Proposed campaign: inapproriate gears

[Mark1978]

Same as that I don't use my 50/11 gear so would rather have 50/11 as my highest but don't need any lower than 34/28 either.

[Tigerbiten]

Last time I was on an exercise bike it wanted me to spin at 60-70 rpm.
I couldn't as it was just to slow.
I started at 85 rpm and once I had warmed up it was at 90 rpm.

I also set the resistance so 90 rpm felt right.
Once the computer control on the bike upped the resistance I started to look for the gears ............

With the range I've got on my bent trike, I only stop spinning on hills steeper than 20% and I can still turn the legs to keep the muscles warm at +40 mph.

[Mick F]

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.

There we agree wholeheartedly!

I've moved up and down the country over my cycling years, and even down here in the SW we've lived in five different addresses. For much of that time, I was using Suntour Ultra freewheel and would chop and change the cogs.

Remember the big display boards in LBSs? I was a heavy user of those! I used to change my rings too on my Stronglight 99 double. Each time we moved house, I had different hills and different distances to ride, so I used different gearing.

There would be no point whatsoever of having ALL the gears I would ever need with me ALL the time!

These days, we've been in the same house for 16years and have no intention of moving for the foreseeable future, and as I'm getting older, I need lower gears because the hills are getting steeper. Therefore I have a triple for the first time in my life.

However, I have strong chunky legs that don't like spinning. High gears suit me, but I still need low gears too. I now have the widest range of gearing that I can get with Campag. To get wider, I'll need to ditch what I've got and join "another band".

What I have now is perfect for me, so I have no intention of changing anything.

[reohn2]

MickF
Whatever strums yer strings,if it works for you be my guest,but bear in mind you are in the minority,which isn't bad just different .
The point being made by me and a shed load of others,is that the vast majority of bicycles are sold with gearing that's miles too high and at best confines a lot of cyclists to the small ring(of two ) and at worst can put people off cycling forever.
I see even hybrid bikes being sold with 28/38/48 c/sets and the biggest cog being 28 maybe 30 on the back even these bikes are overgeared leaving the big ring unused

[Mick F]

Too many bikes are sold without sufficient gearing range, not specifically geared too high.
There's nothing wrong with high gears. The problem is the lack of low gears as well.

[reohn2]

Too many bikes are sold without sufficient gearing range, not specifically geared too high.
There's nothing wrong with high gears. The problem is the lack of low gears as well.

Without wanting to get into tit for tat exchange,it's gears that are too high that are the problem.
In hilly terrain 34x34(think a lot of road bikes being sold with compact chainsets) isn't low enough for a vast majority of riders,particularly newbies.If the inner ring were 26t(think triple) that would be low enough.
There's a lot wrong with gears that people,particularly newbies,can't pedal.A 52t outer is waaayyyy too big for most people,they'de be far better off with a 48t or less.
So IMO its not range but lower gearing that's needed for most people

[Mick F]

Well, is it that newbies are buying the wrong bikes, and it's not that the bikes they (incorrectly) buy that are wrong?
Do newbies buy high geared road bikes, or is it that born-again cyclists buy them?

700c 1:1 ratio gearing is low enough for normal hills IMHO.
I used to climb Parbold Hill on my way to school on my gas-pipe 26" wheels with a 3sp SA - and with a heavy satchel full books.

Parbold Hill for folks who don't know it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDv8660Jssc

[reohn2]

Well, is it that newbies are buying the wrong bikes, and it's not that the bikes they (incorrectly) buy that are wrong?
Do newbies buy high geared road bikes, or is it that born-again cyclists buy them?

It doesn't really matter,the vast majority of new bikes are overgeared.that's the point being made!
A point being made by the vast majority of posters on this thread.

700c 1:1 ratio gearing is low enough for normal hills IMHO.

That depends on the what you term as normal hills and the rider's fitness.

I used to climb Parbold Hill on my way to school on my gas-pipe 26" wheels with a 3sp SA - and with a heavy satchel full books.

