group poll; cogsets

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

I think 8 cogs and three chainrings is plenty for most riders. Some
applications might need more, such as a road racer or a fully faired
racing recumbent. as those bikes, from what I know tend to reach higher
speeds, some of which is due to the rider of course.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

- -

IMO, for recreational cycling, an 8SP with a >useful< triple in the
front covers all the bases.

Of course, racers and racer wannabes might feel they really do need a
10SP corncob.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:45:51 -0500, [email hidden]

(Chris Z The Wheelman) said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

6 cogs in back and 3 rings in the front would work for me.
Stronger wheels and stronger chains.

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

Depends on the terrain. If your riding in Saskatchewan where the entire
place is flat, then 1 might be sufficient, here in Ontario, where if
your not going up hill your going down, then 10 can insufficient at
times.......

W

The Wogster said:

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

Depends on the terrain. If your riding in Saskatchewan where the entire
place is flat, then 1 might be sufficient, here in Ontario, where if
your not going up hill your going down, then 10 can insufficient at
times.......

Yep. I'm in Florida and my 'cross bike is a 1x8. The 2x7 on my old road bike is
plenty and my 3x8 mountain bike has one entire chainwheel and a bunch of cogs I
never use.

Ron

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

as someone who rides in fairly hilly terrain, 8 works on the road bike,
but the fixie works best in the city. <g>
\\paul

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

It's not the number of cogs that matter, it's the range. The benefits
of ever-finer steps are minimal if any, I think.

Properly done, 3x5 is enough to get a person anywhere in the world. I
certainly think they could have stopped at, say, 7 or 8 in the rear.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Properly done, 3x5 is enough to get a person anywhere in the world. I
certainly think they could have stopped at, say, 7 or 8 in the rear.

I do not believe 3x5 would work well here in CO. I have 3x8 (MTB) and
use the lowest going up and the highest going down and would use both
lower (barely-off road) and higher (much-on road) gears if I had them.
I think 5 in the rear would have to be spaced out so that I could not
keep the cadence between 70 and 100 between shifts.

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

They should replace the whole works with a belt-driven CVT.

It sure would be nice to have it go smoothly from very low to very high.
Just set the cadence lever on 80 and pedal....

But I'm guessing this has been looked at and didn't work for some reason.

Rich

Quoted message said:

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

Nearly always one more than I presently have, and always just a bit bigger.

I have bikes with 5, 9 & 10. 5 is absolutely less-useful than what's found
on the other bikes, no question! But keep in mind our terrain here is quite
varied, so we can (locally) make use of about as wide a range of gears as
anyone anywhere.

Still, I think the question was best-answered by Spinal Tap.

11.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Chris Z The Wheelman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

"Chris Z The Wheelman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

I live in an extremely hilly city, and find my 3x8 Mountain bike is fine.
Much better than my old 18 speed mountain bike. I don't ride off road and
could use a higher gear on occasions, but think it could be worked in with
current 3x8 and don't really see the need for more gears..

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

The Wogster said:

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

Depends on the terrain. If your riding in Saskatchewan where the entire
place is flat, then 1 might be sufficient, here in Ontario, where if
your not going up hill your going down, then 10 can insufficient at
times.......

Yep. I'm in Florida and my 'cross bike is a 1x8. The 2x7 on my old road bike is
plenty and my 3x8 mountain bike has one entire chainwheel and a bunch of cogs I
never use.

Ron

Yeap I am in sw coastal FL and I am on my middle chainring most of the
time and use about 5 or 6 of the rear cogs most of the time. BOTOH I did
tour with it and found that I needed lower gears for climbing the hills
in central and northern Florida.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

Fred said:

"Chris Z The Wheelman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
??

I can't imagine needing more than 9. 9 is probably one or two more than
is absolutely necessary for me, but 9 is convenient. It is also
convenient to have a third front ring, but 2 X 9 with a good old frame
and good set of wheels will get me most anywhere I want to go here in Texas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It's not the number of cogs that matter, it's the range. The benefits

of ever-finer steps are minimal if any, I think.

Properly done, 3x5 is enough to get a person anywhere in the world. I
certainly think they could have stopped at, say, 7 or 8 in the rear.

- Frank Krygowski
---------------

HI Frank...

