group poll; cogsets

jonisaacs said:

Thoughts and comments:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mine overlap only on the wide-reach gears (big-big and little-little) that you

shouldn't use anyway. I currently have a 46/30 and a 12-23 9-speed,
and
have 15 closely-spaced gears from 100" to 34", all jumps of less than
9%.
----------------

Big-big and little-little are problems when using wide cog sets but
with a 5 or 6 speed, those cross-overs are acceptable.

I could not use the 42/14 back in the days of 5-speed freewheels. The
chain rubbed on the inside of the big ring. Of course, those chains were
fatter, and less flexible. I don't recall whether or not they lasted
longer. Also, they were not much cheaper than you can find now, at least
on sale.

Quoted message said:

My
calculations suggest that there are only 14 different useable gear
ratios with your setup.

No. 46 with the 12 through 19, then 30 with the 13 through 23. To be
honest, though, one of those jumps is actually a bit over 10%.

Quoted message said:

Narrower chain => narrow bearings => faster wear. In any event, 7/8
speed chains cost less.

3x5 or 3x6 can provide a wide range of useful cogs with some
surprisingly close ratios.

At the cost of going to a triple, which is going to be more finicky about
shifting than a double.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

Quoted message said:

I agree with you, it is the range that matters most. Especially if
one does a few calculations and realizes the number of redundent
ratio's one has. A half-step granny system can be designed as a 6x3
and actually have nice close ratios up top and a wide range down low.
The only way you can split the 12-13 shift is with a half step up
front..

....

Quoted message said:

I suggest that if your gears aren't low enough and/or high enough, that
is not because you don't have enough cogs to choose from, rather the
range is just too narrow.

Just some stuff from another old crank....

Hey Jon, welcome back! I sorta agree with you, with a couple of side
notes. First, stock cassettes seem awfully finicky to match up with
stock cranks, at least on the Shimano side. Should you change to a
different cassette, there's a good chance you'll lose useful gears
through increasing overlap. Guess it's time to start swapping
chainrings! Second, you have to be a relaxed rider to be willing to
fine-tune the gear with a half step (and double shift) setup. The
hard-charging riders/racers are willing to go to 10 cog clusters so
they only have to shift on one chainwheel.

So the bottom line, as with most things related to bicycles, is YMMV.

Pat
Email address works as is.

Patrick Lamb said:

Hey Jon, welcome back!

Wow! I just realized who posted that!

Good to see your typing again, Jon! (Must be terrible cloud cover out
there, eh? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

Excellent question. I went from 6 speed (which seemed just not enough)
to 9 speed (which is too much).

So I'd say 7 or 8. Probably 7 because the 126mm spacing required less
dish than 8 speed.

As a matter of principle, I will NOT go to 10!

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

As a matter of principle, I will NOT go to 10!

What is the principle involved here? Is here some moral line being
crossed in moving from 9 to 10 that is different from when we moved
from 1 to 3 --- or any other change?
You certainly have the right to buy and use whatever you want but how
does that decision rise to a matter of principle?

gds said:

Quoted message said:

As a matter of principle, I will NOT go to 10!

Quoted message said:

What is the principle involved here?

That I'm not going to buy something I don't need just because that's
all that's currently made. Where does this madness end? 11? 12? 15
cogs? If people keep buying it, the manufacturers have every reason to
keep increasing the number of gears.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

gds said:

Quoted message said:

As a matter of principle, I will NOT go to 10!

Quoted message said:

What is the principle involved here?

That I'm not going to buy something I don't need just because that's
all that's currently made. Where does this madness end? 11? 12? 15
cogs? If people keep buying it, the manufacturers have every reason to
keep increasing the number of gears.

I think that your decision to not buy something because you don't need
it is erfectly rational. But, I guess to me that is just a good,
personal decsion that doesn't rise to a matter of principle.

To me the changing technologiy it really isn't madness at all. I love
my 10 cog. I really enjoy riding my bike and part of that enjoyment- to
me- is getting newer things. That said, I rode an 8 cog for ten years
before moving to a 10.

And I'm probably doing a bit of nit picking.

Art Harris said:

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

At what point do you think they should / should have stopped?

Excellent question. I went from 6 speed (which seemed just not enough)
to 9 speed (which is too much).

So I'd say 7 or 8. Probably 7 because the 126mm spacing required less
dish than 8 speed.

