|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
I was reading (I think) Frank Berto's "The Dancing Chain" book last
weekend, and it mentioned some efficiency research that Berto did with 3-speed hubs, 7-speed hubs, and regular derailleur bikes. If I remember correctly, drivetrain energy loss was about 3-5% for derailleurs, and 5-7% for internally geared hubs. More interesting than this was a statement that the highest losses on derailleur bikes came from 13-tooth cogs. The results implied that using a 13-tooth cog was tantamount to using a Sturmey Archer 3-speed hub. And Berto asserted that this is why 14-28 rear clusters are so popular on road bikes of the 1970's and 1980's. Has anything changed? Are 13-tooth (and 12-tooth (and 11-tooth)) cogs only 90-92% efficient? - Don Gillies San Diego, CA |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
Hi.
I think que question is... do u have power enough to move or carry the load that a 12 and 11 teeth cog has??? racers nowadays are stronger than in the past... second bikes are more eficient too u know... I dont think a 12 - 21 cog is an stupid combination, the question is, are u gonna use the 12 teeth cog??? An sprinter maybe will.. but a regular human being as the fat guy who started doing pedaling a few years ago every weekend and have a lot of money it wont need the 12t cog ever, even he doesnt even need 14, 15 and 13.. but how the bike has them so he will use them anyways... U can do thousands of thousands of test about eficiency but at the end all depends of the racer or rider, his style of riding, his cadence... his power... experience and other factors that for the fat guy i was talking about before it doesnt really matter because he has no freaking idea what he is doing... so... in my experience... if u are strong enough and do u feel comfortable carring heavy loads such an 11t cog... go ahead... use it hehehe... Btw in my case, one of my set of wheels has an 11t cog and havent put that ever, maybe downhill but not in a flat... I did racing for 20 years almost and darn... 11? i rather be like lance and ride light... is more eficient ride using light loads than using heavy loads (old school riding style)... but well... is only the opinion of an old skool rider G. luck and sorry for my bad english... (Donald Gillies) wrote in news:dgf1t4$92m$1 @cascade.cs.ubc.ca: I was reading (I think) Frank Berto's "The Dancing Chain" book last weekend, and it mentioned some efficiency research that Berto did with 3-speed hubs, 7-speed hubs, and regular derailleur bikes. If I remember correctly, drivetrain energy loss was about 3-5% for derailleurs, and 5-7% for internally geared hubs. More interesting than this was a statement that the highest losses on derailleur bikes came from 13-tooth cogs. The results implied that using a 13-tooth cog was tantamount to using a Sturmey Archer 3-speed hub. And Berto asserted that this is why 14-28 rear clusters are so popular on road bikes of the 1970's and 1980's. Has anything changed? Are 13-tooth (and 12-tooth (and 11-tooth)) cogs only 90-92% efficient? - Don Gillies San Diego, CA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
noname wrote: Hi. I think que question is... do u have power enough to move or carry the load that a 12 and 11 teeth cog has??? racers nowadays are stronger than in the past... second bikes are more eficient too u know... I dont think a 12 - 21 cog is an stupid combination, the question is, are u gonna use the 12 teeth cog??? An sprinter maybe will.. but a regular human being as the fat guy who started doing pedaling a few years ago every weekend and have a lot of money it wont need the 12t cog ever, even he doesnt even need 14, 15 and 13.. but how the bike has them so he will use them anyways... So where does a compact crankset fit into all this? Also, does this present an argument for 12 speed wide range clusters so that you can use larger rear cogs and stay off the small front ring? Small differences can be decisive in competition. I know that about 30 years ago I was advised to use the big ring when there was a choice because it was more efficient. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
Actually, straight blocks are very, very useful in certain situations.