I agree with you, it is the range that matters most. Especially if
one does a few calculations and realizes the number of redundent
ratio's one has. A half-step granny system can be designed as a 6x3
and actually have nice close ratios up top and a wide range down low.
The only way you can split the 12-13 shift is with a half step up
front..

As far as where to have stopped, 8 seems like a nice place. My
personal attitude is that if I do pay attention and build my own cog
sets when needed, I get the ratios I need and not a bunch of
cogs/ratios that are pretty much worthless. An example is the most
recent bike I put together. An old Univega Gran Turisimo. 52-38-24 up
front, 11-28 on the back. The 11-28 is what they had. The 11 cog is
pretty much useless, something I could do without so essentially I have
a 7 speed setup.

Few cogs means wider chains, wider cogs that last longer.

More cogs mean one must make some compromises. Lots of "advances" in
technology are the result of trying to pack more cogs back there.
Wheels are compromised by the need to dish them, the old freewheel hubs
were fine at 120mm with a narrow 5 speed cogset but at 126 and 130
required a free hub to keep from fracturing.

More cogs means cranks with wide Q factors, personally I would rather
have a crank with a low Q factor than an extra couple of cogs. The
7400 series DuraAce cranks are nice and narrow but with an 8 speed
cassette the chain barely misses the crank arm in high gear. So what
did they do, they invented the "Low Profile Crank" which is of course
typical marketing hype/bull because the chain rings still need to miss
the chain stays so the crank arms are spread wider to miss the chain...
I doubt they would have gone over quite so big if they had been
marketed as they should have been: High Profile Cranks.

I enjoy riding a nice corn-cob on a flat course but ironically one has
to pretty much built that one too, at least that's the way it used to
be. There was quite some time where Shimano wasn't putting an 18 tooth
cog in a road set so one had to snag one from an old MTB cassette... I
like an 8 speed 18-11 with a 56 tooth big ring

And too...

I suggest that if your gears aren't low enough and/or high enough, that
is not because you don't have enough cogs to choose from, rather the
range is just too narrow.

Just some stuff from another old crank....

Jon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>It's not the number of cogs that matter, it's the range. The benefits

of ever-finer steps are minimal if any, I think.

Properly done, 3x5 is enough to get a person anywhere in the world. I
certainly think they could have stopped at, say, 7 or 8 in the rear.

- Frank Krygowski
---------------

HI Frank...

I agree with you, it is the range that matters most. Especially if
one does a few calculations and realizes the number of redundent
ratio's one has. A half-step granny system can be designed as a 6x3
and actually have nice close ratios up top and a wide range down low.
The only way you can split the 12-13 shift is with a half step up
front..

As far as where to have stopped, 8 seems like a nice place. My
personal attitude is that if I do pay attention and build my own cog
sets when needed, I get the ratios I need and not a bunch of
cogs/ratios that are pretty much worthless. An example is the most
recent bike I put together. An old Univega Gran Turisimo. 52-38-24 up
front, 11-28 on the back. The 11-28 is what they had. The 11 cog is
pretty much useless, something I could do without so essentially I have
a 7 speed setup.

Few cogs means wider chains, wider cogs that last longer.

More cogs mean one must make some compromises. Lots of "advances" in
technology are the result of trying to pack more cogs back there.
Wheels are compromised by the need to dish them, the old freewheel hubs
were fine at 120mm with a narrow 5 speed cogset but at 126 and 130
required a free hub to keep from fracturing.

More cogs means cranks with wide Q factors, personally I would rather
have a crank with a low Q factor than an extra couple of cogs. The
7400 series DuraAce cranks are nice and narrow but with an 8 speed
cassette the chain barely misses the crank arm in high gear. So what
did they do, they invented the "Low Profile Crank" which is of course
typical marketing hype/bull because the chain rings still need to miss
the chain stays so the crank arms are spread wider to miss the chain...
I doubt they would have gone over quite so big if they had been
marketed as they should have been: High Profile Cranks.

I enjoy riding a nice corn-cob on a flat course but ironically one has
to pretty much built that one too, at least that's the way it used to
be. There was quite some time where Shimano wasn't putting an 18 tooth
cog in a road set so one had to snag one from an old MTB cassette... I
like an 8 speed 18-11 with a 56 tooth big ring

And too...

I suggest that if your gears aren't low enough and/or high enough, that
is not because you don't have enough cogs to choose from, rather the
range is just too narrow.

Just some stuff from another old crank....

Isn't the answer really related to the type of riding that one does? I
don't think there is an absolute, correct answer..

I love having a 2X10 set up. I ride long flat miles, and I ride long
very hilly miles and everything in between. So, to me, when riding
alone I agree that it is the range that is premier as I need that to
deal with the varying terrain I ride. But when riding in a fast group
then I find I also need to have the ability to be in "just the right"
gear. Why? Because on a long, hard group ride it important to be able
to match the speed of the group with as high a degree of efficiency as
you can achieve. Otherwise you just get spit out the back and are back
to riding alone;-).

frkrygow said:

It's not the number of cogs that matter, it's the range. The benefits
of ever-finer steps are minimal if any, I think.

Properly done, 3x5 is enough to get a person anywhere in the world. I
certainly think they could have stopped at, say, 7 or 8 in the rear.

I disagree. I find it "nice" to have a smaller skip between gears, and
with an extremely wide jump in the chainrings, I can get that and plenty
of range as well, with enough cogs.

One reason people think that 9 or 10 sprockets in the rear is wasted is
that a standard set-up has so many redundant gears. Having 3-4 ratios
repeated on a double makes as much sense as having 2 12-tooth cogs. Mine
overlap only on the wide-reach gears (big-big and little-little) that you
shouldn't use anyway. I currently have a 46/30 and a 12-23 9-speed, and
have 15 closely-spaced gears from 100" to 34", all jumps of less than 9%.

The claim that the wheels would be stronger (due to less dish) only
applies if you have a 7-speed wheel with 130mm axle. 8-speed and 9-10
use the same space for the cassettes; going back to 8-speed will not
improve the dish. Going back to 126mm axles and 7-speed will not improve
the dish (well, maybe minimally so).

I don't think there is any real data suggesting that 8-speed chains are
stronger or longer-lasting than 9-speed. Maybe 10-speed is weaker, but
not by that much. The only thing making me hesitate about 10-speeds are
the price of the cassettes and the need to get new levers.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's be straight here. If we find something we can't
_`\(,_ | understand we like to call it something you can't understand, or
(_)/ (_) | indeed even pronounce. -- Douglas Adams

David L. Johnson said:

One reason people think that 9 or 10 sprockets in the rear is wasted is
that a standard set-up has so many redundant gears. Having 3-4 ratios
repeated on a double makes as much sense as having 2 12-tooth cogs.

I use a 12-25 10-speed cassette with two chainrings, 50 and 42. The
idea is that when I ride in a fast group or otherwise at high intensity,
I can do almost all riding in the 50. Likewise, when I ride alone at
lower intensity, I very rarely use the 50. While I don't _need_ all the
overlapping gears, they are convenient.

I also have a vintage bike with a 5-speed Regina 14-22 freewheel and the
classic 52/42 setup in the front. The overall range of gears is about
the same and I don't mind riding it at all, but the 10-speed setup is
clearly better.

10-speed chains and cassettes last just fine for me (chains five to ten
thousand km, cassettes 30+ thousand km), so I don't see any reason why
10-speed would be particularly stupid.

-as

Thoughts and comments:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mine overlap only on the wide-reach gears (big-big and little-little) that you

shouldn't use anyway. I currently have a 46/30 and a 12-23 9-speed,
and
have 15 closely-spaced gears from 100" to 34", all jumps of less than
9%.
----------------

Big-big and little-little are problems when using wide cog sets but
with a 5 or 6 speed, those cross-overs are acceptable. My
calculations suggest that there are only 14 different useable gear
ratios with your setup.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>The claim that the wheels would be stronger (due to less dish) only

applies if you have a 7-speed wheel with 130mm axle. 8-speed and 9-10
use the same space for the cassettes; going back to 8-speed will not
improve the dish. Going back to 126mm axles and 7-speed will not
improve
the dish (well, maybe minimally so).
----------

Going back a bit futher, before the rush to more gears began, 5 speed,
Ulta 6 with a 120mm hub spacing. The added dish with the 130mm 8
speed is a problem, the wider hub also required the invention of the
free hub, a good thing in the long run.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think there is any real data suggesting that 8-speed chains are

stronger or longer-lasting than 9-speed.
----

Narrower chain => narrow bearings => faster wear. In any event, 7/8
speed chains cost less.

3x5 or 3x6 can provide a wide range of useful cogs with some
surprisingly close ratios.

jon

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jon

Jon! You're back!

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky