Terminology and Gears

jpwkeeper said:

I'm a little confused about the terminology when you're talking about gears.

If I shift to a gear that is harder to pedal, did I shift to a Bigger gear, or a Smaller gear?

The physical gear in back is smaller. But the ratio is bigger.

So when I take my bike to the shop and say "I can't get into my biggest gear", which gear will he try to fix?

A gear that's "harder to pedal" would be a higher, taller or (I guess) bigger gear.

A gear that's "easier to pedal" would be a lower, shorter or (I guess) smaller gear.

If you take your bike to a shop, don't say; "I can't get into my biggest gear" because they might think you're a knuckle-head. Tell them "I can't shift into my highest gear" or better yet "I can't shift into the smallest cog when I'm on the big chainring".

Gears are commonly refered to in inches from back when bicycles were direct drive bone-shakers AKA Penny Farthings, high wheel etc. What determined the ease of pedaling back then was the size of the wheel, a larger wheel was more difficult to pedal up hills but allowed for faster speeds. The measurement refered to the diameter of the wheel in inches.

In today's geared bicycles, one needs to multiply the wheel diameter by the ratio to get the equivalent gearing in inches.

jpwkeeper said:

I'm a little confused about the terminology when you're talking about gears.

If I shift to a gear that is harder to pedal, did I shift to a Bigger gear, or a Smaller gear?

The physical gear in back is smaller. But the ratio is bigger.

So when I take my bike to the shop and say "I can't get into my biggest gear", which gear will he try to fix?

Me and my mates just say highest and lowest. Solves the problem and confusion.

it is a little confusing and depends upon the context, if you take your bike to the bike shop and say you can't get it into the biggest gear, the shop guy will assume you are talking about you 'big' sprocket in physical terms. but when a commentator on the TV says that Ullrich climbs hills in a big gear he is referring to a smaller sprocket at the rear...

clear as mud...

Weisse Luft said:

Gears are commonly refered to in inches from back when bicycles were direct drive bone-shakers AKA Penny Farthings, high wheel etc. What determined the ease of pedaling back then was the size of the wheel, a larger wheel was more difficult to pedal up hills but allowed for faster speeds. The measurement refered to the diameter of the wheel in inches.

In today's geared bicycles, one needs to multiply the wheel diameter by the ratio to get the equivalent gearing in inches.

Erm... Yeah sure... But who's going to refer to gear inches in day to day conversation? I mean when you're riding with your freinds do you really say "I'm going to upshift from 68.14" to 75.32" now". Or in the case of the original poster in this thread; If he went into the local bike shop and said "I can't shift into 130.09 gear inches", the shop guy would probably say "Okay... Ummmm... and which gear is that?" Talk about confusing! :o

meehs said:

Erm... Yeah sure... But who's going to refer to gear inches in day to day conversation? I mean when you're riding with your freinds do you really say "I'm going to upshift from 68.14" to 75.32" now". Or in the case of the original poster in this thread; If he went into the local bike shop and said "I can't shift into 130.09 gear inches", the shop guy would probably say "Okay... Ummmm... and which gear is that?" Talk about confusing! :o

This is the English system and it works fine for the English as we are used to it but it is still the simplist way of COMPARING gear ratios . Only an American could miss the point with such aplomb .
It´s great for " what´s longer a 53 x 12 or 50 x 11 ? " ( 119 inch v 123 inch )type of argument .

el Inglés said:

This is the English system and it works fine for the English as we are used to it but it is still the simplist way of COMPARING gear ratios . Only an American could miss the point with such aplomb .
It´s great for " what´s longer a 53 x 12 or 50 x 11 ? " ( 119 inch v 123 inch )type of argument .

The original poster was clearly refering to how he should refer to his gear range in terms of day to day terminology not when comparing specific gear ratios. It's quite clear who missed the point here and it's not an American.

Your vindictive personality and blatant dislike for Americans have come shining through once again el Ingles. Way to display those true colors!

meehs said:

The original poster was clearly refering to how he should refer to his gear range in terms of day to day terminology not when comparing specific gear ratios. It's quite clear who missed the point here and it's not an American.

Your vindictive personality and blatant dislike for Americans have come shining through once again el Ingles. Way to display those true colors!

" to thine own self be true " 😎

jpwkeeper said:

I'm a little confused about the terminology when you're talking about gears.

If I shift to a gear that is harder to pedal, did I shift to a Bigger gear, or a Smaller gear?

The physical gear in back is smaller. But the ratio is bigger.

So when I take my bike to the shop and say "I can't get into my biggest gear", which gear will he try to fix?

IMHO, the best advice is to not use the words big(ger) and small(er) unless you qualify it by stating if you are talking about the chainring or the cassette.

A much better and understandable approach is to use the specific gear terminology such as 53/19 or 39/13, and talk about movements in shifting as either up or down. An upshift is always to a harder gear (larger chainring or smaller cog) while a downshift is to an easier gear (smaller chainring or larger cog). Those descriptions pretty much cover the bases and explain both where the chain is and/or where it is moving.