Cyclothesist wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:25am
A personal opinion...
...
Thanks for your take.
I am not that good at the maths, would you say from my post below, that the 2x (polygon) option would be better?
For me I will mostly be riding on welsh country roads and forestry tracks but lots of steep hills so low gear and road cycling will be most important with forestry tracks and true off roading the minority.
I don't want a full road bike though because maybe I am just conditioned to like mountain bike styles more due to being into it when I was young, I just like the style of bikes more even if maybe less than ideal for mostly road riding.
axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:23am
17.5" to 108"
Can you explain what these metrics mean?
Traditional English way of giving gear size. Front divided by Rear and multiplied by the wheel diameter in inches (typically 26 or 27 will do). Many modern people will pooh-pooh the accuracy of this and add all sorts of fiddle factors, but it is still a good way of giving a comparison of gear sizes.
Something else to consider with 1x, the small front aluminium chainrings wear quite quickly. I was surprised at the wear on a 40T front I have on a n Alpine double.
Btw with one of those two bikes listed, if I wanted to get 'sassy' and buy a 12 cassette with 52 tooth dinnerplate would it be compatible given they are new bikes? Will all the recent dinner plate cassette be compatible?
axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:23am
17.5" to 108"
Can you explain what these metrics mean?
Traditional English way of giving gear size. Front divided by Rear and multiplied by the wheel diameter in inches (typically 26 or 27 will do). Many modern people will pooh-pooh the accuracy of this and add all sorts of fiddle factors, but it is still a good way of giving a comparison of gear sizes.
Something else to consider with 1x, the small front aluminium chainrings wear quite quickly. I was surprised at the wear on a 40T front I have on a n Alpine double.
Well chainrings are cheap so not a big deal there as I see.
Can you rather give your old english gear range to me in teeth of lowest/highest gears front and back so I can understand it? ?
What peetee says about cost is bang on the button.
I recently got a new bike from Spa, and initially asked for 1x12 Deore. They sucked their teeth and made Yorkshire economy noises, then priced the gear range in both that and 3x9. The price difference was dramatic, and replacement bits for x9 are far cheaper too, so I adopted their Yorkshire Economy advice, getting a very slightly wider range to boot.
If i’d been looking for a “performance bike”, CX or something, the higher price would possibly have been worth it, but not for an all-terrain shopping and touring bike.
Last edited by Nearholmer on 15 Aug 2024, 10:50am, edited 1 time in total.
axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:23am
17.5" to 108"
Can you explain what these metrics mean? I only know how to go by teeth of smallest and largest cogs on either side for high/low. I am not bothered about range, but rather just want a really low lowest gear, the rest is inconsequential to me, except 'average' performance in the rest of the range. Not bothered about big jumps either. I would even be fine with like 3 gears! One - super low for steep hills, low for medium/flat slow cruise, high for flat/downhill.
These are gear inches. They describe the overall gearing including the ratio at the front, the ratio at the rear and the size of the driven wheel.
You need to decide the range of gearing that you want for the bike. After that you can look at the options for achieving that. It's pointless talking about individual gear ratios or numbers of gears until you've established the range that you want.
There are many online gear calculators that will help you compare the options once you have established that range.
I'd learn to translate the new inches lingo tbh - it'll be useful ongoing!
20" is really low - up the side of a house-type low. No use for anything else.
100" is a really 'big' gear - spin along if you're as fit at, in excess of 20mph. No use for anything else.
Between lie lots of really useful ratios that you'll use lots.
biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:44am
Can you rather give your old english gear range to me in teeth of lowest/highest gears front and back so I can understand it? ?
Far to many variables. e.g 48 front 14 rear gives a gear close to 40 front 12 rear. For flat land riding I like 48/20 for a gear (that is about 65").
In the previous post, I forgot to complete the description by saying that the calculation gives an effective wheel diameter, i.e the size of the wheel if you rode a penny farthing.
Nearholmer wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:51am
Gear Inches is an insane and archaic system, but you just have to get used to it!
I disagree. A single number that tells you all you need to know about a particular gear ratio, or a set of single numbers by which you can instantly judge the range of a system, or compare two systems. A small number is an easy gear, a larger number is harder. What's not to like?
Maybe I was being just a tad deliberately provocative, although I completely stand by my contention.
IMO, a rational system would probably be “metres developed per pedal rotation”, so how far forward the bike moves for each turn of the pedals. At least that tells one something useful, as opposed to how big the wheel on a penny-farthing would be to feel the same.
Nearholmer wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:51am
Gear Inches is an insane and archaic system, but you just have to get used to it!
Agreed! Another way of classifying gears is by 'progression' - the distance travelled forward with 1 complete revolution of the cranks. That is intuitively easier to grasp but doesn't seem to be used much.
Bonefishblues' summary of useful high and low gear inches is good.
Nearholmer wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:51am
Gear Inches is an insane and archaic system, but you just have to get used to it!
...
I disagree. A single number that tells you all you need to know about a particular gear ratio, or a set of single numbers by which you can instantly judge the range of a system, or compare two systems. A small number is an easy gear, a larger number is harder. What's not to like?
...
It's a very useful measure. It should move into being expressed in SI units asap. (See also wheels and tyres.)
?