3 speed front, 0 speeds rear, hybrid: possible?

Will this work?

-- a bike with 3 speeds in front (ideally with the largest possible spread between small to largest gears) and zero speeds in the back (freewheel and no deraileur)

-- hybrid, rear rack, long wheelbase (for touring)

My thought is... gears are useful for touring. But the fewer gears, the less complexity (and the more reliability). A bike of this sort would not work for cadence-counters, of course.

C B

On 10/17/2013 08:35 AM, Charles Kramer wrote:
Will this work?

-- a bike with 3 speeds in front (ideally with the largest possible
spread between small to largest gears) and zero speeds in the back
(freewheel and no deraileur)

-- hybrid, rear rack, long wheelbase (for touring)

My thought is... gears are useful for touring. But the fewer gears,
the less complexity (and the more reliability). A bike of this sort
would not work for cadence-counters, of course.

C B


Sure, you can make it work, BUT...

1) you'll still need a "dummy" rear derailleur to take up the slack in
the chain - which you'll need, because the big ring will use a lot more
chain than the bailout ring. So you're really only getting rid of the
right shifter and the physical cassette itself.

2) at least in my experience, the front derailleur is much fiddlier and
more difficult to adjust to shift crisply than the rear.

The traditional solution for those who want more simplicity in their
drivetrain is an internally geared hub... but if you want to stick with
something more "standard" how about a single front ring with a Shimano
"mountain" cassette in the rear and a long cage derailleur?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Per Nate Nagel:
The traditional solution for those who want more simplicity in their
drivetrain is an internally geared hub...

+1

Not being the brightest bulb on the tree to begin with, I *really* like
not having to keep track of which chainwheel I'm on.

My motivation for changing over was taco-d der cogs and broken ders on
my MTB... but the simplicity aspect turned out to be a major advantage.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 10/17/2013 10:40 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Nate Nagel:
The traditional solution for those who want more simplicity in their
drivetrain is an internally geared hub...

+1

Not being the brightest bulb on the tree to begin with, I *really* like
not having to keep track of which chainwheel I'm on.

My motivation for changing over was taco-d der cogs and broken ders on
my MTB... but the simplicity aspect turned out to be a major advantage.



I like simplicity but I'm just wondering why you would need to keep
track of which sprocket you're on? I sort of do because of my gearing
(53/39 and 11/28) but generally, you just shift up or down when you need
to...

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:00:15 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 10/17/2013 10:40 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Nate Nagel:

The traditional solution for those who want more simplicity in their

drivetrain is an internally geared hub...



+1



Not being the brightest bulb on the tree to begin with, I *really* like

not having to keep track of which chainwheel I'm on.



My motivation for changing over was taco-d der cogs and broken ders on

my MTB... but the simplicity aspect turned out to be a major advantage.







I like simplicity but I'm just wondering why you would need to keep

track of which sprocket you're on? I sort of do because of my gearing

(53/39 and 11/28) but generally, you just shift up or down when you need

to...

True, but those people who do not pay attention to their chainrings can end up in the big/big and experience problems when trying to shift to the small ring, e.g. dropped chains, stuck shift, etc. A simple approach is a 1X10 (or 1X5-11, you pick it). An internally geared hub is good, too. I wouldn't want to go touring on a giant-step three speed unless I was doing penance for something.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/17/2013 11:38 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:00:15 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 10/17/2013 10:40 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Nate Nagel:

The traditional solution for those who want more simplicity in their

drivetrain is an internally geared hub...



+1



Not being the brightest bulb on the tree to begin with, I *really* like

not having to keep track of which chainwheel I'm on.



My motivation for changing over was taco-d der cogs and broken ders on

my MTB... but the simplicity aspect turned out to be a major advantage.







I like simplicity but I'm just wondering why you would need to keep

track of which sprocket you're on? I sort of do because of my gearing

(53/39 and 11/28) but generally, you just shift up or down when you need

to...

True, but those people who do not pay attention to their chainrings can end up in the big/big and experience problems when trying to shift to the small ring, e.g. dropped chains, stuck shift, etc. A simple approach is a 1X10 (or 1X5-11, you pick it). An internally geared hub is good, too. I wouldn't want to go touring on a giant-step three speed unless I was doing penance for something.

On my road bike, when I had a 53/39 with an 12/27 the big/big experience
consisted of some rattling. I guess I got used to it.

With the 11/28 and a short cage, the big/big experience is a bit more
intense.

My touring bike has a triple and shifts to all gears without issue
except maybe a little rattling. But it has a longer cage.

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:35:33 AM UTC-4, Burt wrote:
Will this work?

-- a bike with 3 speeds in front (ideally with the largest possible spread between small to largest gears) and zero speeds in the back (freewheel and no deraileur)

-- hybrid, rear rack, long wheelbase (for touring)

My thought is... gears are useful for touring. But the fewer gears, the less complexity (and the more reliability). A bike of this sort would not work for cadence-counters, of course.

It will work only in the sense that you can tour on almost any bike, with _some_ degree of success. I have on my shelf a book about a cross-county bike tour done in the 1940s on super-heavy single speed bikes.

Front shifts, especially wide ones, are more difficult than rear shifts, because you're trying to derail the span of chain with tension on it. As Nate said, you'd still need at least a dummy derailleur or other device for taking up chain slack.

Derailleur systems are extremely reliable. You might make a case for using fewer than the currently fashionable number of rear cogs (say, go with eight instead of 11) to slightly increase reliability. But I wouldn't advise using even a hub gear instead of a derailleur. There are plenty of good reasons that derailleurs won in the marketplace. (Try stopping in the typical bike shop and saying "My Sturmey-Archer isn't shifting right. Can you fix it?")

- Frank Krygowski

Per Frank Krygowski:
There are plenty of good reasons that derailleurs won in the marketplace.

Not the least of which would be price.

As much as I like my hub gearing, if my Better Half ever finds out how
much I spent on a freaking rear wheel for my bike she'll have me
certified and committed.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:45:47 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Frank Krygowski:
There are plenty of good reasons that derailleurs won in the
marketplace.

Not the least of which would be price.

As much as I like my hub gearing, if my Better Half ever finds out how
much I spent on a freaking rear wheel for my bike she'll have me
certified and committed.

giggles

looks at rear hub...

becomes strangely silent

And it's not even an expensive one.

--
davethedave

On 18/10/13 03:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:35:33 AM UTC-4, Burt wrote:
Will this work?

-- a bike with 3 speeds in front (ideally with the largest possible
spread between small to largest gears) and zero speeds in the back
(freewheel and no deraileur)

-- hybrid, rear rack, long wheelbase (for touring)

My thought is... gears are useful for touring. But the fewer
gears, the less complexity (and the more reliability). A bike of
this sort would not work for cadence-counters, of course.

It will work only in the sense that you can tour on almost any bike,
with _some_ degree of success. I have on my shelf a book about a
cross-county bike tour done in the 1940s on super-heavy single speed
bikes.

Front shifts, especially wide ones, are more difficult than rear
shifts, because you're trying to derail the span of chain with
tension on it. As Nate said, you'd still need at least a dummy
derailleur or other device for taking up chain slack.

Derailleur systems are extremely reliable. You might make a case for
using fewer than the currently fashionable number of rear cogs (say,
go with eight instead of 11) to slightly increase reliability. But I
wouldn't advise using even a hub gear instead of a derailleur. There
are plenty of good reasons that derailleurs won in the marketplace.
(Try stopping in the typical bike shop and saying "My Sturmey-Archer
isn't shifting right. Can you fix it?")


A solution is to become a geared hub repairer yourself, if you have the
capability, i.e. tools and mechanical nous.

--
JS