If you ride in fast groups and don't want sudden changes, straight blocks are great. I especially like them with triples. You get climbing gears and close ratios in fast pacelines. I am not a racer, but the group that I ride with regularly does 24 to 26 miles/hour. Sometimes they go above 30 on flats. I am a slow pedaler, and the 12 teeth come on handy. I can keep up with a 13, but the 12 helps a lot. I have an 8 speed that has a 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26. The front has a 34-52. I usually ride on the 52 and mostly between the 14 and the 17. The 12 is for very fast efforts, and down hills. The 19 and 21 are for climbing tough hills, and the 26 is for emergencies. I also have another bike with a 12-23 9 speed and a triple front. Andres |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
One aspect of this that is often overlooked is the effect of chain
tension on efficiency... ie increasing the chain tension improves the chain efficiency... and smaller gears have higher tension (at the same riding speed and power output) than larger ones. It is true that a 15 tooth sprocket is more efficient than an 11, provided that the power input and front ring size is the same in both cases; unfortunately that isn't the right comparison to make. If we want to travel at a particular speed with a particular cadence, then we have to change the front ring size by the same proportion... and the chain tension will change by the same amount. A 53/15 is the same gear ratio as a 39/11. This is the kind of comparison that needs to be made. Spicer's testing: http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf showed that chain tension is actually more important than spocket size... though he failed to note this in his conclusions. But Walton noticed, and published the results he http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp51-2001.pdf When you compare the effect of sprocket size while keeping riding speed and power output constant, the smaller sprockets are most efficient... especially at lower power outputs. At higher power the results converge. So... I wouldn't worry about losing efficiency with the small sprockets. Some of the other interesting conclusions from Spicer's testing: 1) Cross-chaining has a negligible effect on efficiency. 2) Lubrication doesn't matter (in the lab at least). 3) Friction can account for only a few percent of the overall losses. That last one is especially noteworthy... If friction doesn't account for the losses, then what does? Vibration? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
Look...
Basically all that stuff about compact cranks and stuff is not gibrish or a marketing strategy but look... for example... 52x16 is almost the same than 50x15 right?... but 50x15 is a little bit more anyways... u earn a few inches... result u can go faster right? thats the idea behind compact crankset plus less weight... but u have to be stronger because u are using smaller cogs, u need to put more torque to your pedaling... the one that commands on how light or heavy the load when pedaling is, are the cogs!!! the wheelchain is only a mere detail in here... if u want more rush at the end of the sprint use and smaller wheelchain but u have to keep up with the other guys so u have to put an smaller cog anyways... a bigger wheelchain will give u more stability when pedaling, thats why is easier to do cadence and the guys told that it was more eficient.. but again it depends of the situation. The guys told u to use the big ring because it was more efficient right? well.. it depends... I remember bernard hinault won a few races in the final sprint using 53X16... nothing more than that.. in this case it was more efficient for him to use something ligter... other guys in that same sprint were using 53x14 or 13... so who was more eficient at that moment? u got the idea?... What u'll use it depends of u, the situation, and physical conditions u r in that specific moment... for example.. i left racing for a long time and i came back riding a few months ago.. i still have my high cadence.. and when i go riding behind triathletes or people that i can see has millions of more miles than me in their bodies.. I use lower gears... im not strong enough yet... they are stonger than me but im faster and getting stronger everyday... so who is being more eficient in that case?... I can go happy after them using smaller loads even do changes in the cadence w/o any problem.... I was able to move 53x14 at 100/20+ rpm in the 4x100km in the panamerican games of 1990... so basically because a test shows u that is more eficient use some or something else... doesnt mean it will be at that moment u know... Usually this is something triathletes and weekend riders cant realize... (im not being mean only im letting u know guys a reality that ive learn in serious racing)... Im talking about the fact that after 2 hours or 3 hours of racing doesnt matter if u have the best bike on the market or u are using a brand of shoes because the institute of super speed on bikes told u so... After 2 or 3 hours nothing matters... U'll be tired... maybe u'll get a 3rd punch of oxygen... whatever... but to win that freaking race it will depends of U, and only U. Do u think Lance care about the bike? well at his level maybe but the guy is a god of cycling... even using a wheel chair with pedals he will be eficient, or will find the way to be more eficient than the other racers... U states that.. "present an argument for 12 speed wide range clusters so that you can use larger rear cogs and stay off the small front ring?"