Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge
    Posts
    16

    I'm back with more questions!

    To disable ads, please log-in.

    Thanks again everyone, this is like a crash course in bicycle mechanics. I have a question that may be a silly one. I understand that in the front, the big chain ring is for more speed/power and progressively smaller ones are more for climbing. I also understand that in the cassette in the back, the opposite is true—the bigger the cog (ie, greater number of teeth), the lower the gear.

    So my question is this: how do I compare two different cofigurations? For example, how different would it feel to climb in 34 front /25 rear versus, say, 36 front/ 27 rear? (If those are even possible configurations.) You can’t just add the numbers for a comparison. So is it just be experience that you know? Would I even notice the difference? As I demo compacts vs triples, it’s hard to gauge these subtleties. I can only be on one bike at a time, after all, and even if I play with bikes back to back climbing hills, I’m obviously more fatigued the second time around. On the Trek I am considering, the lowest gear combination is 34/25 on the compact, 30/27 on the triple. Is that a huge difference--one gear? Two gears? They only have the compact for me to demo.

    Maybe I’m overthinking this, but I do keep getting mixed reactions on the compact vs. triple debate. I visited a second LBS and they, too, thought the compact was the way to go, saying that it shifted much smoother. (And they had both compacts and triples on the floor, so no apparent bias.) I also want to make sure I consider some of the points some of you have made, such as making sure I don’t sacrifice gears in “my” typical spinning range.

    And frankly, at this point, I’m just curious about how this gear business really works. I had never even contemplated the term “gear inches” until aicabsolut mentioned it. The big ring/little ring thing seems so counterintuitive to me!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    14,498
    Here's Sheldon Brown's gear calculator, to compare various setups. That whole site has a wealth of technical information. RIP Sheldon.

    It's really not that complicated. You want to know for every revolution of your legs, how far will your rear (drive) wheel travel? Let's say you're in a gear where your rear cog has the same number of teeth as your front one. Maybe a 30x30. (That's a very low gear, stock road bikes don't normally go that low, but mountain bikes do - anyway just for the sake of discussion.) For every revolution of your crank, your rear wheel will also make one revolution.*

    Okay, now shift your imaginary derailleurs into a gear where your rear cog has exactly half the teeth of your front one. Say it's a 42x21. Now, every time you move your legs and crank one revolution, your rear wheel will make TWO revolutions. So you're going twice as far for every revolution of your legs (faster given a fixed cadence), but you also have less mechanical advantage (you have to exert more force on the pedals to go the same speed).

    Bigger cog in front = more revolutions of the rear wheel per crank revolution ("more speed"); bigger cog in back = fewer revolutions of the rear wheel per crank revolution ("more power").

    HTH to get you started. There's more to think about, but that's a beginning.


    *"Gear inches" is based on the diameter of the wheel, not the circumference. I don't know why.
    Last edited by OakLeaf; 10-25-2008 at 09:13 AM.
    Speed comes from what you put behind you. - Judi Ketteler

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge
    Posts
    16
    This is a belated "thank you" to everyone who offered advice on my compact vs. triple conundrum. After a lot of demo-ing and bike shopping, I ended up still back lusting after the original Trek Madone 5.1 with the compact that I had fallen in love with. But here's the best part: I convinced the LBS to swap out the compact for a triple that was on a men's Madone! All it took was a sixer of Jubilale (a great Deschutes seasonal brew).
    I've only logged about 100 miles on my dreamy new bike, but I am SO glad I went with the compact. That lowest granny gear has already seen a lot of use.
    Thanks again. This is such a great community of folks!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    My own little planet....
    Posts
    162
    This thread on another forum convinced me a triple would be a good idea:

    http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/sh...ad.php?t=25303
    One day, I'm going to buy a cottage in a small village and become its idiot!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Folsom CA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by TBird View Post
    All it took was a sixer of Jubilale (a great Deschutes seasonal brew).
    You have excellent taste in bribes.

    2009 Lynskey R230 Houseblend - Brooks Team Pro
    2007 Rivendell Bleriot - Rivet Pearl

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •