gears/cadence question

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:37:39 +0800,
<[email hidden]>, Marian Rosenberg

Quoted message said:

I think you use the really big one when going up and the really little one when going down. Is
this right?

Thanks, -M

This is where it's all explained in several clear concise articles.
sheldonbrown.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
--
zk

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:01:27 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]> from Balsa Pacific Aero Ltd.

Engineering & Bicycle Mongery said:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:37:39 +0800,
<[email hidden]>, Marian Rosenberg <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think you use the really big one when going up and the really little one when going down. Is
this right?

Thanks, -M

This is where it's all explained in several clear concise articles.
sheldonbrown.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

Oh, bother. That's way too complicated. Just get a bike without gears and it's all nice and simple.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com An air of FRENCH FRIES permeates my nostrils!!

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:13:56 -0500, <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you use the really big one when going up and the really little one when going down. Is
this right?

Thanks, -M

This is where it's all explained in several clear concise articles.
sheldonbrown.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

Oh, bother. That's way too complicated. Just get a bike without gears and it's all nice and simple.

Two speeds: sitting and standing.

No, Ms.Rosenberg has had single speeds and is now confronted with the mysteries of gear shifting.
Mr. Brown has covered the subject.

Specifically, to address her question regarding low pedal cadences being bad and the fact she is
riding crowded bike lanes with slower traffic, I'll suggest putting it in a gear that permits a
comfortable amount of pedal resistance for balanced low cadences at slow speed and ignoring the
cadence counter until she's out on the open road.

It will probably be somewhere around the middle gear on the rear cluster and either the large or
small ring on the front - depending on wind and grade.

Marian, hang the bike up so you can turn the cranks, shift the levers and watch what happens. We
tend to complicate things for ourselves.
--
zk

Hey Marion,

It's all chinese to me too.

Going into the wind use the little cog on the front and one of the bigger cogs on the back. Going with the wind if you are in lots of traffic, stay on the little cog on the front and use maybe the second or third smallest cog on the rear, just enough to pedal comfortably. When on the open road or going downhill and you want a bit of speed use the big cog on the front. Be careful of that dress getting caught in the spokes though.

And ignore that cadence readout on your new computer. It's made for people who shave their legs and try to ride faster than Lance Armstrong!

zaijian, Spider

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:13:56 -0500, <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I think you use the really big one when going up and the really little one when going down. Is
>this right?
>
>Thanks, -M

This is where it's all explained in several clear concise articles.
sheldonbrown.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

Oh, bother. That's way too complicated. Just get a bike without gears and it's all nice
and simple.

a bike with no gears ... this would be a wheel chair then?

been there, done that.

Really good for upper body muscle development. Basically every time you move you are doing sit-ups.
And you also get some work on the arms and a bit on the pectorals.

Quoted message said:

Two speeds: sitting and standing.

No, Ms.Rosenberg has had single speeds and is now confronted with the mysteries of gear shifting.
Mr. Brown has covered the subject.

It is still mysterious even after reading the article ... it seems like it ought to be simple to
understand but I can't quite grasp which ones are low gears and which ones are high gears.

Looking at it from the math angle, if you have a big front gear and a little back gear you get more
spins of the back wheel for spins of the pedals.

So, if I switch to the slightly smaller front gear I can go the same speed for more pedal
revolutions.

And, if I switch to the bigger back gears I can go the same speed for more pedal revolutions.

Quoted message said:

Specifically, to address her question regarding low pedal cadences being bad and the fact she is
riding crowded bike lanes with slower traffic, I'll suggest putting it in a gear that permits a
comfortable amount of pedal resistance for balanced low cadences at slow speed and ignoring the
cadence counter until she's out on the open road.

I've got to remove and move the bell because it interferes with the shifter and won't let me get to
the two big back gears. But, until I had it put on (as an important safety feature for local
conditions) I tried all 10 combinations and basically found them all comfortable.

Quoted message said:

It will probably be somewhere around the middle gear on the rear cluster and either the large or
small ring on the front - depending on wind and grade.

grade, what's that? 🙂

This part of Hebei is a big flat plain. I've gone over 50 kilometers out of the city by bike to the
east and never saw any change in elevation. The closest hills are about 20 klicks southwest and they
are mountains rather than hills. Very abruptly mountains. Surprisingly abrupt mountains.

we do have wind - sometimes.

Quoted message said:

Marian, hang the bike up so you can turn the cranks, shift the levers and watch what happens. We
tend to complicate things for ourselves.

OK

-M

Marian Rosenberg said:

It is still mysterious even after reading the article ... it seems like it ought to be simple to
understand but I can't quite grasp which ones are low gears and which ones are high gears.

