Proposed campaign: inapproriate gears

[mrjemm]

And that is so hard. Any LBS. Here. Anywhere.

[Mick F]

So what's different?
Bad advice, so you get the "wrong' bike.
Bad advice, so you buy the "wrong" components.

If - like I said - components were cheap, you could buy the wrong bits, and when you know what you want, you can change them easily. We are all different, we all want different things. One size doesn't suit all despite what the bike manufacturers and sellers want.

Bikes should be mix 'n' match, or pick 'n' mix ............ by design.

[mrjemm]

Agree and have a garage full of bits to show for it.

Rather wasteful though, and not encouraging for new folk who'd just like to buy off the shelf.

I think tc's original thought makes sense, in that something more generally useable by average Joe, comfortably, would discourage less and let folk learn for themselves which way to gear. Easier, lower, gearing to start with. Beyond Halfords though, mix'n match, and knowledgable sales-persons would be a nice way to develop the industry.

[blackbike]

I like how Ribble do their online bike builder. Good choice of parts, although it was better when they offered SRAM as well. Personally I prefer to spin rather than grind so I tend to ride lower gears than a lot of others. I can spend most of my rides in the 39T middle ring, even that is good for over 20mph.

Same here. On most of my rides I never leave the middle ring, and when I do it is to use the small ring for steep climbs. The large outer ring is irrelevant to me. I'd like to fit a MTB 42/32/22 chainset to my best road bike like I have to my tourers, but the STI brake levers make that impossible.

I do see a lot of inexperienced looking cyclists crawling along the country lanes on splendid new road bikes, and more often than not they are on the big ring at the front and one at the back too.

[Bicycler]

The large outer ring is irrelevant to me. I'd like to fit a MTB 42/32/22 chainset to my best road bike like I have to my tourers, but the STI brake levers make that impossible.

I blame marketing and 'groupsets', the need to pigeon hole cyclists into one camp or another rather than meet the needs of the majority who are neither road nor off-road racers. Mr Shimano needs to get his cable pull the same for all shifters and mechs, rather than assuming that no-one on a road bike needs low gears. Whilst he's at it he can call Mr Campagnolo and Mr SRAM and they can agree a common standard so that it's easier to mix and match.The current uncompetitive, proprietary, mutually-incompatible componentry is frankly a disgraceful scam.

[rfryer]

I think there's quite a practical answer to the original point about labelling new bikes. Each bike could report a maximum gradient (based on an average(*) rider in lowest gear at 5mph) and a maximum speed (based on a cadence of 90rpm in top gear). Although these figures could be exceeded by many cyclists, they would at least provide a basis for comparison with more real-world meaning than cog-counts or gear inches.

(*) Say, 70Kg and 100W for a men's bike, 60Kg and 80W for a ladies bike. Guessing wildly

[TrevA]

The large outer ring is irrelevant to me. I'd like to fit a MTB 42/32/22 chainset to my best road bike like I have to my tourers, but the STI brake levers make that impossible.

I blame marketing and 'groupsets', the need to pigeon hole cyclists into one camp or another rather than meet the needs of the majority who are neither road nor off-road racers. Mr Shimano needs to get his cable pull the same for all shifters and mechs, rather than assuming that no-one on a road bike needs low gears. Whilst he's at it he can call Mr Campagnolo and Mr SRAM and they can agree a common standard so that it's easier to mix and match.The current uncompetitive, proprietary, mutually-incompatible componentry is frankly a disgraceful scam.

But Mr Campagnolo has no interest in allowing you using a Sram mech or cassette with his shifters. He wants you to use all Campag stuff. One of the reasons i no longer use Campag.

[CJ]

Bringing this back onto topic: the reason ready-made bikes come with gears that to many of us (but not all, Mick!) seem rather high - at the top end at least - is that does actually suit two large sectors of the market: the sporty type and the occasional or short-distance-only cyclist.

When I started cycling regularly, to school, aged 13, I had a 46 ring and 14-24 freewheel, and even the south of Derbyshire is not flat. But I didn't feel any need of lower gears. A racing chap (Kevin Selby if any of the old ones remember him) used to pass me some mornings and told me I should be pedalling quicker. But I didn't see why and when (at 15) I upgraded the bike to a double I got rings of 42 and 52, to go faster.

I even did a few longish all-day rides, but my cadence did not change until I made my first tour. Two weeks of pedalling several hours every day is what it took to persuade my muscles adopt the healthier strategy of contracting more rapidly with less force, because I came back pedalling a gear or two lower and nevertheless going faster! (Edit: my next modification was to make some longer bolts in metalwork class and fit a third ring of 32 teeth on the inside.)