As a matter of principle, I will NOT go to 10!

I went from 7 to 8, didn't notice the difference, so I stopped there.

Peter Cole said:

I went from 7 to 8, didn't notice the difference, so I stopped there.

Point of interest.

Did you find going from 5 to 7 worthwhile? I first went from 5 to 8 and
found it very usefull. I found 8 to 10 less so but still worthwhile.

Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)

gds said:

Peter Cole said:

I went from 7 to 8, didn't notice the difference, so I stopped there.

Point of interest.

Did you find going from 5 to 7 worthwhile? I first went from 5 to 8 and
found it very usefull. I found 8 to 10 less so but still worthwhile.

Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)

I don't like how once you get above 8-speed cassettes, you need special
and more expensive chains that are possibly less durable (probably not a
significant issue for the use it would get from me). But from my point
of view, 9- and 10-speed systems simply aren't practical.

\\paul

Quoted message said:

Narrower chain => narrow bearings => faster wear. In any event, 7/8
speed chains cost less.

3x5 or 3x6 can provide a wide range of useful cogs with some
surprisingly close ratios.

jon

Hey ! It's been a long time. Good to see you again!
--
zk

Paul Hobson said:

I don't like how once you get above 8-speed cassettes, you need special
and more expensive chains that are possibly less durable (probably not a
significant issue for the use it would get from me). But from my point
of view, 9- and 10-speed systems simply aren't practical.

Funny that you mention that, just today I was shopping around online for
a new 8sp chain for my commuter and noticed that 9 & 10 sp chains sell
for at LEAST $10 more than the 8's.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

gds said:

Peter Cole said:

I went from 7 to 8, didn't notice the difference, so I stopped there.

Point of interest.

Did you find going from 5 to 7 worthwhile?

I'm not sure what you mean by "worthwhile". I went from 5 to 6, then
from 6 to 7. Neither change had a profound effect. I typically vary my
cadence a lot, the idea that it needs to be kept within a 10% range
strikes me as odd, both from what I've read and my own experiences.

Quoted message said:

Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)

That's a common attitude, I find it depressing.

Peter Cole said:

gds wrote:

<snip>.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)

That's a common attitude, I find it depressing.

Why? Are you saying that one's person way of enjoying cycling is
somehow either superior or inferior to another's. I don't ask anyone
who isn't so inclined to participate in fast group rides. Some folks
like competition some don't; I don't see it rising to a moral
imperative.

I enjoy riding hard and measuring myself against others. Seems strange
to me that you would find that depressing.

gds said:

Peter Cole said:

gds wrote:

<snip>.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)

That's a common attitude, I find it depressing.

Why? Are you saying that one's person way of enjoying cycling is
somehow either superior or inferior to another's. I don't ask anyone
who isn't so inclined to participate in fast group rides. Some folks
like competition some don't; I don't see it rising to a moral
imperative.

I enjoy riding hard and measuring myself against others. Seems strange
to me that you would find that depressing.

Are you really measuring yourself against others, or measuring your
equipment (bank balance) against theirs? (depressing)

Personally, I think it's more interesting and fair to spot the other guy
a few pounds and watts in equipment before beating him. That removes any
doubt as to who the stronger rider is (if that's important to you).

A lot of the "A group/B group" stuff comes down to tactics anyway. Many
of the "fast" riders are just really good (selfish, dangerous) wheel
suckers. The net of it is, to be safe, you need to ride with a group
slower than the one you could actually hang with.

As far as fun goes, my preference is to group ride in "team time trial"
mode rather than "road race" mode. A small, well matched group, rotating
smoothly (and intelligently) is an exhilarating (and safe) experience.
For a real measure of who the strongest rider is, there's no substitute
for the individual time trial, the "race of truth". All other things
being equal, I admire the cyclist in the group with the "slowest"
equipment, because they're the "faster" rider.

Peter Cole said:

gds said:

Peter Cole said:

gds wrote:

<snip>.

Quoted message said:

>Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)

That's a common attitude, I find it depressing.

Why? Are you saying that one's person way of enjoying cycling is
somehow either superior or inferior to another's. I don't ask anyone
who isn't so inclined to participate in fast group rides. Some folks
like competition some don't; I don't see it rising to a moral
imperative.

I enjoy riding hard and measuring myself against others. Seems strange
to me that you would find that depressing.

Are you really measuring yourself against others, or measuring your
equipment (bank balance) against theirs? (depressing)

Personally, I think it's more interesting and fair to spot the other guy
a few pounds and watts in equipment before beating him. That removes any
doubt as to who the stronger rider is (if that's important to you).

A lot of the "A group/B group" stuff comes down to tactics anyway. Many
of the "fast" riders are just really good (selfish, dangerous) wheel
suckers. The net of it is, to be safe, you need to ride with a group
slower than the one you could actually hang with.

As far as fun goes, my preference is to group ride in "team time trial"
mode rather than "road race" mode. A small, well matched group, rotating
smoothly (and intelligently) is an exhilarating (and safe) experience.
For a real measure of who the strongest rider is, there's no substitute
for the individual time trial, the "race of truth". All other things
being equal, I admire the cyclist in the group with the "slowest"
equipment, because they're the "faster" rider.

Wow! that is all pretty judgemental.
My own preference is that folks do whatever makes them happy as long as
they aren't hurting anyone else.
The bank balance comment is really off target. Again very judgemental.
How one constructs their personal spending priorities seems to be just
that--personal.
It's a shame that folks need to put down what others enjoy; I think it
says a lot about personal security- or lack thereof.

gds said:

Peter Cole said:

gds said:

Peter Cole wrote:

>gds wrote:

<snip>.

>>Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)
>
>That's a common attitude, I find it depressing.

Why? Are you saying that one's person way of enjoying cycling is
somehow either superior or inferior to another's. I don't ask anyone
who isn't so inclined to participate in fast group rides. Some folks
like competition some don't; I don't see it rising to a moral
imperative.

I enjoy riding hard and measuring myself against others. Seems strange
to me that you would find that depressing.

Are you really measuring yourself against others, or measuring your
equipment (bank balance) against theirs? (depressing)

Personally, I think it's more interesting and fair to spot the other guy
a few pounds and watts in equipment before beating him. That removes any
doubt as to who the stronger rider is (if that's important to you).

A lot of the "A group/B group" stuff comes down to tactics anyway. Many
of the "fast" riders are just really good (selfish, dangerous) wheel
suckers. The net of it is, to be safe, you need to ride with a group
slower than the one you could actually hang with.

As far as fun goes, my preference is to group ride in "team time trial"
mode rather than "road race" mode. A small, well matched group, rotating
smoothly (and intelligently) is an exhilarating (and safe) experience.
For a real measure of who the strongest rider is, there's no substitute
for the individual time trial, the "race of truth". All other things
being equal, I admire the cyclist in the group with the "slowest"
equipment, because they're the "faster" rider.

Wow! that is all pretty judgemental.
My own preference is that folks do whatever makes them happy as long as
they aren't hurting anyone else.
The bank balance comment is really off target. Again very judgemental.
How one constructs their personal spending priorities seems to be just
that--personal.
It's a shame that folks need to put down what others enjoy; I think it
says a lot about personal security- or lack thereof.

You didn't answer my question.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post, but it seemed to speak more to
consumerism than sportsmanship -- that's the attitude I find depressing.
It may not be your personal attitude (your remark may have been tongue
in cheek), but I find it to be a common one.

Peter Cole said:

gds said:

Peter Cole said:

gds wrote:

>Peter Cole wrote:
>
>
>>gds wrote:
>
><snip>.
>
>
>>>Heck, I'd put in a 37 if it helped me stay with the A group ;-)
>>
>>That's a common attitude, I find it depressing.
>
>
>Why? Are you saying that one's person way of enjoying cycling is
>somehow either superior or inferior to another's. I don't ask anyone
>who isn't so inclined to participate in fast group rides. Some folks
>like competition some don't; I don't see it rising to a moral
>imperative.
>
>I enjoy riding hard and measuring myself against others. Seems strange
>to me that you would find that depressing.
>

Are you really measuring yourself against others, or measuring your
equipment (bank balance) against theirs? (depressing)

Personally, I think it's more interesting and fair to spot the other guy
a few pounds and watts in equipment before beating him. That removes any
doubt as to who the stronger rider is (if that's important to you).

A lot of the "A group/B group" stuff comes down to tactics anyway. Many
of the "fast" riders are just really good (selfish, dangerous) wheel
suckers. The net of it is, to be safe, you need to ride with a group
slower than the one you could actually hang with.