You might try this calculator from Sheldon Brown-

sheldonbrown.comgearsOpen ↗

Select 'Gear Inches' under gear units. For simplicity sake and to avoid having to count all your
cogs' teeth, enter 40 and 50 for chainring (ignore the third space). Enter 13-15-18-21-24-28 under
Custom Cassette (leave Stock Cassette as is- custom). Ignore the other spaces. Calculate...

This will give a chart of how many inches the bicycle will travel forward for each pedal revolution.
The higher the number, the more force is required to move the bicycle and you forward in a given
time. 'High' gears are the higher numbers on the chart.

My physics is long forgotten, so excuse the incorrect terminology- work ,force, etc. Still....

If you maintain the same cadence in all gear combinations, it will take more force (work?) to move
the bicycle 80 inches forward than it would to move it 40 inches forward in the same time period
(one pedal revolution).

Quoted message said:

Looking at it from the math angle, if you have a big front gear and a little back gear you get more
spins of the back wheel for spins of the pedals.

And you can either spin slower and go the same speed, or spin the same and go faster but with
more effort.

Quoted message said:

So, if I switch to the slightly smaller front gear I can go the same speed for more pedal
revolutions.

And, if I switch to the bigger back gears I can go the same speed for more pedal revolutions.

Yep. The issue with cadence is how many pedal revolutions per unit of time you find comfortable.
Changing gears is a way to maintain this comfort, or maintain efficiency for racers. All bicyclists
can benefit from what racers have learned over the years- that a higher cadence can be more
efficient and easier to maintain and easier on the body.

But I wouldn't make a religion of cadence for the type of riding that you describe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Specifically, to address her question regarding low pedal cadences being bad and the fact she is
riding crowded bike lanes with slower traffic, I'll suggest putting it in a gear that permits a
comfortable amount of pedal resistance for balanced low cadences at slow speed and ignoring the
cadence counter until she's out on the open road.

This sounds like good advice.

Quoted message said:

I've got to remove and move the bell because it interferes with the shifter and won't let me get to
the two big back gears. But, until I had it put on (as an important safety feature for local
conditions) I tried all 10 combinations and basically found them all comfortable.

So you can adjust the effort you put into pedalling to match the gearing. Makes sense to me.

Just because you have the gears doesn't mean that you have to use them all. I can spend lots of time
in just one gear on my commutes, varying cadence and force to deal with traffic, hills, etc. Funny
in a way- lots of people in the US are moving to single speed bikes for the experience and pleasure
that they provide.

Marian,

All other variables being equal, the gear you are in does not change the amount of work that you do.
What changes is how much force you need to exert at the pedals. The gearing achieves the variation
in force by changing the number of rotations of the wheel that you get for a rotation of the crank.
More wheel rotations means more force, fewer means less force.

Your observation that a big gear in the front and a small gear in the back requires more force is
correct. That is normally referred to as a higher gear. Small in the front and big in the back is a
lower gear. While you can calculate the exact "order" of the gearing using Sheldon's formulas, I
wouldn't bother. Just do it by feel. What you will find is that going downhill or downwind you will
probably use the big front and the 4 smallest back rings. Going uphill or upwind, you will probably
use the small font and the 4 biggest back rings. This approach gives you fine tuning (shifting the
back) within a range of gearing (big front for downhill or downwind, little for up).

You will probably not want to use the big front with the biggest rear or the small front with the
smallest rear. This is called cross chaining. Cross chaining can wear the chain and the teeth on the
rings over time. On some bikes it can also contribute to spontaneous shifting.

So, what about cadence? It is often recommended, especially on longer rides, that you try to keep
your foot speed and resistence about the same. For most recreational riders, the range of variation
in cadence that is acceptible is wide enough that you don't really need to use the computer to track
it. For fitness riders and racers, who often ride at fairly high cadences, tracking with the
computer can be very important. Especially in training where they are trying to develop the habit of
always riding at a high, steady cadence.

[censored]

Marian Rosenberg said:

A very nice person on this list sent me an old bicycle computer to replace my vandalized one.

Since the bicycle the vandalzed computer was on disappeared shortly thereafter it is even better
that I have a new computer.

The new bike is a 10 speed. The new computer has cadence.

I have been on multigear bicycles before. However, I have usually been riding with other people
who tell me when to shift and how to shift. On the few (I think three) occasions of not having
someone tell me what to do I just left it in one gear and ignored the shifters.

On the back wheel I've got 5 gears going from really big to really small. At the pedals I've got
2 gears.

Because I've always ridden on single speed bicycles when I wanted to go fast I pedalled harder and
when I wanted to go slow I pedalled slower or coasted.

Now I've got a ten speed and I've got questions.

I've read some discussions about cadence on here in the past, and a lot of people seem to think
that lower cadence is a bad thing. The cadence pick up doesn't even register if I am doing under
25 per minute.

