Flightdeck - Worthwhile?

Just zis Guy said:

Velvet said:

Nope, never had a bike with that many gears on, and as I
said before, it's hard to count if one press of the sti
shifter can drop you down 1 2 or 3 sprockets, depending on
how far/long you hold it, and it's not an exact science at
all. Counting only works if you know how many gears you
just shifted, and which gear you started in.

Still puzzled. I decide which gear by feeling the effort
involved in pushing the pedals round, not by some
computation in my head using cadence and speed. I get
cadence from a crank sensor - cadence when coasting is
zero. Actually I rarely look at cadence now anyway, having
trained myself to pedal at a steady 100ish.

Heh :-)

If I relied on feeling the effort then I'd:

a) be cycling everywhere on the granny ring, and
b) not get about about 8mph ever

My point was that I can see how, if every time you changed
gear you dropped/raised by one, you could keep track in your
head of which sprocket you were on and thus when you need to
change chainrings.

My shifters don't change just one sprocket at a time, they
ramp up 1 at a time going higher in gears, but can drop down
the gears anything from 1 to 3 at a time - therefore the
above idea won't work.

Cadence is done nicely by the computer for me, based on what
gear I'm in and the speed sensor. I much prefer that to a
crank sensor, cos they seem to have a peculiar affinity with
the magnets (possibly due to my crank shapes) and end up
generating an annoying clicking. Of course, it can't work
out the cadence if it doesn't know how many teeth are on
each sprocket, which was what I accidentally did to it on
saturday, but which I wasn't at all phased about.

Are you still puzzled? :-)

Velvet

Richard Goodman said:

"Velvet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rc7jc.2036$Mp6.16008243@news-
text.cableinet.net...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch wrote:

Right, you see this is where I think the difference is. My
bike has STI shifters, and it's a push/return action of
the lever (or sub-lever respectively) to change up or
down, so the state of the lever is the same no matter what
gear you're in, you can't look at it and know, unless you
think twisting around to look at the rear sprocket is a
good idea whilst mingling with traffic.

I can see how it's a lot easier with those levers to know
by the position of the lever approximately where you are
on the gearing - certainly if you're gettingn toward
either extreme and about to run out of sprockets, but you
can't do that with the STI shifters at all.

I have STI shifters and find no problem in knowing which
chainring I'm on and at least approximately which part of
the rear sprocket cluster I'm on - well enough to know
whether a change of chain ring is called for. You can
also see which chainring you're in easily enough, if
there's any doubt. It's just a matter of having a 'feel'
for speed, cadence and pedalling effort to know how best
to shift.

Rich

Oh, I know which chainring I'm in without looking normally -
I obviously just need yet more miles on the bike to get a
better feel for gear/speed/cadence judgement :-) I don't
have any idea what I'm in at the back unless I check the FD
though- unless I'm halfway up a hill and have already run
out of gears (this is determined solely by the realisation
that the bike didn't make a snicky sound and the pedalling
is just as hard as it was). I'm sure it'll come in time.

Velvet

Velvet said:

My point was that I can see how, if every time you changed
gear you dropped/raised by one, you could keep track in
your head of which sprocket you were on and thus when you
need to change chainrings.

OIC. I do that by feel as well. I only use the little ring
on big hills, the big ring is for most riding and the middle
ring for uphill or against the wind.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]... .net...

> It's easy to learn to keep track without ever
> looking. ...

Quoted message said:

Wha....? You mean you count _all_ your gear changes
for the whole

ride?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, it takes about a millisecond per gearchange.

It's not how long it takes, it's not forgetting it with
all the other

things

Quoted message said:

going on around that I would find difficult - unless I
made a conscious effort to keep it on the top of my mind
it would soon drop out of memory.

Different people have different kinds of memory. Some people
remember telephone numbers easily and some can't.

Quoted message said:

Hence my other comments about how far/long your rides were
and having

other

Quoted message said:

things to think about. But maybe it's just because I'd
find it such a futile, unnecessary and boring thing to
remember.

Sounds like you are a little annoyed about that, from the
pejorative tone that you've adopted.

But if you find it futile, don't do it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't understand anyway why it's so necessary to
know which gear

you're

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in.

If you don't care to know, you don't have to keep track.
Where did you

see

Quoted message said:

in my post that I shouted some evil-dictator slogan "YOU
WILL KEEP TRACK

OF

Quoted message said:

YOUR GEAR CHANGES AND WE WILL BE CHECKING UP ON
YOU!!!!!" ???

Of course you didn't suggest such and thing, and I didn't
suggest that you
did. I merely stated that I did not understand why anyone
would feel they need to know _exactly_ which
particular chainring/sprocket combination

they

Quoted message said:

are in.

I explained. It's nice to know, it's really easy to know, it
costs practically nothing to know. We aren't talking about
copying out the Magna Charta here.

Quoted message said:

And I still don't.

Sorry, but I have tried to explain to you.

Quoted message said:

And others have pretty much said they don't understand
it either.

Haven't seen their posts, unless you are sayingt that the
lurkers support you in email.

Quoted message said:

The main thing is how hard it is peddle. Hard - change
down - too easy - change up. That sort of thing.

Yeah. I worked that out too. And after I worked that out, I
learned to keep track of what gear I am in. Still sorry that
bothers you.

Does it bother you that I can calculate cadence in my head
from my forward speed, or that I sometimes estimate how many
turns of the crank I have made to some point in my trip?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or are you just so used to the pro- and anti-helmet
fascism here that

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

think everyone expects you to be just like them??

Oh. Flames.

Not flames, a question. Flames hurt, whereas that was a
question for you to answer.

Quoted message said:

That sort of comment insults not only me but all the other
participants on this ng as well.

No. It insults the people here who practice both sides of
the helmet fascism. And they don't care.

Quoted message said:

No, I don't expect everyone else to be the same.

Yet it upsets you that I keep mental track of what
gear I'm in.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't mean I can't explain what works for me in
terms of using gears without counting, as others have
done. Most people seem to manage it.

All power to them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Velvet aked the question and so I told her how to do it.

Quoted message said:

You can tell by how hard it is to peddle whether you
need to change up or down. What else is there to know?

Loads of other stuff. But if you don;t care to know it,
don't bother.

And if you REALLY don't want to be botherd with keeping
track of what's going on while you are on the road, get
yourself an SUV. With bullbars.

No thanks, I prefer my bike.

Glad to hear it. Then there may be a basis for us to reach
some commonality of opinion.

Quoted message said:

I don't count being precious about which gear I'm in as
part of knowing what's going on around me.

The word "precious" is intended to be insulting, clearly.
And nonetheless, knowing what gear you are in clearly IS
knowing part of "what's going on".

Quoted message said:

Rather, I prefer to concentrate on what is going on around
me than I do in muttering an S1,
S2..B9 mantra to myself as I go along.

Translation: your inability to keep track of your gear
and your inability to imagine someone else being able to
do it with a tiny fraction of their attention make you
feel very superior.

I don't miss anything on my rides because I keep track of
what gear I'm in. I see the trees, hear the birds, and know
whether I'm in S4 or not. And it's silly to suggest
otherwise, and even sillier to get outraged about it.
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

Just zis Guy said:

Velvet said:

My point was that I can see how, if every time you changed
gear you dropped/raised by one, you could keep track in
your head of which sprocket you were on and thus when you
need to change chainrings.

OIC. I do that by feel as well. I only use the little ring
on big hills, the big ring is for most riding and the
middle ring for uphill or against the wind.

Blimey, you must have legs like treetrunks then! Almost
every hill is little ring territory for me, middle is for
everything else. I've used the big once while whooshing
along a flat with tailwind, and twice whilst whooshing
downhill, but concerns on stopping at the bottom of
downhills usually mean I'll build up speed then freewheel in
chosen gear rather than swap to big ring and continue
pedalling down ;-)

Into the wind, any vague gradient and you'll find me in
smallest ring again. That said, I'm not a regular cyclist
and can still manage 20-25 miles at the drop of a hat as
long as it's not all hilly stuff so what I seem to lack in
power I claw back from just keeping going, albeit at a
slower pace.

Mind you, I did find what I think is a bit of wet string
that *could* just be the start of a thigh muscle in the bath
this morning... *grin*

Velvet

Velvet said:

The actual process of changing chainrings I still find
awkward, because I can't seem to ramp up the gears fast
enough at the back to compensate for having dropped to the
small ring at the front

What are your ratios/sizes? Since I find a front change is
subjectively roughly two and a bit at the back, next time I
change I may drop to the wee ring on the front while
changing up one at the back at the same time, so effectively
going one and a bit rather than two and a bit. Beyond that,
I just take up the extra slack in an increased cadence.

Quoted message said:

With this I can see bar-ends win over STI's, cos I have
to click the secondary lever over several times (I think
it's the secondary one) to move up several gears (well,
usually about 5-6)

5-6! Egad! I generally move up 1 and find I've got a nice
downchange without too precipitous a drop. I have a 52/42/30
at the front and an 11-34 9 speed behind (on a 26" wheel).
What are you using?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Velvet said:

The actual process of changing chainrings I still find
awkward, because I can't seem to ramp up the gears fast
enough at the back to compensate for having dropped to
the small ring at the front

What are your ratios/sizes? Since I find a front change is
subjectively roughly two and a bit at the back, next time
I change I may drop to the wee ring on the front while
changing up one at the back at the same time, so
effectively going one and a bit rather than two and a bit.
Beyond that, I just take up the extra slack in an
increased cadence.