As far as fun goes, my preference is to group ride in "team time trial"
mode rather than "road race" mode. A small, well matched group, rotating
smoothly (and intelligently) is an exhilarating (and safe) experience.
For a real measure of who the strongest rider is, there's no substitute
for the individual time trial, the "race of truth". All other things
being equal, I admire the cyclist in the group with the "slowest"
equipment, because they're the "faster" rider.

Wow! that is all pretty judgemental.
My own preference is that folks do whatever makes them happy as long as
they aren't hurting anyone else.
The bank balance comment is really off target. Again very judgemental.
How one constructs their personal spending priorities seems to be just
that--personal.
It's a shame that folks need to put down what others enjoy; I think it
says a lot about personal security- or lack thereof.

You didn't answer my question.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post, but it seemed to speak more to
consumerism than sportsmanship -- that's the attitude I find depressing.
It may not be your personal attitude (your remark may have been tongue
in cheek), but I find it to be a common one.

Fair enough!
My tongue was firmly in my cheek on the 37 cogs. I always joke with my
much faster and younger companions that if I can just get the next
piece of weight saving gear I'll be able to match them. Of course, it
is the engine much more than the machine that makes the really fast
riders fast.

But the kernel of truth is that at 60 I do get a big kick of hanging
with the fast group as long as I can. I enjoy the thrill of being part
of a pack that rides along at 27 mph. I certainly can't do that on my
own. And riding with better riders can really help one to improve. And
even with >100,000 of cycling under my belt I still find I learn when
riding with others.

For example, just last week I went for a long training ride with a
former pro rider. We did a climb that has whipped me for years. But,
with his coaching as to pace and gearing changes I did a PR bettering
my previous best time by ~10%. (Of course, I was working as hard as I
could manage and he was just sitting up, spinning and chatting the
whole way ;-) )

To be clear the competion is always with my myself. I enjoy pushing
myself and just seeing how well I can do something. But I also enjoy
riding a nice bike!

gds said:

But the kernel of truth is that at 60 I do get a big kick of hanging
with the fast group as long as I can. I enjoy the thrill of being part
of a pack that rides along at 27 mph. I certainly can't do that on my
own. And riding with better riders can really help one to improve. And
even with >100,000 of cycling under my belt I still find I learn when
riding with others.

This is pretty close to my experience and feelings. The thing I
particularly like about fast group riding is the shared athleticism in a
diverse group (ages, genders, etc.). I have found that I usually enjoy
more being at the front of the "B" group than trying to hang on to the
"A" group -- although I do admit to occasional "tryouts" when I'm
feeling particularly frisky. At those times I'm often left with the
conclusion that half the riders don't really belong in that group (and
I'm one of them) -- things get a bit sketchy when you're constantly at
or over your limit. Besides being more enjoyable and safer, I think a
more even pace gives a better workout.

Quoted message said:

To be clear the competion is always with my myself. I enjoy pushing
myself and just seeing how well I can do something. But I also enjoy
riding a nice bike!

Me too, on both counts, but I feel sometimes cyclists get too obsessed
with equipment, to the detriment of riding. As you described, learning
to pace is a critical skill, more important than expensive doo-dads.
It's all to common to see riders with bad set up and skimpy riding
skills on very expensive bikes -- often those riders are only concerned
with what they're going to buy next, convinced that equipment upgrades
are the way to improve. I don't really care what people spend their
money on, but I think that approach diminishes the sportsmanship and
turns cycling into another exercise in consumerism. It's a fine line...

Paul Hobson said:

I don't like how once you get above 8-speed cassettes, you need special
and more expensive chains that are possibly less durable (probably not a
significant issue for the use it would get from me). But from my point
of view, 9- and 10-speed systems simply aren't practical.

I ride 8 and 9 speed systems now, and while chains are more expensive,
they're no less durable. OTOH I'm not going to fret at spending an extra
$10 once or twice a year. 10 speed chains are ridiculous, but after
awhile their prices will come down too.

FWIW, I thought 7 speeds were plenty. 8 speed mountain bikes were a big
improvement, not really because of the extra gear, but because Shimano
improved the gear combinations they offered (12-32 cassettes with the
original XTR).

I thought the 7 speed mountain bike stuff shifted more reliably. When I
got an 8 speed bike it never worked as well as the 7 speed ones. The road
stuff has improved all along though.

Matt O.