Nederlander low gear innovation

On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/

So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling. Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with. To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions. Could be an important consideration for some
people.

On 2/14/2020 12:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/

So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.

The linked article is about a kludge accomplished by someone who actually wanted 1X on his clearly custom bike. 1X has the benefit of being a rock-solid set-up in rough terrain. You should read about it. https://tinyurl.com/v3un986

I tried to read that, but all I got was a photograph.

You constantly bad-mouth basically anything you don't own and with which you have zero experience.

I have test ridden a couple 1x bikes, but not for long. The longest was
when the president of the local mountain bike club met me in our forest
preserve to look at possible trail work projects. We traded bikes for
maybe half an hour on the back trails. His bike (I don't recall the
brand) was super light, rigid, with probably 4" tires, disc brakes and
1x transmission.

It shifted very nicely, but when I asked about it, all he said was "I
never have to worry about a front shift." OK, for the twisty, lumpy
single track trails in this little forest I could see that being nice.
(The only time I ever broke a chain was in there, trying to hit the
granny gear for a quick super-steep rise.)

But otherwise, ISTM front shifting is a big benefit. Look ahead, see
"this is going to be steep" and execute one front shift that gives you a
whole range of low gears, with the lowest being lower than a 1x could
get. (I think my lowest is a 24 - 34 and it can be shifted with very
ordinary derailleurs.)

Meanwhile, people who have owned doubles, triples, 1X, IGH, etc., etc. make reasoned decisions to run -- or not run -- 1X. They're not crazy. They're not deceived. Guys who are kludging expensive SRAM systems obviously believe in the superiority of 1X, just like you believe in the superiority of triple cranks and cantis -- crap I dumped long ago and never looked back.

But can't we discuss? When is 1x more sensible than 2x? Or 3x? When is
it not? What are the advantages and disadvantages?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.Â* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.Â* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.Â* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

But can't we discuss? When is 1x more sensible than 2x? Or 3x? When is
it not? What are the advantages and disadvantages?


1x makes sense because now you never have to try and shift the side of the
chain that is under tension. So for people that want absolutely bulletproof
shifting even when applying full torque, I suppose it makes sense. It also
“decomplicates� the mental model of the gearing system. There’s only one
lever, and you can only go up or down. There’s no “shift up one in the
front and down two on the back� gyrations required. The price you pay is a
reduced gear range, which you can somewhat compensate for with a 9 tooth
gear on the rear cassette, which then requires other compromises. Modern
shifters have made front shifting a lot better than it used to be (and I
hear that Di2 front shifting is real nice), so I don’t see 1x as a Glory
Hallelujah type of breakthrough for the average cyclist. As a
touring/commuting kind of guy, I’ll still to my triple FD, since I usually
know what’s coming up ahead and I appreciate the wide gear range.

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.Â* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.Â* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.Â* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Open for discussion? Why? The original post was not about single versus double or triple cranksets. You asked why a single crankset for the obvious reason being not your choice. Despite that people tried to answer your question. And now we get a lecture from you. Nice. Today you can get single, double or triple cranksets with all possible chainring combo's so 'people like what they like' should be good enough if they thought their choice over. The downside of a 1*11/12 setup is the limited gear range or big jumps between the gears which can be perfectly acceptable for some people in certain riding conditions. So what is your problem?

Lou

On 2/14/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.Â* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.Â* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.Â* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Open for discussion? Why? The original post was not about single versus double or triple cranksets. You asked why a single crankset for the obvious reason being not your choice. Despite that people tried to answer your question. And now we get a lecture from you. Nice. Today you can get single, double or triple cranksets with all possible chainring combo's so 'people like what they like' should be good enough if they thought their choice over. The downside of a 1*11/12 setup is the limited gear range or big jumps between the gears which can be perfectly acceptable for some people in certain riding conditions. So what is your problem?

My original question related to a guy who took a pretty expensive
derailleur, dismantled it to use its cannibalized parts on another such
derailleur, so he could use an enormous 52 tooth cog in back. He also
had to kludge around to build a suitable set of cogs.

Apparently, this was mostly to get a lower gear. It looks like he ended
up with about 40 - 52 or about 21 gear inches, or 1.66 meters development.

If he had instead added a 30 tooth chainring and front shifter, the
original ~42 tooth in back would give him an even lower gear using very
standard parts. A 24 chainring would give much lower gears. So, easier
and more effective.

IME experience, that would have made much more sense, perhaps because I
have front shifting problems approximately never. Yes, his MMV, and
yours might as well. But it's hard for me to visualize.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/14/2020 4:37 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

But can't we discuss? When is 1x more sensible than 2x? Or 3x? When is
it not? What are the advantages and disadvantages?


1x makes sense because now you never have to try and shift the side of the
chain that is under tension. So for people that want absolutely bulletproof
shifting even when applying full torque, I suppose it makes sense. It also
“decomplicates� the mental model of the gearing system. There’s only one
lever, and you can only go up or down. There’s no “shift up one in the
front and down two on the back� gyrations required. The price you pay is a
reduced gear range, which you can somewhat compensate for with a 9 tooth
gear on the rear cassette, which then requires other compromises. Modern
shifters have made front shifting a lot better than it used to be (and I
hear that Di2 front shifting is real nice), so I don’t see 1x as a Glory
Hallelujah type of breakthrough for the average cyclist. As a
touring/commuting kind of guy, I’ll still to my triple FD, since I usually
know what’s coming up ahead and I appreciate the wide gear range.

Thanks for a rational discussion!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:17:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/14/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Open for discussion? Why? The original post was not about single versus double or triple cranksets. You asked why a single crankset for the obvious reason being not your choice. Despite that people tried to answer your question. And now we get a lecture from you. Nice. Today you can get single, double or triple cranksets with all possible chainring combo's so 'people like what they like' should be good enough if they thought their choice over. The downside of a 1*11/12 setup is the limited gear range or big jumps between the gears which can be perfectly acceptable for some people in certain riding conditions. So what is your problem?

My original question related to a guy who took a pretty expensive
derailleur, dismantled it to use its cannibalized parts on another such
derailleur, so he could use an enormous 52 tooth cog in back. He also
had to kludge around to build a suitable set of cogs.

Apparently, this was mostly to get a lower gear. It looks like he ended
up with about 40 - 52 or about 21 gear inches, or 1.66 meters development.

If he had instead added a 30 tooth chainring and front shifter, the
original ~42 tooth in back would give him an even lower gear using very
standard parts. A 24 chainring would give much lower gears. So, easier
and more effective.

IME experience, that would have made much more sense, perhaps because I
have front shifting problems approximately never. Yes, his MMV, and
yours might as well. But it's hard for me to visualize.

But Frank. It is NEW, it is DIFFERENT, NOBODY else in the club has
one.

See, it is better :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:17:59 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.Â* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.Â* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.Â* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Open for discussion? Why? The original post was not about single versus double or triple cranksets. You asked why a single crankset for the obvious reason being not your choice. Despite that people tried to answer your question. And now we get a lecture from you. Nice. Today you can get single, double or triple cranksets with all possible chainring combo's so 'people like what they like' should be good enough if they thought their choice over. The downside of a 1*11/12 setup is the limited gear range or big jumps between the gears which can be perfectly acceptable for some people in certain riding conditions. So what is your problem?

My original question related to a guy who took a pretty expensive
derailleur, dismantled it to use its cannibalized parts on another such
derailleur, so he could use an enormous 52 tooth cog in back. He also
had to kludge around to build a suitable set of cogs.

Apparently, this was mostly to get a lower gear. It looks like he ended
up with about 40 - 52 or about 21 gear inches, or 1.66 meters development..

If he had instead added a 30 tooth chainring and front shifter, the
original ~42 tooth in back would give him an even lower gear using very
standard parts. A 24 chainring would give much lower gears. So, easier
and more effective.

IME experience, that would have made much more sense, perhaps because I
have front shifting problems approximately never. Yes, his MMV, and
yours might as well. But it's hard for me to visualize.

And you probably go banging down rocky roads at 25mph or downshift on 30% dirt hills approximately never. There is a whole world out there of approximately never-Frank experiences. That explains why not everyone is on a 1980s vintage touring bike with a triple and cantis. Not Ohio: https://cos.ridewithgps.com/edited_i...jpg?1434380547
BTW, this is the back way to my brother's house -- which I will do this summer on my Synapse U Di2 with no fenders and maybe 32mm tires or on my two-ring gravel bike because of all the road riding: https://bikeportland.org/2017/07/17/...d-river-235173 The BPA power-towers on Lolo Pass are such an eye sore, but you can cut cheap Christmas trees from the right of way, assuming you want to risk your life driving on narrow, snow covered mountain roads to cut a Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, 15 February 2020 11:53:32 UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:17:59 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 2:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On 2/14/2020 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:50:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2020 5:04 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
We usually advise 'follow manufacturer's directions' but in
this case a clever exception shows some promise:

https://bikerumor.com/2020/02/07/how...ullet-gearing/


So that's instead of just having two chainrings? Um... why?

- Frank Krygowski

Why? To get rid of the FD and front shifter and avoiding to shift
front and back in critical race situations. Some people think they
can benefit from it.

Oh. Now I remember! If some people _think_ they can benefit from it,
we're not allowed to discuss what anyone else may think.

IOW, comparison of real benefits and detriments is strongly discouraged
here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

He don't shoot the messenger. You asked a question I tried to answer
politely. If it has no benefit for you don't buy a 1x11/12 set up. For
me it has no benefit so I stay with 2x11 set ups. Why do you say 'if
some people 'think' they can benefits from it'. Are you saying that
they lie if they say so?

Lou


That's what you get for trying to "discuss" it with someone who is just
trolling.Â* Otherwise he would have realized that you answered his
question to begin with.Â* To avoid shifting the front derailleur in
critical race conditions.Â* Could be an important consideration for some
people.

I know Duane won't answer this, but: Let's be realistic. People "think"
different things at different times. Much of what they think is
influenced by what they read or are told is the latest best thing. It's
an unusual person who sits down with all the alternatives and makes a
conscious rational choice.

If you start at the pre-history of front chainrings, people thought 1x
was great as long as you could shift in back. Then someone invented 2x,
and people thought that was obviously better. Then bike tourists got 3x
and it was perfect. But racers would never use that, maybe because
shifting to the middle ring took finesse (although that was a problem
solved on millions of cheap bikes). Or maybe because a chainring weighs
75 grams? Or its aero drag is a micropound?

So racers stuck with 2x, some with 52-47 or 52-49 half step to get small
steps and no duplication. Most settled on 52-42 or thereabouts with lots
of duplicate gears and toughed it out on hills, grinding up at slow,
standing cadence. Then they went to "compact" - still 2x, different
choices in rings. Toughing it out became unfashionable and cadences
jumped on uphills.

Then to get smaller steps or more gears, racers added rear cogs. Each
added cog was "thought" to obviously be better than the last count,
because, well, "more!"

Except now it's suddenly "Less!" Not as a desired outcome; but instead
as a side effect that suddenly doesn't matter. It seems strange.

So yes, 1x is what many people are now thinking. But it's very hard for
me to believe that through this change - or all the ones that came
before it - nobody has said "Hmm. This really isn't any better for me."

IOW, there have to be detriments as well as benefits. Both should be
open for discussion. Saying "People just like what they like" is not
very instructive regarding technology.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Open for discussion? Why? The original post was not about single versus double or triple cranksets. You asked why a single crankset for the obvious reason being not your choice. Despite that people tried to answer your question. And now we get a lecture from you. Nice. Today you can get single, double or triple cranksets with all possible chainring combo's so 'people like what they like' should be good enough if they thought their choice over. The downside of a 1*11/12 setup is the limited gear range or big jumps between the gears which can be perfectly acceptable for some people in certain riding conditions. So what is your problem?

My original question related to a guy who took a pretty expensive
derailleur, dismantled it to use its cannibalized parts on another such
derailleur, so he could use an enormous 52 tooth cog in back. He also
had to kludge around to build a suitable set of cogs.

Apparently, this was mostly to get a lower gear. It looks like he ended
up with about 40 - 52 or about 21 gear inches, or 1.66 meters development.