Try as I might, I fail to understand the importance, if any, of the concept of gain-ratio. I've readhttp://sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmltwice over, and I've researched the relevant discussions on the deja.com archives. Is the concept of gain-ratio valid, worthy, and applicable, or just a bunch of [insert expletive] ?
Seems like it wouldn't work for elliptical gears, unless you refer to the number as an instantaneous gain-ratio. However, the fact that it takes crank size into account makes it a better comparative number than the other methods mentioned on Sheldon's site.
Try as I might, I fail to understand the importance, if any, of the concept of gain-ratio. I've read http://sheldonbrown.com/gain.html twice over, and I've researched the relevant discussions on the deja.com archives. Is the concept of gain-ratio valid, worthy, and applicable, or just a bunch of [insert expletive] ?
Try as I might, I fail to understand the importance, if any, of the concept of gain-ratio. I've readhttp://sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmltwice over, and I've researched the relevant discussions on the deja.com archives. Is the concept of gain-ratio valid, worthy, and applicable, or just a bunch of [insert expletive] ?
Seems like it wouldn't work for elliptical gears, unless you refer to the number as an instantaneous gain-ratio. However, the fact that it takes crank size into account makes it a better comparative number than the other methods mentioned on Sheldon's site.
I prefer meters development. Seems practical enough.
The cranks on all of my bikes are 165 mm or 170 mm in length. Not enough to make a real difference in the gain ratio or be noticed by the user (me, that is).
Gain ratio is the ratio of pedal force to drive force.
E.g., in a gear with gain ratio of 5, to drive the bicycle with a force of x requires a force of 5x at the pedal (more pedantically: a pedal force whose component in a direction normal to the crank and normal to the bottom bracket axis is 5x).
Gain ratio has the elegance of being a pure number (no units).
Whether it's better than some other measure of gear depends on what you want to do. For gauging the effort required to pedal, it's just the ticket. But if you want to convert crank RPM to speed, development is a more useful measure.
Try as I might, I fail to understand the importance, if any, of the concept of gain-ratio. I've readhttp://sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmltwice over, and I've researched the relevant discussions on the deja.com archives. Is the concept of gain-ratio valid, worthy, and applicable, or just a bunch of [insert expletive] ?
Seems like it wouldn't work for elliptical gears, unless you refer to the number as an instantaneous gain-ratio. However, the fact that it takes crank size into account makes it a better comparative number than the other methods mentioned on Sheldon's site.
I prefer meters development. Seems practical enough.
I still use gear inches. Pardon me while I get my knuckles off the floor and get the cave fires burning before I go out and kill something for dinner.
"Tom Ace" wrote: Gain ratio is the ratio of pedal force to drive force. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IOW, it is the reciprocal of mechanical advantage. The only disadvantage I see is that it is yet another system that people are unfamiliar with and will be confused by.
I still use gear inches. Pardon me while I get my knuckles off the floor and get the cave fires burning before I go out and kill something for dinner.
I use gear inches too, because I've done so for years. That means I know what 100 inches feels like, what 42 inches feels like, and I know how much of a jump 8 to 10 inches is and that I don't want to get up to 10 inches, or down below 6 inches, between gears, even on my lowly 12 and 14 speed bikes, if I can avoid it. If nothing else, gear inches gives you finer gradiation.
But, a more useful question in life is why we worry about the horsepower a car can produce when in fact horsepower can't even be measured, we have to measure torque and then we calculate horsepower!
(Or, as they say, "same thing" - pick your favorite. I like torque).
I still use gear inches. Pardon me while I get my knuckles off the floor and get the cave fires burning before I go out and kill something for dinner.
I use gear inches too, because I've done so for years. That means I know what 100 inches feels like, what 42 inches feels like, and I know how much of a jump 8 to 10 inches is and that I don't want to get up to 10 inches, or down below 6 inches, between gears, even on my lowly 12 and 14 speed bikes, if I can avoid it. If nothing else, gear inches gives you finer gradiation.
I see your point, but it's not really the case. "Meters" development is simply the units used in the final calculation. Centimeters and millimeters could just as easily be used. Similarly, the significant digits could be carried on further beyond the decimal point.
What it really comes down to: I don't like English units 😉
On Jun 18, 4:20 pm, Troll Report <[email hidden]> wrote: > Try as I might, I fail to understand the importance, if any, of > the concept of gain-ratio. I've > readhttp://sheldonbrown.com/gain.htmltwice over, and I've > researched the relevant discussions on the deja.com archives. Is > the concept of gain-ratio valid, worthy, and applicable, or just a > bunch of [insert expletive] ? Seems like it wouldn't work for elliptical gears, unless you refer to the number as an instantaneous gain-ratio. However, the fact that it takes crank size into account makes it a better comparative number than the other methods mentioned on Sheldon's site.
I prefer meters development. Seems practical enough.
I still use gear inches. Pardon me while I get my knuckles off the floor and get the cave fires burning before I go out and kill something for dinner.
Why does anybody even care about gain ratio? Just pick a gear that feels right and pedal. The great thing about legs is that they can't stall like a car engine. Of course they can't blow up from over-revving either. If your top and bottom gears are right then all you really have to worry about is a big gap somewhere in the middle. I have 21 speeds on all my mountain bikes and a measly 10 speeds on my road bikes. More speeds? Why? Bill Baka
Gain ratio is the ratio of pedal force to drive force.
E.g., in a gear with gain ratio of 5, to drive the bicycle with a force of x requires a force of 5x at the pedal (more pedantically: a pedal force whose component in a direction normal to the crank and normal to the bottom bracket axis is 5x).