At 12years old I was putting 150miles a week in regularly all over the same area,so what does that prove .
We are talking about the here and now,then we didn't have anything else or knew any better.

[Tigerbiten]

I think gears on a bike are a bit catch 22.
Until you've put the miles in, you won't know what are the ideal range gears for you to make life easy.
But unless you have close to the ideal range, you won't put the miles in because it's to much like hard work..

[thirdcrank]

I think gears on a bike are a bit catch 22.
Until you've put the miles in, you won't know what are the ideal range gears for you to make life easy.
But unless you have close to the ideal range, you won't put the miles in because it's to much like hard work..

A good point, well made. All I'm suggesting is some form of bike labelling which gives newcomers to cycling a bit of guidance to prevent them ending up with a totally unsuitable set of gears, which will either definitely put them off cycling forever, or shelling out to replace half their new bike or even to replace it completely. Experienced riders' views on what they've eventually found suitable for their personal requirements seem irrelevant in this context.

[freeflow]

What is needed is for Mr Shimano et al to design their chainsets and mechs properly so we can start with smaller chainrings but have the option to upgrade as we get fitter. My triple is 5/39/24 to a 11-28 cassette. Riding locally I use mainly the 39 tooth chainring and a little 52 tooth and never the 24 tooth. Last October, riding up Wrynose pass the 24 tooth chainring was a godsend. I quite like having a blingy chainset and would tweak away to my hearts content if tweaking were available. When the FSA carbon crankset fails the next time I won't be replacing the failed crank arm I'll be looking covetously at a JIS Royce BB and a Spa XDS touring chainset with custom TA chainrings.

And finally, when I built up Mrs F's road bike the shimano 6603 shifter worked absolutely fine with an XT chainset.

[Mick F]

All I'm suggesting is some form of bike labelling which gives newcomers to cycling a bit of guidance to prevent them ending up with a totally unsuitable set of gears, which will either definitely put them off cycling forever, or shelling out to replace half their new bike or even to replace it completely.

I agree with that.

Experienced riders' views on what they've eventually found suitable for their personal requirements seem irrelevant in this context.

Not really, you don't have to be experienced to be different from the norm.
Just coz most folk are one way, doesn't mean that many others aren't the other way.
You have to cater for all sorts.

If I bought a bike that was "under geared" I would be just as put off as someone who wanted low gears who got high gears.

As I said, it's RANGE that's required. High gears are great for going along the flat and down hills, why freewheel at 15mph when you can pedal at 30mph?

I used to climb Parbold Hill on my way to school on my gas-pipe 26" wheels with a 3sp SA - and with a heavy satchel full books.

At 12years old I was putting 150miles a week in regularly all over the same area,so what does that prove .
We are talking about the here and now,then we didn't have anything else or knew any better.

I wasn't putting 150miles a week in at 12yo, in fact other than the odd End2End I've never put 150miles a week in, so what does THAT prove?

When I was riding to skool, it was less than 5miles each way.

[reohn2]

.....When I was riding to skool, it was less than 5miles each way.

It maybe that because you only did 5miles to skool that you were able to climb Parbold hill

Just coz most folk are one way, doesn't mean that many others aren't the other way.
You have to cater for all sorts.

That's why homosexuality is legal

[thirdcrank]

All I'm talking about is something that would give somebody with limited knowledge, or even none at all, a general idea. When I think about it, I've been amazed several times when somebody whose only experience was on a mountain bike, was surprised to find that a a road bike with a similar number of gears could be so much harder to ride uphill.

[Mick F]

Yep. I agree.
Never said otherwise.

I say that one set of gears doesn't suit all.
Some like it high, some like it low ............ but all like a good range top to bottom.
"Good" varies with terrain.

Put a label on a bike maybe. Someone mentioned the idea up thread.
We have labels on washing machines and freezers stating the efficiency, so why not on bikes?

For instance:
A to F stating the gearing range.
1 to 10 stating the top gear.
V to Z stating the bottom gear.
Percentage to state the hill that the average non-cyclist could get up.
Top speed that the average non-cyclist could get up to on the flat.

My bike would be a D9X10/25