Local bike lane speed is pretty slow and the lanes are pretty crowded, so I can't be whizzing
around people too much.

Should I be bicycling at a higher cadence? To do this would it make sense for me to use the bigger
gears on the back of the bike? Does this mean I would be doing more work to go 10 and 12 kph? And
is doing more work at the slow speeds a good thing with regards to strength and endurance
especially on the rare chances I have to go fast?

Even though hills are a non issue around here unless I want to make them an issue by bicycling out
of town, off the plain, and into the mountains...I'd like to know ... which gears are used for
going up and which ones for going down?

I think you use the really big one when going up and the really little one when going down. Is
this right?

Thanks, -M

--
[censored] Schoeller "][email hidden] schoeller.ne.client2.attbi.comschoeller.ne.client2.attbi.comOpen ↗
781.449.5476

"Er ist ein Narr, der meint, es sei nicht schad, das Kind auszuschütten mit dem Bad" - Thomas
Murner 1512

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:40:39 +0800,
<[email hidden]>, Marian Rosenberg

Quoted message said:

I can't quite grasp which ones are low gears and which ones are high gears.

The way it fizzed on me was to think of the 'difference' as being either 'high' or 'low'.

52T - 14T = 38 (high) 42T - 28T = 14 (low)

These two gear combinations would be the same: 52T - 28T = 24 42T - 18T = 24

However, there would probably be less friction from the chain side-plates using the 42T - 18T
combination.

You could have a higher gear (ratio) using the small (42T) chain ring, so it's not quite right to
think of that as the 'low' gear. 42T - 14T = 28 52T - 28T = 24 (Both with lots of friction because
the chain is running at angles)

Mud, right?
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:40:39 +0800,
<[email hidden]>, Marian Rosenberg <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I can't quite grasp which ones are low gears and which ones are high gears.

The way it fizzed on me was to think of the 'difference' as being either 'high' or 'low'.

52T - 14T = 38 (high) 42T - 28T = 14 (low)

These two gear combinations would be the same: 52T - 28T = 24 42T - 18T = 24

Umm... it's the ratio, not the difference, that's important.

42/18 = 2.33
43/28 = 1.86

Thus, the former is the higher gear.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.

Marian Rosenberg said:

I can't quite grasp which ones are low gears and which ones are high gears.

When the motor turns slowly and the wheels fast, as in diving a car on the freeway at high speed,
that is a high gear in common usage. The gear used to climb steep streets like Fillmore in San
Francisco, makes the motor turn fast and the wheels slowly, that is a low gear.

The same is true of the bicycle. Gears where you pedal fast and make little headway are low gears
while the ones that are hard to start in are high gears. These high gears are the ones you would use
riding with the wind and on down slopes.

I'm not clear on why this matters. Use the gear that fits what you are doing, regardless of what
it's called.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:31:19 -0700, <[email hidden]>, Benjamin Lewis

Quoted message said:

Umm... it's the ratio, not the difference, that's important.

42/18 = 2.33
52/28 = 1.86

Thus, the former is the higher gear.

oops, busted.

PUI

guilty as charged.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:31:19 -0700, <[email hidden]>, Benjamin Lewis

Quoted message said:

Umm... it's the ratio, not the difference, that's important.

42/18 = 2.33
52/28 = 1.86

Thus, the former is the higher gear.

oops, busted.

PUI

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions? Really, Zoot, you don't need a graduate degree for
this stuff 😉

--
Benjamin Lewis

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.

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

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:31:19 -0700, <[email hidden]>, Benjamin Lewis

Quoted message said:

Umm... it's the ratio, not the difference, that's important.

42/18 = 2.33
52/28 = 1.86

Thus, the former is the higher gear.

oops, busted.

PUI

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions? Really, Zoot, you don't need a graduate degree for this
stuff 😉

I would call that apparent ratio. There are about twelve of those 52 cogs where no power is applied
in the dead spot area. When you eliminate the dead spot area, you have effective ratio and this
makes it possible to use a higher gear as Anquetil did in his TT's.

n. crowley said:

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

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:31:19 -0700, <[email hidden]>, Benjamin Lewis
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Umm... it's the ratio, not the difference, that's important.
>
> 42/18 = 2.33
> 52/28 = 1.86
>
> Thus, the former is the higher gear.

oops, busted.

PUI

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions? Really, Zoot, you don't need a graduate degree for this
stuff 😉

I would call that apparent ratio. There are about twelve of those 52 cogs where no power is
applied in the dead spot area. When you eliminate the dead spot area, you have effective ratio and
this makes it possible to use a higher gear as Anquetil did in his TT's.

Could you expand on this? I have no idea what you're talking about, and it looks like nonsense at
first and second glances.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
- Mark Twain

Marian Rosenberg said:

I've read some discussions about cadence on here in the past, and a lot of people seem to think
that lower cadence is a bad thing. The cadence pick up doesn't even register if I am doing under 25
per minute.

25 is extremely slow. However, if you're comfortable, go ahead and ride that way.

Quoted message said:

Local bike lane speed is pretty slow and the lanes are pretty crowded, so I can't be whizzing
around people too much.

Should I be bicycling at a higher cadence?

Try it. If you like it, do it more.

Quoted message said:

To do this would it make sense for me to use the bigger gears on the back of the bike?

Correct. Larger gear on the rear == pedal faster with less force into the pedals, resulting in more
force at the tire.

Quoted message said:

Does this mean I would be doing more work to go 10 and 12 kph?

At that speed, you probably won't want to be in the largest gear on the rear and the smallest on
the front; it probably will feel like you're pedalling too fast -- and if it feels that way,
then you are.

Quoted message said:

And is doing more work at the slow speeds a good thing with regards to strength and endurance
especially on the rare chances I have to go fast?

Doing more work is never a good thing. Especially when not racing or trying to go faster than usual
(and I get the feeling that such is not your interest), you will want to choose the optimum gear for
the least fatigue.

Quoted message said:

Even though hills are a non issue around here unless I want to make them an issue by bicycling out
of town, off the plain, and into the mountains...I'd like to know ... which gears are used for
going up and which ones for going down?

Downhill: Small gears on rear, large on front Uphill: Large gears on rear, small on front Level
land: Middle gears on rear, either front, however is comfortable

Quoted message said:

I think you use the really big one when going up and the really little one when going down. Is
this right?

Right, for the rear. It's the opposite for the front.

Don't get too hung up on trying to achieve a specific cadence that somebody tells you is good. Your
body will tell you the best cadence for you; the cadence function will measure that for you. I spent
a few years trying to keep an 85-90 rpm cadence as suggested by many books and by people on this
newsfroup; and this year I finally tried something different -- and was sunrises to find that I am
comfortable between 40 and 60 on level land, and 70 to 80 on hills, most of the time. I last much
longer pedalling like that.

Quoted message said:

Thanks, -M

--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian said:

by many books and by people on this newsfroup; and this year I finally tried something different --
and was sunrises to find that I am comfortable between 40 and 60 on level land, and 70 to 80 on

Damned spell checker. I wasn't sunrises, I was surprised. <G>
--
Rick Onanian

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

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian said:

by many books and by people on this newsfroup; and this year I finally tried something
different -- and was sunrises to find that I am comfortable between 40 and 60 on level land,
and 70 to 80 on

Damned spell checker. I wasn't sunrises, I was surprised. <G>
--

Well sunrises is a word; wonder why it didn't catch "newsfroup"?

Matthew given up on spell checking with Outlook Express

In article said:

Marian Rosenberg said:

I've read some discussions about cadence on here in the past, and a lot of people seem to think
that lower cadence is a bad thing. The cadence pick up doesn't even register if I am doing under
25 per minute.

25 is extremely slow. However, if you're comfortable, go ahead and ride that way.

Quoted message said:

Local bike lane speed is pretty slow and the lanes are pretty crowded, so I can't be whizzing
around people too much.

Should I be bicycling at a higher cadence?

Try it. If you like it, do it more.

One quick comment. Be sure you're fitted correctly to the bike.

If you're doing that kind of cadence, I'd be willing to bet you've got a mis-fit, typically the seat
is too low to allow best mechanical advantage.

If the bike is such that you can't raise the seat enough to fit you properly, you need a new part,
or get a different/new/used bike that will fit you.

The right way to adjust the seat is on Sheldon's page,

sheldonbrown.comsaddles.htmlOpen ↗

But basically:

1. put the crank (pedal arms) in line (parallel to) the down tube.

2. put your heel on the pedal; at the right height, your leg is straight. (might have to have
someone steady the bike as you do this)

3. once the seat is adjusted to this, with your _toes_ (toe pad, or where your foot bends) on the
pedals, the length should be just right, and you leg will be bent.

Failing that, get a good bike shop mechanic to help you get fit properly, and/or have him check the
fit you think is correct. ;-)

As you get closer to the correct fit adjusting gets more subtle.

-B
--
Email Replies to johnson<nospm>01j <att> ntelos <dott> net

Matthew said:

"Rick Onanian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

finally tried something different -- and was sunrises to find that I

Damned spell checker. I wasn't sunrises, I was surprised. <G>
--

Well sunrises is a word; wonder why it didn't catch "newsfroup"?

More to the point, it replaced "suprised" (I forgot an "r"😉 with "sunrises".

I already added "newsfroup" to the dictionary because I enjoy saying
it. So far, you're the first person to say anything about it...

Quoted message said:

Matthew given up on spell checking with Outlook Express

--
Rick Onanian