... all of that it depends... with compact crank sets u use smaller clusters... but if that is ok with u... depends of u only... for example i rather like 42x16 than 39x15... but now the configurations are with 39 not with 42... u can go faster with 39x15 than with 42x16... but all depends of u again... by the other side... an smaller set of sprokets means less weight.. thats cool... but if u are tired doesnt matter, right?... Ive seen people putting lighter clinchers on their bikes because it will give them more speed????? doesnt matter in long term... another example... tubulars.. a 280/250 grams tubular is more eficient than a 200 grams clincher... and I bet u wont get a flat with the tubbies... there are a lot of myths... and believes that when u are racing are thing of the past because u have no time to think or to react.. or u keep up with the guys or u dont.. period... With the compact cranksets i have no idea how long they will stay in the market and i really have no idea if I will use them in the future... but what i know is that Im very comfortable the way my bike is set up now... I rather be using confident components than use light stuff because is only light... (I use 300 grams tubulars, and no clincher will compare to them ever, real racers can agree for sure) Doesnt matter if u have the best stuff in the world... or if u are using compact cracnks or the best frame in the world... sooner or later u have to make a choice about whats the best for U... not what the market or the book says... example.. i know a guy that likes to go the mountains using only the big chainwheel... no kidding, he cant use the small one for some reason and the guy is not handicap, he was one of the best racers i ever known... so all it depends... in this case, for him the stupidity was more eficient... my advice... give a try... if u get use to the new things great.. if not.. come back to the old stuff or what it makes best results for ya... u are the one that can say if something is afficient or not, if it works fine 4 u doesnt mean i have to set up everything the same way... THanks Ps: in europe steel frames are comming back... isnt that great ps2: sorry for my bad english wrote in news:1126900804.114243.111660 @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: noname wrote: Hi. I think que question is... do u have power enough to move or carry the load that a 12 and 11 teeth cog has??? racers nowadays are stronger than in the past... second bikes are more eficient too u know... I dont think a 12 - 21 cog is an stupid combination, the question is, are u gonna use the 12 teeth cog??? An sprinter maybe will.. but a regular human being as the fat guy who started doing pedaling a few years ago every weekend and have a lot of money it wont need the 12t cog ever, even he doesnt even need 14, 15 and 13.. but how the bike has them so he will use them anyways... So where does a compact crankset fit into all this? Also, does this present an argument for 12 speed wide range clusters so that you can use larger rear cogs and stay off the small front ring? Small differences can be decisive in competition. I know that about 30 years ago I was advised to use the big ring when there was a choice because it was more efficient. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
yeah, lubrication and tension affects too... well im assuming the guys
have a nice and well mantained bike u know... hehehehe... "Ron Ruff" wrote in news:1126906119.902827.294740 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: One aspect of this that is often overlooked is the effect of chain tension on efficiency... ie increasing the chain tension improves the chain efficiency... and smaller gears have higher tension (at the same riding speed and power output) than larger ones. It is true that a 15 tooth sprocket is more efficient than an 11, provided that the power input and front ring size is the same in both cases; unfortunately that isn't the right comparison to make. If we want to travel at a particular speed with a particular cadence, then we have to change the front ring size by the same proportion... and the chain tension will change by the same amount. A 53/15 is the same gear ratio as a 39/11. This is the kind of comparison that needs to be made. Spicer's testing: http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf showed that chain tension is actually more important than spocket size... though he failed to note this in his conclusions. But Walton noticed, and published the results he http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp51-2001.pdf When you compare the effect of sprocket size while keeping riding speed and power output constant, the smaller sprockets are most efficient... especially at lower power outputs. At higher power the results converge. So... I wouldn't worry about losing efficiency with the small sprockets. Some of the other interesting conclusions from Spicer's testing: 1) Cross-chaining has a negligible effect on efficiency. 2) Lubrication doesn't matter (in the lab at least). 3) Friction can account for only a few percent of the overall losses. That last one is especially noteworthy... If friction doesn't account for the losses, then what does? Vibration? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Are 12-21 cassettes simply stupid ??
Donald Gillies wrote:
Are 13-tooth (and 12-tooth (and 11-tooth)) cogs only 90-92% efficient? Don't know, but who uses those cogs, anyways? With 42/52 doubles, I like 11-21/23 cassettes because the really useful cogs (15,17,19) are at the center of the cluster, which makes for good chainline. Also, it seems like a lot of frames can't accomodate the smallest cog on a 9 or 10 speed cassette, (chain rubs on seat stay), so that last cog is just a placeholder. The chain rubs on the crank, too, when you're way out on the smallest cogs. -Vee |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
bad rear dear adjustment = trashed cassettes??? | foothillbiker | Techniques | 12 | June 10th 05 03:54 AM |
Marchisio Cassettes - anyone have any experience with them? Feedback? | marco007esq | Techniques | 16 | February 3rd 05 07:05 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ | David Reuteler | General | 0 | November 11th 04 06:41 PM |
See, there are bad officials everywhere!!! | chris | Racing | 49 | October 23rd 04 12:51 AM |
Stupid Behavior Caught on Tape | Gary Smiley | General | 7 | September 5th 03 02:11 AM |