building a 10 spd cassette -- what gears would YOU put in it?

[marco007esq]

Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike didnt
come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
the hump.

I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a sissy
cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?

 

[RonSonic]

On 29 Jan 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "marco007esq" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike didnt
>come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
>hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
>the hump.
>
>I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a sissy
>cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
>What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?

I've got no idea what you're doing with the 11, but I'd focus on filling the
gaps in the meat of the range and leave the sissy gear out there on it's own:
11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27

Ron

 

[marco007esq]

Why?

I'm not being a smart-ass... truly interested in learning more about
"gear ratio theory."

 

[bfd]

"marco007esq" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why?
>
> I'm not being a smart-ass... truly interested in learning more about
> "gear ratio theory."
>
If you truly want to learn more about "gear ratio", then you need to do some
reading:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

 

[marco007esq]

I guess I was looking for something more in the way of Cliff's notes.
The SB page is amazing... but made my head hurt.

What I'm more interested in is knowing why some people would choose
certain combos. I'm guessing that there is some collective knowledge
to tap into there.

Ron? Follow up?

 

[Mike Krueger]

marco007esq wrote:
> Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike
didnt
> come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
> hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
> the hump.
>
> I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a
sissy
> cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
> What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?

That's a big jump from 11 to 13. And, I don't even know how you'd go
about building a "custom" 10sp cassette without spending a lot of $.
I think a stock 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27T would be more
practical.

 

[Bruce Lange]

> building a 10 spd cassette --
> what gears would YOU put in it?

For here in Colorado I'd like to see something like:

11-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27

or even

11-14-15-16-17-19-22-25-28-32

 

[PBridge130]

>For here in Colorado I'd like to see something like:
>
>11-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27
>
>or even
>
>11-14-15-16-17-19-22-25-28-32

Nah. <grin>

That's what triples are for. I'm sold on them. About to build my second
triple set-up, on a semi-classic Medici (the first is a Merlin Ultralight).
With 53-42-32 on the front, and a 12-23 on the rear, I've got enough range to
do anything in CO, and I'm 48, and fat. Climbs in CO are rarely steep -- I
don't think I've ever been in my smallest gear, although I have to admit that
my long mountain rides last summer were only 95-110 miles or so, not real
marathon efforts.

I've needed wider gearing in CA and on the east coast than in CO, although I
did manage the Death Ride with a 42-28, on a 25 year old Eisentraut.... but I
digress.

AFAIAC, if you need more than a 26 on the rear, a triple is the way to go. Why
the hell have a ten speed rear end with yawning gaps between gears? Not
pleasant.

pb

 

[Dan]

"marco007esq" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike didnt
> come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
> hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
> the hump.
>
> I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a sissy
> cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
> What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?
>

I have no doubt that many will disagree and suggest something else but I
look at it this way, assuming 700 wheels:

(# of Chainring teeth) x (cadence rpm)
(# of cog teeth) = -------------------------------------------------------
12.7 x mph

Decide what the max and min speeds are at which you would like to apply
power to the pedals. Decide what the max and min cadence are at which you
plan to apply power to the pedals. Figure out how many teeth your chainrings
have. Calculate the number of teeth that you want for the biggest and the
littlest cog. Pick a cassette that has the best fill for the cogs between.

If you want to crank up hills at 9 mph with a cadence of 75 and a chainring
with 39 teeth, you need about a 25 cog. If you want to power crank with a
tail wind at 35 mph and a cadence of 100 on a 53 chainring, you need a 12

Think of the sequence of cogs in between as steps. From an 11 to a 13 is an
18% step - maybe a little bit big of a step. from an 23 to a 25 is 8.6% -
better.

 

[RonSonic]

On 29 Jan 2005 16:06:48 -0800, "marco007esq" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I guess I was looking for something more in the way of Cliff's notes.
>The SB page is amazing... but made my head hurt.
>
>What I'm more interested in is knowing why some people would choose
>certain combos. I'm guessing that there is some collective knowledge
>to tap into there.
>
>Ron? Follow up?

Just thinking in terms of what I use. No real theory here. I'm presently running
13-23 and rarely using the 13 and never use the 23. So if I had to work an 11
and a 27 into there as the OP wanted I'd just tag them onto the ends. (BTW I'm
in Tampa, the closest thing to a climb I get is an overpass or pedestrian
bridge)

About the only thing scientific going on is that since we're dealing with
ratios, going from say, a 13 to 14 is a much bigger step than 21 to 22, so we
use larger steps at the lower side of the cassette.

Back in the day of five speeds there were all sorts of systems and charts and
such. I think from the 7 speed onward there've been enough gears that there's
little point in getting real fussy about it if you've got your top and bottom
gears covered and a reasonable spread between.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

marco007esq wrote:
> Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike
didnt
> come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
> hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
> the hump.
>
> I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a
sissy
> cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
> What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?

Its kind of important to know what your chainrings are.

I run a somewhat custom 9 speed setup. Campagnolo Veloce cogs.
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-28. And 53-42 chainrings. If I was building
up a custom 10 speed cassette, it would be the
13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 from a Veloce 13-26 cassette and the 29 cog
from a Veloce 13-29 cassette. Veloce uses loose cogs. Thus creating a
very useful 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-29 10 speed cassette. Paired
with a wonderful 42 chainring, I would have the straight block I like
in the small cogs with a big cog for climbing. Unless I was climbing
in the mountains, then I'd put a triple on the bike.

 

[Dan Daniel]

On 29 Jan 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "marco007esq"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike didnt
>come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
>hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
>the hump.
>
>I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a sissy
>cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
>What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?

Why no 12? and why a 25? 18-21 is 3 teeth, but the 21-23-25-27 are all
2 teeth differences- doesn't make much sense to me.

