Nederlander low gear innovation

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2020 8:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:


Triples are a royal pain but doubles for a performance bike I do like.

I have four bikes with triple chainrings, all because they were (at
least at some time) used for touring.

These days, the only one that gets any use of the smallest chainring is
the tandem. I don't find any to be a bother. The little ring is there,
but it's easy to not use it.

If I ever load up heavily to go camping, it will still be there.


With the both, a CX/Gravel bike and the old MTB the main issue I had was
those times your just rolling along and as the land is undulating your just
shifting a gear +/- but with the triple because it wasn’t happy with much
cross chaining you’d end up shifting both the chainring and cassette, and
then back etc, particularly tedious on the commute.

Roger Merriman

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:54:36 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
wrote:

Triples are a royal pain but doubles for a performance bike I do like.

Triples are a particular pain when there is no middle ring. But I've
unshipped my chain only once since the Trailhouse adjusted everything,
and I put it back on by twiddling the shift lever without having to
stop and get my hands dirty. Pity I haven't gotten around to stopping
by and telling the mechanic that I noticed the improvement.

(When I lived near New Salem Hill, I needed lower gears, so I had the
inside ring of my double replaced with the inside ring of a triple.)


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:07:22 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:

You certainly loose potential range, but there isn’t a problem getting to
low gears with 1X systems due to the fact that modern cassettes are 10-50
so the modern equivalent of my MTB which is 2x10 has broadly the same range
as the modern 1X12 the modern is just slightly lower geared, at both ends..

But having low gears or high gears isn’t a problem though with older
systems you have to make a choice, as my commute bike with 1X9.

The main reason wasn’t chain slap etc, or throwing but frame/suspension
design at least for MTB for gravel bikes etc I’m less convinced.

Roger Merriman

I went on what would normally have been a nice ride through San Francisco, over the Golden Gate bridge, through Sausalito and around the Tiburon peninsula and back. However, the guy I was riding with was having a real bad day.. I wasn't riding particularly fast. In fact, I was riding quite slowly on the mild climbs and I would ride for 10 minutes and have to wait 3 minutes for him to catch up. He decided to go back to Sausalito and take the ferry back to San Francisco. At the last second he decided to ride back. Now the climb from Sausalito up to the Golden Gate is not challenging. Virtually every sort of rooky is doing it but neither is it the easiest climb. This almost killed by friend who used to be a very strong though heavy rider. A couple of years of only occasional riding because he trades all week has taken him to the point at which he is probably a danger to himself on anything other than flat rides. So an entire day was used up to do 39 miles and we made the mistake of stopping at Pier 23 which is a bar. As I walked in to get us some beers while he watched the bikes in a city where they would steal the buttons off of your shirt, the linoleum was wet and I slid about six feet before catching my balance. Knocked a picture off of the wall and the bartender was smart=assed about how I should put the picture back up on a wet floor. Then the SOB wouldn't serve me. I was on the verge of pulling that jerk over the bar when the Filipino bartender came over and got me a couple of beers. $9.50 apiece, Out of the tap. My friend went in to get another round. Two beers and I think that they were made out of dynamite because I was half lit all the way back on BART. People are STRANGE in San Francisco, my friend was interested in a dress one woman was wearing and went over to talk to the two couples she was part of. Seems as how she RENTED the dress for a day. The other woman was wearing those jeans with holes in hem and cuffs that looked like a cat had at them.

I can't help it - San Francisco and everything about it gives me the creeps..

On Saturday, 15 February 2020 14:51:53 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 7:40:07 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2020 1:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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.

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.

I've ridden on heavily overgrown logging/mining roads/trails and on trails where I'd be riding up a hill on the trail with poor sight lines and then find that the trail took a hard turn and a greatly increased incline. I can see where a single chainring setup would be beneficial there since it can be hard to get from the middle ring to the granny ring in such a short period of time.

So are you switching to 1x?


--
- Frank Krygowski

What is that for a stupid question. There are other requirements you know that determine ones choice.

Lou

I just put it down as an attempt at Trolling and ignored it. It seems to me that a LOT of Frank's questions are posted solely to generate arguments.

Cheers