Most people, including many who would call themselves regular cyclists, never in their lives spend more than an hour or two pedalling, let alone every day. And those who take up touring in later life are perhaps too set in their ways. Meanwhile the sporty types only want to go fast and treat the agony of climbing hills on too-high bottom gears as the pain that leads to gain - in speed later on. So that's how bikes are sold and nothing can be done about it. People will not be told. I know that, I could not be told, I had to find out for myself.

We will nevetheless maintain the tradition of trying to persuade people that it's healthier so they really ought to try pedalling quicker with less force, and informing those who've seen the light and learned to do it, how to modify their bikes so as to have that option.

[Mick F]

Bringing this back onto topic: the reason ready-made bikes come with gears that to many of us (but not all, Mick!) seem rather high - at the top end at least - is that does actually suit two large sectors of the market: the sporty type and the occasional or short-distance-only cyclist.

I must be in a small un-named sector then.

I like tall gears - we all know that I do. I can ride for many hours per day every day.

When I had the speed/cadence sensor for my Garmin Edges, my long-term average cadence turned out to be 67rpm.
Measured over six years and 24,000miles and all over the country.

CJ.
Do you know your long-term average cadence?

[Bicycler]

Can't say I've ever been on a proper week-long cycle tour but it only required one ride (aged 14) on my dad's old 42x24 lowest gear 10-speed to realise it wasn't sufficient for the local steep hill. Sure I could have been a lot fitter but I managed the same hill often enough on my mountain bike. How many non-serious cyclists ever used the top couple of gears with a 52 chainring? It's not at all surprising that mountain bikes took off the way that they did. People complain about mountain bikes being heavy and the tyres making life hard work on road but rarely about the gears being too low. Even today with wider gear ranges you see more people pushing their bikes up hills than you do pedalling furiously on the way down them.

It's understandably a bit different for fast riders like Mick but I suspect most casual cyclists would much rather be able to pedal up hills than down 'em. Touring gears should really be the norm rather than the exception for general purpose machines

[mjr]

It's understandably a bit different for fast riders like Mick but I suspect most casual cyclists would much rather be able to pedal up hills than down 'em. Touring gears should really be the norm rather than the exception for general purpose machines

The 28/38/48 with 14-28 that I use seems to have been criticised above, but what are "touring gears"? http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/ ... ear-inches doesn't have many recommendations and the strongest seems to be

At least three of your gears, and preferably four or five, should lie between 40in and 70in (3m to 6m).

which is basically all except the extremes on the middle ring for me. I think 26/36/46 MTB triples may be the most common now, which would mean everything except bottom gear on the middle ring is in that range. So what's wrong, except maybe having too much choice?

[Bicycler]

It's understandably a bit different for fast riders like Mick but I suspect most casual cyclists would much rather be able to pedal up hills than down 'em. Touring gears should really be the norm rather than the exception for general purpose machines

The 28/38/48 with 14-28 that I use seems to have been criticised above, but what are "touring gears"?

Apologies for the ambiguous terminology, I understand that there's a big difference in what different people mean by touring. I was just meaning lower gearing than a standard road double usually gives - like your gearing. I think most would like to have a sub-30 inch gear (maybe not in their dreams but when faced with a steep hill to climb).

[mjr]

I was just meaning lower gearing than a standard road double usually gives - like your gearing. I think most would like to have a sub-30 inch gear (maybe not in their dreams but when faced with a steep hill to climb).

Oh right. I just had a quick look at two web shops that have a Touring Bikes section (EBC and Evans - ctcshop doesn't list touring bikes...) and, clicking randomly, the only brands I saw with a road double on the front were Eastway and Cinelli (bizarrely, Evans list one Cinelli bike as having 0 gears, which I guess is a goof). Other brands seemed to use a triple somewhere between 26 and 50, most often with some sort of 11-32 on the back, although there were a few with things like 30/42/52. So, anyone fancy emailing Eastway and Cinelli and asking them for better gears?

[Mick F]

At least three of your gears, and preferably four or five, should lie between 40in and 70in (3m to 6m)

I've got five like that on the middle ring, and six on the inner ring.

I like tall gears, but I have low and middle ones as well!

[reohn2]

........ I think most would like to have a sub-30 inch gear (maybe not in their dreams but when faced with a steep hill to climb).

Isn't that the problem?
There's too many dreamers and not enough people with a practical outlook?
MickF is in the minority where gearing is concerned,that's not a criticism just an observation.
Already experienced cyclists on this thread have admitted they don't use the big(52t)ring,then why have it sitting there unused?
I learned a long time ago that unused or seldom used gears are either useless or almost useless and steal away other more useable gear places.
I regard myself as a regular and experienced cyclist.
My gearing on all my bikes ranges from 22" to 89" in the shape of a 14/32 8sp custom cassette,26/34/46 chainset,there's options to go high and lower by just changing chainrings ie;swop 26t for 24 and 46 for 48t or 50/2/3t all with the same mechs and changers.
But that's too simple a system it seems