Sheldon Brown's gear calculator will give you percent differences
between gears along with other info-

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Play around, see what your present set-up gives, what percent changes
are already on your bike.

Personally I'd go for either a true bail-out gear like a 32 with the
other 9 being, say, a 11/12- 23/25, or go to a triple. Until 10 speeds
move to the MTB groups, I guess there isn't a 32 available- I bet a
9-speed 32 tooth gear could be placed in a 10-speed cassette,
replacing the last gear. The derailleur stop should provide final
position for that shift.

 

[Kenny]

"Thus creating a very useful 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-29 10 speed
cassette."

I tried this combo before. It made me really miss one of my favorite
cogs the 26t. Jumping from 23 to 29 didn't feel natural to me.

 

[Joselas]

"marco007esq" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Living in Florida, you really don't need a triple... and my bike didnt
> come with one... but, occasionally I'm dragging ass on one of our few
> hills out in Clermont and wish that I had a bigger cog to get me over
> the hump.
>
> I'm looking at just assembling a good wide range cassette with a sissy
> cog on it at the end. But I don't want to give up my 11.
> What do you think? 11-13-14-15-16-18-21-23-25-27?
>

Assuming 39/53 up front: If you're strong enough to need an 11 then you are
strong enough to ride anywhere in Florida on a 23. Isn't the tallest hill
there 300 feet? In a place that flat your legs really appreciate tighter
spacing. 11 to 13 is a HUGE gap. I would think you would be using a 12 way
more than an 11. If you are not using these gears on fast (very fast) group
rides then you may want to learn/train your cadence rather than trying to
put together unheard of gear ratios. Even at a low cadence a 53-12 should
be good for 30 mph. At a normal Cadence 32 mph, 35-37 mph is not
unreasonable for short times. In other words give up the 11 and go 12-25 or
12-27 or give up the 25/27 and go 11-23.

 

[marco007esq]

This is all great stuff.... good food for thought.... but the
consensus appears to be (something I hadn't considered) that the big
jumps in the low numbered cogs are bad. Makes sense to me... The
comment about the triple was good... but as I dont have one one there
now, and I dont want to replace my cranks, bb, and RD, that is out.

I'm going to try one of the tighter suggested patterns, with maybe a
larger bailout gear -- mostly so that I can keep a hot cadence, even on
one of the climbs with my butt dragging - (I'm coming off a
catastrophic injury, so until I get my leg back, I'm occasionally dying
on even our sissified hills here in Fla.).

Thank you to everyone who has taken (and might subsequently take) the
time to share your opinions.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Bruce-<< For here in Colorado I'd like to see something like:

11-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27

or even

11-14-15-16-17-19-22-25-28-32








>><BR><BR>

I don't think you need an 11t even here in Colorado. Do you really spin out a
12t going down hill? Legs moving 120rpm+? Stop pedaling and go faster.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 30 Jan 2005 00:57:23 GMT, [email protected] (PBridge130) wrote:

>With 53-42-32 on the front, and a 12-23 on the rear, I've got enough range to
>do anything in CO, and I'm 48, and fat. Climbs in CO are rarely steep -- I
>don't think I've ever been in my smallest gear, although I have to admit that
>my long mountain rides last summer were only 95-110 miles or so, not real
>marathon efforts.

You would be a good candidate for a 50/34 with a 10sp 12/25.

 

[RonSonic]

On 30 Jan 2005 06:34:54 -0800, "marco007esq" <[email protected]> wrote:

>This is all great stuff.... good food for thought.... but the
>consensus appears to be (something I hadn't considered) that the big
>jumps in the low numbered cogs are bad. Makes sense to me... The
>comment about the triple was good... but as I dont have one one there
>now, and I dont want to replace my cranks, bb, and RD, that is out.
>
>I'm going to try one of the tighter suggested patterns, with maybe a
>larger bailout gear -- mostly so that I can keep a hot cadence, even on
>one of the climbs with my butt dragging - (I'm coming off a
>catastrophic injury, so until I get my leg back, I'm occasionally dying
>on even our sissified hills here in Fla.).

You're up near Orlando aren't you. That part of the sand bar is a little hillier
than here on the coast. Mentioned earlier a 13-23 does everything for me here
with the 23 being my unused "disaster gear." But if you're coming off an injury
then do what you need to get yourself riding healthy and strong again. A triple
would be way over the top. But having a twiddly gear to get yourself home can be
reassuring and safe.

Anyway, good luck and have fun.

Ron

 

[marco007esq]

Ron, yes, I am near Orlando and do most of my riding out in Mt. Dora /
Clermont. Yesterday was a rude awakening that my leg wasn't complete
yet as I mashed my way up a pathetically small rise in my 39 chainring
and my 23 cog. I don't care so much about how fast I get up that hill
-- as I'm impressed as all hell with myself that I didn't lose my leg.
(Sidebar on that -- the doctor told me that the fact that I was a
hardcore cyclist and a non-smoker was the difference in why I did not
lose my leg).

So... I need to accept that a 25, 27, or even 29 might be an
appropriate terminal gear for me... at least until I'm fully rehabbed.



> You're up near Orlando aren't you. That part of the sand bar is a
little hillier
> than here on the coast. Mentioned earlier a 13-23 does everything for
me here
> with the 23 being my unused "disaster gear." But if you're coming off
an injury
> then do what you need to get yourself riding healthy and strong
again. A triple
> would be way over the top. But having a twiddly gear to get yourself
home can be
> reassuring and safe.
>
> Anyway, good luck and have fun.
>
> Ron

 

[R15757]

pbridge wrote in small part:

>Climbs in CO are rarely steep

COUGH....gag!!! Accckkk.

you want to run that one by me again??