|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 1/20/2018 11:52 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-20 09:14, AMuzi wrote: On 1/20/2018 10:17 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-20 07:53, AMuzi wrote: On 1/20/2018 9:27 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-19 16:35, AMuzi wrote: On 1/19/2018 5:45 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote: [...] That said, the front shifter on my mountain bike stopped going into high last Saturday, and I had to buy a replacement set of Deore shifters, $40 from REI. I opened up the old one but it was beyond my ability to fix it, so yesterday I changed the front shifter. Definitely can see the advantage of not having the extra complexity. But on the trail I was on, which was not steep except for a few short stretches, I wanted those high gears. Could have used the redneck shifter: A somewhat straight piece of a small branch with a 90 degree li'l branch (or a nail) sticking out the side. When a buddy's chain pretzeled and ripped off the front derailer that's how he shifted. It worked so well that he forgot to order a new derailer for a few months. Easy; not even expensive: http://www.abundantadventures.com/quads.html Unfortunately though, quote "All Mountain TamerTM adapters work with cranks having standard 74mm bolt circleÂ* (43.4mm hole spacing) 5 bolt pattern only". I could remove all the Shimano 600 stuff and mount other stuff. It won't be expensive to do either but so far I have tried to keep the old bike somewhat original. Some day I'll have to. While right now I can still muscle up the hills there is another more serious problem. I regularly break spokes. The last one went on Wednesday on the last 10mi home. So I'll soon be looking for a 700c 7-speed FH rear wheel with 12ga spokes, as many of them as possible. A tandem wheel would be best but their rims are too wide. The max tire width I can get in there is 25mm. Shimano 600 FC6207 triple is indeed 74mm on the small ring. My Shimano 600 double is 130mm by coarse measurement. The derailer would not take anymore anyhow, front and rear derailers would need to be replaced and then I might as well buy a whole new set. Which I might do some day as I get older or if I start tackling steeper terrain around here. So far I just walked up really steep parts because there is also a high chance of snapping a spoke. Oh a road bike.Â* A horse of a different color as it were. I think I misunderstood your comment yesterday, "Even regular 3x MTBs like mine tucker out at 28-30mph " as referring to an MTB. Silly me. That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. I agree. Finer granularity is less useful on an MTB than a wider range. A 24-36-50 with a 13-34 rear would be fine. As long as I can get from about 18 gear-inches to about 120 gear-inches, in 15-20 steps, I don't really care how it's achieved. But this is hard to do with a 1x or a 2x with no internally geared hub or crank. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 2018-01-20 23:51, sms wrote:
On 1/20/2018 11:52 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-20 09:14, AMuzi wrote: On 1/20/2018 10:17 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-20 07:53, AMuzi wrote: On 1/20/2018 9:27 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-19 16:35, AMuzi wrote: On 1/19/2018 5:45 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote: [...] That said, the front shifter on my mountain bike stopped going into high last Saturday, and I had to buy a replacement set of Deore shifters, $40 from REI. I opened up the old one but it was beyond my ability to fix it, so yesterday I changed the front shifter. Definitely can see the advantage of not having the extra complexity. But on the trail I was on, which was not steep except for a few short stretches, I wanted those high gears. Could have used the redneck shifter: A somewhat straight piece of a small branch with a 90 degree li'l branch (or a nail) sticking out the side. When a buddy's chain pretzeled and ripped off the front derailer that's how he shifted. It worked so well that he forgot to order a new derailer for a few months. Easy; not even expensive: http://www.abundantadventures.com/quads.html Unfortunately though, quote "All Mountain TamerTM adapters work with cranks having standard 74mm bolt circle (43.4mm hole spacing) 5 bolt pattern only". I could remove all the Shimano 600 stuff and mount other stuff. It won't be expensive to do either but so far I have tried to keep the old bike somewhat original. Some day I'll have to. While right now I can still muscle up the hills there is another more serious problem. I regularly break spokes. The last one went on Wednesday on the last 10mi home. So I'll soon be looking for a 700c 7-speed FH rear wheel with 12ga spokes, as many of them as possible. A tandem wheel would be best but their rims are too wide. The max tire width I can get in there is 25mm. Shimano 600 FC6207 triple is indeed 74mm on the small ring. My Shimano 600 double is 130mm by coarse measurement. The derailer would not take anymore anyhow, front and rear derailers would need to be replaced and then I might as well buy a whole new set. Which I might do some day as I get older or if I start tackling steeper terrain around here. So far I just walked up really steep parts because there is also a high chance of snapping a spoke. Oh a road bike. A horse of a different color as it were. I think I misunderstood your comment yesterday, "Even regular 3x MTBs like mine tucker out at 28-30mph " as referring to an MTB. Silly me. That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. I agree. Finer granularity is less useful on an MTB than a wider range. A 24-36-50 with a 13-34 rear would be fine. It would shave 5-10 mins off most of my trips because I usually ride garage - trails - garage. As long as I can get from about 18 gear-inches to about 120 gear-inches, in 15-20 steps, I don't really care how it's achieved. I'd prefer 5-6 steps. On both the road bike and the MTB bike I shift across 3-5 gears all the time, on the MTB sometimes more. On the road bike this is easy and fast because it has old-fashioned friction shifters. The MTB has those newfangled click things so it's always a fairly lengthy and loud event. ... But this is hard to do with a 1x or a 2x with no internally geared hub or crank. It's a fad for city slickers who cart their MTB to a manicured sand track and later spray on "mud in a can" to impress the guys at the pub :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 20-01-18 20:52, Joerg wrote:
That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. My 1987 Trek 520 came with half-step gearing, 28-45-50. At one point I changed this to something like 26-36-50, close to what you want. That said, now my knees are happy with my mountain bike having 24/34 in front and 11/42 in back. I use the 24/42 combination a lot on hills. Occasionally I would have used a 44 in front for higher gears, but I don't miss it that much. Ned |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 1/22/2018 3:50 AM, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 20-01-18 20:52, Joerg wrote: That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. My 1987 Trek 520 came with half-step gearing, 28-45-50. At one point I changed this to something like 26-36-50, close to what you want. That said, now my knees are happy with my mountain bike having 24/34 in front and 11/42 in back. I use the 24/42 combination a lot on hills. Occasionally I would have used a 44 in front for higher gears, but I don't miss it that much. A Nuvinci 360 CVT rear hub combined with a Schlumpf front drive would be able to provide sufficient gear range with no derailleurs. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 2018-01-22 03:50, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 20-01-18 20:52, Joerg wrote: That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. My 1987 Trek 520 came with half-step gearing, 28-45-50. At one point I changed this to something like 26-36-50, close to what you want. That said, now my knees are happy with my mountain bike having 24/34 in front and 11/42 in back. I use the 24/42 combination a lot on hills. Occasionally I would have used a 44 in front for higher gears, but I don't miss it that much. That wouldn't work well for me because I use the MTB right from my garage. So the miles close to home are all on pavement and I'd liked to be able to step on it. With 34 as max up front I'd be redlining with my legs all the time except on the trails. Even on singletrack there are stretches where one can pull above 20mph. Smokey isn't out there :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 22-01-18 23:29, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-22 03:50, Ned Mantei wrote: On 20-01-18 20:52, Joerg wrote: That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. My 1987 Trek 520 came with half-step gearing, 28-45-50. At one point I changed this to something like 26-36-50, close to what you want. That said, now my knees are happy with my mountain bike having 24/34 in front and 11/42 in back. I use the 24/42 combination a lot on hills. Occasionally I would have used a 44 in front for higher gears, but I don't miss it that much. That wouldn't work well for me because I use the MTB right from my garage. So the miles close to home are all on pavement and I'd liked to be able to step on it. With 34 as max up front I'd be redlining with my legs all the time except on the trails. Even on singletrack there are stretches where one can pull above 20mph. Smokey isn't out there :-) For me not so critical: In Switzerland you can take your bike on the train (https://www.sbb.ch/en/station-servic...e-by-bike.html )or post service bus (https://www.postauto.ch/en ) to get to the start of your off-road tour. In 15 minutes I am at the Zurich main train station, from where trains go in every direction without long waits. A great contribution to my quality of life... :-) Ned |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
not enough standards
On 2018-01-23 02:12, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 22-01-18 23:29, Joerg wrote: On 2018-01-22 03:50, Ned Mantei wrote: On 20-01-18 20:52, Joerg wrote: That was in a different context. I meant that a smaller chain ring up front (especially if there is only one) seriously crimps the usefulness of a bike for longhaul routes. On my MTB and pretty much all others the granularity up front is too fine, 24-32-42 or so. Beats me why they don't provide 24-36-50. My 1987 Trek 520 came with half-step gearing, 28-45-50. At one point I changed this to something like 26-36-50, close to what you want. That said, now my knees are happy with my mountain bike having 24/34 in front and 11/42 in back. I use the 24/42 combination a lot on hills. Occasionally I would have used a 44 in front for higher gears, but I don't miss it that much. That wouldn't work well for me because I use the MTB right from my garage. So the miles close to home are all on pavement and I'd liked to be able to step on it. With 34 as max up front I'd be redlining with my legs all the time except on the trails. Even on singletrack there are stretches where one can pull above 20mph. Smokey isn't out there :-) For me not so critical: In Switzerland you can take your bike on the train (https://www.sbb.ch/en/station-servic...e-by-bike.html )or post service bus (https://www.postauto.ch/en ) to get to the start of your off-road tour. In 15 minutes I am at the Zurich main train station, from where trains go in every direction without long waits. A great contribution to my quality of life... :-) Well, here we have cars for that. Yet this is not what I consider real bicycling where you truly go from A to B under 100% human power. Not using power coming from a combustion process or a nuclear power station across the border, in your case probably the one in Cattenom. A bicycle is also a lot less noisy than a train clattering through towns. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Standards; always room for one more! | AMuzi | Techniques | 26 | January 1st 18 06:30 PM |
Japanese standards | AMuzi | Techniques | 1 | November 25th 14 09:56 PM |
Australian Helmet standards | Walrus | Australia | 33 | September 20th 05 09:25 AM |
h*lm*t standards where's the web site? | Bryan | UK | 5 | August 18th 05 09:52 AM |
Driving standards | Tom | UK | 20 | February 11th 04 01:36 AM |