Quoted message said:

With this I can see bar-ends win over STI's, cos I have
to click the secondary lever over several times (I think
it's the secondary one) to move up several gears (well,
usually about 5-6)

5-6! Egad! I generally move up 1 and find I've got a nice
downchange without too precipitous a drop. I have a
52/42/30 at the front and an 11-34 9 speed behind (on a
26" wheel). What are you using?

Pete.

Er... hang on... :-)

ok. chainrings are 52, 42, 28 teeth. sprockets go 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25.

On a 700C/25 wheel.

Velvet

Tony B said:

Seems the 105's on my new bike are Flightdeck compatible.
As a real sucker for gadgets, the set-up appeals to me but
they are a bit pricey, almost in the region of buying a
used Garmin Legend off e-bay. So, to any Shimano
Flightdeck owners out there, or even non-owners with axes
to grind, what's the group thoughts on this particular bit
of techno candy?

Thanks in advance,

Tony B

Just a gimmick IMHO. What's a Garmin Legend by the way ?

Velvet posted ...

Quoted message said:

My point was that I can see how, if every time you changed
gear you dropped/raised by one, you could keep track in
your head of which sprocket you were on and thus when you
need to change chainrings.

My shifters don't change just one sprocket at a time, they
ramp up 1 at a time going higher in gears, but can drop
down the gears anything from 1 to 3 at a time - therefore
the above idea won't work.

Many (most ?) Sti type shifters do this, depending upon how
much you press or pull the levers, mine certainly do ..
Shimano LX type Rapid Fire shifters ... but I must admit to
simply not understanding how you can not know whether you've
gone up or down two, three or whatever number of gears. I
guess it's just second nature to me. 😉

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Just a gimmick IMHO. What's a Garmin Legend by the way ?

another gimmick, a handheld GPS unit. The Legend is v small
but has plenty of memory for maps... then I can be really
geeky and come home and upload the track to the PC, then
look at climb profiles, speed profiles, etc. etc.

Anyway, ta everyone for the advice. I have decided to get a
FD and a wireless mounting kit for it.

Cheers,

Tony B

Peter Clinch said:

Just zis Guy said:

Velvet wrote:

<snip stuff about gear changing ect ect>

Quoted message said:

Sounds like you want a Rohloff. Got £600 handy? ;-/

Sounds like you want a fixer.

Tim

Tim Hall said:

Peter Clinch said:

Just zis Guy said:

Velvet wrote:

<snip stuff about gear changing ect ect>

Quoted message said:

Sounds like you want a Rohloff. Got £600 handy? ;-/

Sounds like you want a fixer.

Tim

eeeeeeee no :-)

Gears are good, they make hills possible!

Velvet

Velvet said:

Er... hang on... :-)

ok. chainrings are 52, 42, 28 teeth. sprockets go 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25.

I wonder if you might be happier with something a bit more
touring oriented at the back end? Because you've got narrow
ratios at the back and big steps at the front you will have
to change a fair bit to compensate. It is easier to get the
/exact/ best ratio during normal fastish riding with what
you have when you're not having to swap at the front, but
your overall range is much less than it might be at the low
end. And if any sort of up puts you on the wee ring as it is
then bigger cogs at the back may be a real help for you.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Because you've got narrow ratios at the back and big steps
at the front you will have to change a fair bit to
compensate. It is easier to get the /exact/ best ratio
during normal fastish riding with what you have when
you're not having to swap at the front, but your overall
range is much less than it might be at the low end.

Yup. That's the sort of ratios I have on my bikes, and
regulars will be well aware that I am a brisk rider. It
works well for fast riding, butmuch less well for trundling
or load carrying.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Peter Clinch said:

Velvet said:

Er... hang on... :-)

ok. chainrings are 52, 42, 28 teeth. sprockets go 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25.

I wonder if you might be happier with something a bit more
touring oriented at the back end? Because you've got
narrow ratios at the back and big steps at the front you
will have to change a fair bit to compensate. It is easier
to get the /exact/ best ratio during normal fastish riding
with what you have when you're not having to swap at the
front, but your overall range is much less than it might
be at the low end. And if any sort of up puts you on the
wee ring as it is then bigger cogs at the back may be a
real help for you.

Pete.

Ah, I had wondered about that. This is an audax bike so I'd
always kindof assumed it was built for speedier people than
me, and I'd mulled over changing the groupset to get lower
gearing but wasn't sure if it was just me having wet string
for muscles on hills and just needing to turn them into less
of the wet string stuff, or if indeed the gearing was
different to more of the toury type stuff.

I'll have to look into what would be compatible (it's
shimano tiagra stuff) but what would be a good range of
gears to be looking at? I'd like to stay with tiagra stuff
(I like the smooth changes - well, it's smooth when the
operator does it right at any rate) but guess I may find out
they don't have too many options within a particular
model/range of components.

Velvet

Velvet said:

I'll have to look into what would be compatible (it's
shimano tiagra stuff) but what would be a good range of
gears to be looking at?

As usual, "it depends": what terrain, what loads, etc.

I've got from 23 to 122 inches on the 'bent. Too much lower
than that and you'll topple over sideways anyway as you'll
be below walking pace! The 8 Freight goes down to about 28"
which is low enough to winch yourself up a moderate hill
with 50 Kg in the back, but I couldn't sustain that over
anything especially steep and have to choose routes to avoid
the truly nasty local hills. With the 23" on the
Streetmachine I can get up hills of a reasonable size
(hundreds of feet (vertical) of continual climbing with
sections at up to 20% so far) with camping luggage despite
it being a heavy bike. It's low enough to spin up most
things you'll find as long as you can be bothered to keep
the pedals turning (i.e., you'll stop because your lungs are
giving out, not because the gear is too high to carry on
getting the pedals around). If you were sticking to flatter
terrain there'd be no point having gears that low, but I do
get to use it and like it being there. I think Roos would
like it a little lower but she's less used to hills than me.

At the top end, I very rarely get into top (it requires a
serious descent) and I can't remember ever spinning it out
(I've tried a few times, but always ran out of clean running
hill!). I could easily live without it for my cycling (I'm
not slow but there's no way I can even dream of keeping up
with the Wheelers, the local Chain Gang). To set a useful
top range for yourself just calculate the ratio of the
biggest gear you use and wouldn't want to lose from your
existing setup.

Then once you have the range you're after, see what's
available and raid the Windcheetah fund (again!). And keep
your current block for future reference as you may well
want it back on in the future, so it's not like anything
will be wasted.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

I've got from 23 to 122 inches on the 'bent. Too much
lower than that and you'll topple over sideways anyway as
you'll be below walking pace!

Short answer: ? Longer answer: Speedmachine has 17-100 and
stays upright at ~4 km/h on hills.

Trice has 13-86 and stays upright at 0 km/h on hills (though
can run out of traction, which is somewhat frustrating).

Baron has 37-106, but doesn't meet any hills needing the
small chainring.

Upright tourer has 23-86 coz it's only got a double
chainset. And it doesn't get used for touring any more.

Mountain bike has 24 gears and I've no idea what.

:-)

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Dave Larrington said:

Peter Clinch said:

I've got from 23 to 122 inches on the 'bent. Too much
lower than that and you'll topple over sideways anyway as
you'll be below walking pace!

Short answer: ? Longer answer: Speedmachine has 17-100 and
stays upright at ~4 km/h on hills.

Trice has 13-86 and stays upright at 0 km/h on hills
(though can run out of traction, which is somewhat
frustrating).

Baron has 37-106, but doesn't meet any hills needing the
small chainring.

Upright tourer has 23-86 coz it's only got a double
chainset. And it doesn't get used for touring any more.

Mountain bike has 24 gears and I've no idea what.

:-)

I'm a bit confused now - you lot are talking inches, I was
talking teeth ? I should really go and read sheldon's site,
shouldn't I. I'm sure the answer to my confusion lies within
it somewhere...

Velvet

Velvet said:

I'm a bit confused now - you lot are talking inches, I was
talking teeth ? I should really go and read sheldon's
site, shouldn't I. I'm sure the answer to my confusion
lies within it somewhere...

Sheldon has a calculator. Stick in the teeth (amongst other
details) and you'll get the inches.

Colin
--

Colin Blackburn said:

Velvet said:

I'm a bit confused now - you lot are talking inches, I
was talking teeth ? I should really go and read sheldon's
site, shouldn't I. I'm sure the answer to my confusion
lies within it somewhere...

Sheldon has a calculator. Stick in the teeth (amongst
other details) and you'll get the inches.

Colin

Yes, I've just found it. Looks like I have 29.5-114,
which seems to be quite a bit higher than gearings others
have quoted. I'm less surprised now that I can't sit and
spin up hills and run out of gears. I actually DO run out
of gears :-)

Velvet