Eight speed hubs.

On 17 Aug 2004 20:29:59 GMT, [email hidden] (WivFam) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight speed
hubs.

Eight? Cheapskate! Get a Rohloff :o)

Quoted message said:

As long as
you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for cruising and a high
gear for downhill, why do you need more than five gears? Everyone was
recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.

I am nearly 1/2mph faster on average with a close-ratio cassette than
with the wide-ratio one which is still closer ratio than most hub
gears. Cadence is everything.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

You kind of have to have a racing orientation to understand it. Look at it
from a gear inch viewpoint. You need a low gear into the teens if you are
going to ride in real hills. Pedalling at a reasonable cadence in a gear of
fifteen inches, you are at the minimum speed to remain upright. (around 4
mph) Any slower and you have to get off and push.

From the high end of things, something over 100 gear inches is standard.
That is enough gear to go over twenty at a reasonable cadence. Lots of
listers can do this. I can't. It's a matter of available power. I rarely use
a gear higher than 72 g.i.

Lots of people grab the big gears going downhil to see how high a speed
they can reach.

Anyway. do you need a jillion gears?? Not really. The lots of choices allows
you to always be working near your optimum power output, whatever the
situation. If cruising is your thing, 5 widely spaced gears may be plenty.

Miles of Smiles,
Tom

ps, 21 (7 rear 3 front) ain't sh**.. these days, 30 is the "I'm cool"
number!!! (10 in back and 3 in front)

WivFam said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight speed
hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as for speed. As long as
you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for cruising and a high
gear for downhill, why do you need more than five gears? Everyone was
recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.
Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

Yeah, as the others have said, close ratio gearing is excellent to
fine-tune the application of power/prevent problems with knees, and a
wide range also good to take account of climbing steep hills and also
powering downhills or along the flats.

I'm not an accomplished cyclist (and only ride an upright presently, I
lurk here dreaming of the future where I'll own a recumbent trike) but
even I regularly use more than 8 gears - and sometimes where there is a
bigger jump between the ratios I find myself wishing for an 'inbetween'
one, just because it means extra stress on the knees/legs for a lower
cadence than I'd like.

My bike has 27 gears on it, some of which overlap in practical ratio
terms, but I've used gears across almost all the range, depending on
circumstances (and fitness!). Hub gears would be spaced just too far
apart to make it feasible for me to actually get anywhere without doing
damage to knees at some point in it all.

--

Velvet

dave,
If you like to have only 5 speeds - go for it! Why worry about what others
like? Personally I like the flexibility of 24 (3x8).

mike,
riding a Burley Limbo -The Official Bike of OhMyWoodness.com

WivFam said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight speed
hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as for speed. As long as
you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for cruising and a high
gear for downhill, why do you need more than five gears? Everyone was
recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.
Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

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

Quoted message said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight speed
hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as for speed. As long as
you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for cruising and a high
gear for downhill, why do you need more than five gears? Everyone was
recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.
Dave ([email hidden])

As others have said, smaller jumps in ratio make it easier to
fine-tune cadence. Also, parts for 7 and fewer speed hubs are becoming
hard to find. 8-speed is the least that is commonly available.

Overall gear spread is another thing- locally, I rarely use anything
but the middle chainring (39 teeth), but I just got back from a
supported tour through southwest Oregon, including a climb to and
descent from Crater Lake. My 25inch low gear was adequate for the 6%
climbs at 7,000 foot altitude (I wasn't carrying a load), but I could
have used a higher gear than 117 inches- I spent nearly an hour
*coasting* at 30+ mph... I had run out of gears on the descent. I
would have passed a few more roadies if I'd had a higher gear.

Jeff

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

Quoted message said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight

speed

Quoted message said:

hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as for speed. As long as
you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for cruising and a

high

Quoted message said:

gear for downhill, why do you need more than five gears? Everyone was
recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.
Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

This is an odd reason for 21 gears but a couple of weeks ago the rear
derailleur cable broke on my Baron so for the rest of the trip back I had a
fairly expensive 3-speed using the front rings as my only gears

While it wasn't a bad ride back I'd not want to go through that on a very
hilly road, before that I was asking the same thing you did since for the
last year I can't think of a time I had the front gear on anything other
than the largest ring

WivFam said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight
speed hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as for speed.
As long as you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for
cruising and a high gear for downhill, why do you need more than five
gears? Everyone was recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.

The human engine has a narrow torque band and doesn't much like big jumps
between gears. One day I shall invent a proper[1] continuously-variable
bicycle transmission, and then I shall RULE THE WORLD!

1 - i.e. as efficient as a chain

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

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

Quoted message said:

WivFam said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight
speed hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as for speed.
As long as you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for
cruising and a high gear for downhill, why do you need more than five
gears? Everyone was recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.

The human engine has a narrow torque band and doesn't much like big jumps
between gears. One day I shall invent a proper[1] continuously-variable
bicycle transmission, and then I shall RULE THE WORLD!

1 - i.e. as efficient as a chain

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

How about a cogged belt, (ala. H.D. motorcycle) with expandable diameter
pulleys and/or a multi -speed hub!?

Jack Davis said:

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

Quoted message said:

WivFam said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than
eight speed hubs. Why I have never seen a hub break down, and as
for speed. As long as you've got a low low gear for climbing and
middle gear for cruising and a high gear for downhill, why do you
need more than five gears? Everyone was recommending 21 gears.
Thats why I ask.

The human engine has a narrow torque band and doesn't much like big
jumps between gears. One day I shall invent a proper[1]
continuously-variable bicycle transmission, and then I shall RULE
THE WORLD!

1 - i.e. as efficient as a chain

How about a cogged belt, (ala. H.D. motorcycle) with expandable
diameter pulleys and/or a multi -speed hub!?

The former is /theoretically/ OK (though I'm not certain as to efficiency).
If one ever needs to replace the belt, though, life might become a little
fraught.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about a cogged belt, (ala. H.D. motorcycle) with expandable diameter
pulleys and/or a multi -speed hub!?

It'll have to cover a 6-to-1 range (20 inches to 120 inches) and stand
up to the torque of the average HPV "engine"... which is the about the
same as a small-block Chevy. I think cogged-belt drives require
fairly close attention to belt tension or they tend to skip.

Jeff

(Jeff Wills) said:

stand up to the torque of the average HPV "engine"... which is the
about the same as a small-block Chevy.

!??

The HP rating of the typical human in the 0.4 range or less for periods
of 1-2 hours. Obviously that's a whole lot less than the typical
small-block, which develops several hundred HP -- as much as 400HP or
more with some work. It seems unbelievable that 1/1000 as much
horsepower could result in the same torque!

Torques of 500 lb-ft or more are not unusual in souped-up engines.
Let's guess 400 is fairly common for a less-tweaked engine. My cranks
are just about 7" from pedal to center, or 7/12 = 0.58'. To generate
400 lb-ft I'd have to exert 400 / 0.58 = 685lbs of force on the pedal.
I dunno about you, but I think my knees would give out first. :-)

I suppose a healthy cyclist could probably push at least 300lbs against
a recumbent seatback, maybe more, though of course that would be Very
Bad for his knees. Upright cyclists are limited by their weight.

Still, it's amazing that a human could exert even 1/4 to 1/2 of the
torque generated by a hopped-up 454!

Gary

Gary Fritz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

... Upright cyclists are limited by their weight.

Sort of. Should be able to produce more lb force than their weight, unless
they're cleatless and without handlebars...

H

Gary Fritz said:

(Jeff Wills) said:

stand up to the torque of the average HPV "engine"... which is the
about the same as a small-block Chevy.

...
Still, it's amazing that a human could exert even 1/4 to 1/2 of the
torque generated by a hopped-up 454!

The 454 cubic inch displacement engine is a big block ("Rat"😉, not a
small block ("Mouse"😉.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth

One can never have too many gear(speed)choices as fine tuning is what
makes a big difference in the area of efficiency. It also makes all
the difference for a rider's arthritic knees.

As for continuously variable transmission matching, perhaps something
using a muscle-electric (somewhat like its diesel-electric locomotive
counterpart) system might be the answer. Of course it would have to be
as efficient as possible, which means mandatory use of superconductors
throughout - as if 'bents aren't expensive enough already! But it
would be an interesting experiment at very least.

Quoted message said:

On 17 Aug 2004 20:29:59 GMT, [email hidden] (WivFam) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I cannot for the life of me see why we have anything other than eight speed
hubs.

Eight? Cheapskate! Get a Rohloff :o)

Quoted message said:

As long as
you've got a low low gear for climbing and middle gear for cruising and a

high

Quoted message said:

gear for downhill, why do you need more than five gears? Everyone was
recommending 21 gears. Thats why I ask.

I am nearly 1/2mph faster on average with a close-ratio cassette than
with the wide-ratio one which is still closer ratio than most hub
gears. Cadence is everything.

Guy

Well, what would you recomment for a guy who cares not about speed, only for
comfort?
Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

Quoted message said:

If cruising is your thing, 5 widely spaced gears may be plenty.

Miles of Smiles,
Tom

ps, 21 (7 rear 3 front) ain't sh**.. these days, 30 is the "I'm cool"
number!!! (10 in back and 3 in front)

THank you, cruising is where I'm at, and why else would a guy want a recumbent?

Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

Velvet

Quoted message said:

I'm not an accomplished cyclist (and only ride an upright presently, I
lurk here dreaming of the future where I'll own a recumbent trike) but
even I regularly use more than 8 gears - and sometimes where there is a
bigger jump between the ratios I find myself wishing for an 'inbetween'
one, just because it means extra stress on the knees/legs for a lower
cadence than I'd like.

Yeah that's just the thing. I couldn't give a damn about cadence. If I'm going
downhill, I coast,and of it's uphill, I ride the sails of the lowest imaginable
gear, but if its a straightaway, unfortunately I have to pedal some.

Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

Quoted message said:

mike,
riding a Burley Limbo -The Official Bike of OhMyWoodness.com

Whats that, a woody?
Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.

Quoted message said:

As others have said, smaller jumps in ratio make it easier to
fine-tune cadence. Also, parts for 7 and fewer speed hubs are becoming
hard to find. 8-speed is the least that is commonly available.

Overall gear spread is another thing- locally, I rarely use anything
but the middle chainring (39 teeth), but I just got back from a
supported tour through southwest Oregon, including a climb to and
descent from Crater Lake. My 25inch low gear was adequate for the 6%
climbs at 7,000 foot altitude (I wasn't carrying a load), but I could
have used a higher gear than 117 inches- I spent nearly an hour
*coasting* at 30+ mph... I had run out of gears on the descent. I
would have passed a few more roadies if I'd had a higher gear.

Jeff

Yess, being that I have a terrible car which will not requite me on break
issues, could you please tell me how bike breaks do on downslopes of mountains.

Thanks
Dave ([email hidden])

Dave is not akin to and avoidant of most occult fraternities, despite
maintaining his interest in life and conversation, because they have only
harmed or hindered that which was precious to him. Thank you.