comes out correct.
25" + 100% = 50"

Therefore 10" + 1,200% = 130"

[ron2old]

When I was looking to buy a new hybrid very recently. I came across a 1 x 11 Sram set up on a BMC Alpenchallenge. It had a 48t front with a 10 - 42 freewheel and was called the Sram xxx1 group set. It looked inviting although a little expensive at £3,400 on an Aluminium frame. So I decided to ride my current bike just using the one front chainring to see if it felt ok or was in any way limiting. What I found was that when going over the top of a hill a large jump in gear ratio was needed ready to maintain cadence for the downhill ride. Also I discovered that when approaching traffic lights or a junction I was unconsciously dropping from the large chainring to the inner chainring in readiness for later pulling away easily and quickly from the junction. So in my opinion there are times when you actually need a large jump between gears and there are times when you want small jumps between gears. All of this is only available with a derailleur set up. I ended up buying a Specialized Sirrus Pro with a compact 50/34 and a 11 - 32 freewheel which I haven't found wanting yet..

[reohn2]

.... I decided to ride my current bike just using the one front chainring to see if it felt ok or was in any way limiting. What I found was that when going over the top of a hill a large jump in gear ratio was needed ready to maintain cadence for the downhill ride. Also I discovered that when approaching traffic lights or a junction I was unconsciously dropping from the large chainring to the inner chainring in readiness for later pulling away easily and quickly from the junction. So in my opinion there are times when you actually need a large jump between gears and there are times when you want small jumps between gears.

I agree there are lots of times when a chainring change,either up or down can be most helpful,those of us who ride tandems are acutely aware of it more so than solo riders.

All of this is only available with a derailleur set up.

The big jump with the flick of a lever arguably yes but it wouldn't be a hardship to wind a Rohloff back few numbers to achieve the same result.

[Brucey]

The big jump with the flick of a lever arguably yes but it wouldn't be a hardship to wind a Rohloff back few numbers to achieve the same result.

well, quite. Most (all?) IGHs allow stationary shifting in most or all gears. This is invariably far, far quicker than using any derailleur system, and you don't need to plan ahead in the same way.

I do quite a lot of urban riding and I use IGH-equipped bikes for this; if the lights change at the wrong moment you need to brake, and most folk don't brake quickly and change gear, even if the controls might theoretically permit it. That and a simple lack of planning means that at most junctions riders of derailleur geared bikes are struggling to get underway whilst even the simplest IGH-equipped bike is off and gone.

Yesterday I was riding my 40lb Gazelle three-speed in town, and happened to be following a chap who was riding quite a nice Mercian; he wasn't in a big hurry but he was going at a fair lick. However, at an uphill T junction he struggled to get underway again (despite downshifting twice beforehand) and I confess I left him for dead, without any real exertion whatsoever. I'd simply snicked into first gear and I was off. This kind of thing is commonplace.

By contrast I've experienced (a few times) and seen (many times) people fail to make good chainring downshifts at the right time and even simply grind to a halt. CJ is critical of the 2-1 chainring downshift on a triple and I agree this can be a problem; it isn't always, but it can be. In point of fact I thought the old reverse action FDs that SunTour made were in certain respects a better idea; you could apply more force on such a downshift than any spring could ever exert.

To cite rapid block shifting on multi-ring derailleur systems as being an advantage over single ring systems is fair enough, but to consider it a possible advantage over IGHs is not in any way realistic; IME such shifts require prior notice, and are slower and less reliable than similar ones on most IGHs.

cheers

[[XAP]Bob]

I can change by chainring at a standstill - cos I can back pedal and push the chaintube to one side, watch the chain catch on the smaller ring (1 or 2) then adjust the cage as that bit of chain comes over the top.

But then 'bent trikes are just best