Gain ratio has the elegance of being a pure number (no units).
Whether it's better than some other measure of gear depends on what you want to do. For gauging the effort required to pedal, it's just the ticket. But if you want to convert crank RPM to speed, development is a more useful measure.
For my own purposes I chart my gears by km/hr @ 90 rpm. For communication I call out the cog counts: e.g 50/18 (== 32.1 km/hr @ 90 rpm).
Gain ratio is the ratio of pedal force to drive force.
Quoted message said:
E.g., in a gear with gain ratio of 5, to drive the bicycle with a force of x requires a force of 5x at the pedal (more pedantically: a pedal force whose component in a direction normal to the crank and normal to the bottom bracket axis is 5x).
Quoted message said:
Gain ratio has the elegance of being a pure number (no units).
Quoted message said:
Whether it's better than some other measure of gear depends on what you want to do. For gauging the effort required to pedal, it's just the ticket. But if you want to convert crank RPM to speed, development is a more useful measure.
For my own purposes I chart my gears by km/hr @ 90 rpm. For communication I call out the cog counts: e.g 50/18 (== 32.1 km/hr @ 90 rpm).
-- Michael Press
But where is the bragging rights in that?
Everyone knows you are a hard man if you tell them that you have a 98" gear on!
Riding track leads to some interesting stuffing around, people who will swap a chainring and a cog to get 0.5" more or less.
what good is it? as with most cycle or nuclear weapon modeling issues, fundemental grip is necessary to figure whazzitallmean.IN THE BEGINNING, I had no idea and passed over the subject. Butbutbut deciding to go with less teeth on the smell ring( and screwup the seamless standard shift progessions) for more effective climbing under grocery loads, I guessed hmmmm -1,-2,-3,-4 teeth? dumb. Quantification with the gain method and a %%%% comarison to the prior setup is uhuh rational. 38-44? or was that 43?
Dans le message de news:[email hidden], datakoll <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:
what good is it? as with most cycle or nuclear weapon modeling issues, fundemental grip is necessary to figure whazzitallmean.IN THE BEGINNING, I had no idea and passed over the subject. Butbutbut deciding to go with less teeth on the smell ring( and screwup the seamless standard shift progessions) for more effective climbing under grocery loads, I guessed hmmmm -1,-2,-3,-4 teeth? dumb. Quantification with the gain method and a %%%% comarison to the prior setup is uhuh rational. 38-44? or was that 43?
Climbing ? Florida ? Hmmmmmmm. Something's not right.
Dans le message denews:[email hidden], datakoll <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:
what good is it? as with most cycle or nuclear weapon modeling issues, fundemental grip is necessary to figure whazzitallmean.IN THE BEGINNING, I had no idea and passed over the subject. Butbutbut deciding to go with less teeth on the smell ring( and screwup the seamless standard shift progessions) for more effective climbing under grocery loads, I guessed hmmmm -1,-2,-3,-4 teeth? dumb. Quantification with the gain method and a %%%% comarison to the prior setup is uhuh rational. 38-44? or was that 43?
Climbing ? Florida ? Hmmmmmmm. Something's not right.
Yep, the Sunshine State-- flat as a pancake. But the winds can make you wish you were in the Rockies.
nothings right in flooroda. highest in crime lowest in intelligence. makes marsielles feel like cambridge. the feds built intercoastal waterway bridges without movable spans at 80-120' up to clear the occassional large ship? so the climb up with 80-90 pounds of groceries into a 20 mph wind is on a 1/5' grade. anyway. the standard 10 speed gearing is more for walter mitty racers. shimano dropped the small gear to a 38 tooth CR for the deore touring crankset. works great with a 14-32 7 speed plus 34 cog. still goes 35 behind a UPS truck but beats the wind no problem. you should see my pedals. I'll look for a camera. besides. i suggest to people who dabble in cycles that they should be on the large CR all the time unless they're on the bridge into the wind and they look at me like I lost a bolt
Why does anybody even care about gain ratio? Just pick a gear that feels right and pedal. The great thing about legs is that they can't stall like a car engine. Of course they can't blow up from over-revving either. If your top and bottom gears are right then all you really have to worry about is a big gap somewhere in the middle. I have 21 speeds on all my mountain bikes and a measly 10 speeds on my road bikes. More speeds? Why? Bill Baka
Well, I care because I like to choose freewheels and chainwheels that give me the overall range I want on a particular bike - that is, a low enough low and a high enough high. I also like to have relatively smooth and equal jumps between gears where practical, simply to make riding more pleasurable - big jumps up are hard to overcome and big jumps down take me off my pace when I might have kept the speed up higher without as large a jump down.
I honestly don't care much about the exact ratio once I am on the road. It's only in "design" that I care.
Gain ratio is the ratio of pedal force to drive force.
Quoted message said:
E.g., in a gear with gain ratio of 5, to drive the bicycle with a force of x requires a force of 5x at the pedal (more pedantically: a pedal force whose component in a direction normal to the crank and normal to the bottom bracket axis is 5x).
Quoted message said:
Gain ratio has the elegance of being a pure number (no units).
Quoted message said:
Whether it's better than some other measure of gear depends on what you want to do. For gauging the effort required to pedal, it's just the ticket. But if you want to convert crank RPM to speed, development is a more useful measure.
For my own purposes I chart my gears by km/hr @ 90 rpm. For communication I call out the cog counts: e.g 50/18 (== 32.1 km/hr @ 90 rpm).
But where is the bragging rights in that?
Everyone knows you are a hard man if you tell them that you have a 98" gear on!
Riding track leads to some interesting stuffing around, people who will swap a chainring and a cog to get 0.5" more or less.
