Your gearing is obsolete

On 6/26/2020 1:51 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 8:20:43 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Perhaps we could discuss this:

What do people here really feel they _need_ in gearing? What high gear,
what low gear, and what percent changes between? Also, perhaps, what's
your terrain and riding conditions and style?
--
- Frank Krygowski

For me I ride on mostly flat to little rolling terrain around home. So for most of my riding I do not need an extreme or extended range of gearing. But I do have bikes for steep mountainous rides too. Ideal high gear for me is 4:1. 52x13, 53x13, maybe 50x12 for the highest. 4:1 gets me up to 30mph pedaling. Fast enough unless you are being paid to ride a bike fast. 42x28 is a big bailout gear for me on almost all my riding. 42x23 is the lowest I need for 98% of my riding. All this is paved road riding. My mountain climbing bikes have 24x28 low gear on the road bike and 20x32 on the loaded touring bike. Both triples. You got to have a triple crankset for mountain climbing.

When I ride in Bangkok I use, perhaps, two gears for a 40 or 50 km.
ride as Bangkok is built on what is or was an aluvial plain and is
essencially flat. When I ride at our other place, in the hills leading
to the Korat Plateau, I use a tripple chain ring and a 13 - 25
cassette and, to be frank, there are short sections, where I would
have to get off and push (so I take a different street :-)

Gearing is all about where you are.

I agree, your terrain is critically important. So are the distances you
ride and the speed you ride at. Or maybe I should say the level of
effort you put into riding. I'm less picky about having the precise gear
when I'm riding leisurely.

I imagine wind can be a factor too, especially if you live in an area
where it's always there. I remember my first trip to the American Great
Plains as a young man. My friend and I couldn't light a campfire because
of the winds blasting out of the south. We later asked someone how often
it was that windy and they said "Always."

Fortunately, when we passed through there on our coast-to-coast ride, we
were headed north at that point.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 11:11:55 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I imagine wind can be a factor too, especially if you live in an area
where it's always there. I remember my first trip to the American Great
Plains as a young man. My friend and I couldn't light a campfire because
of the winds blasting out of the south. We later asked someone how often
it was that windy and they said "Always."

Fortunately, when we passed through there on our coast-to-coast ride, we
were headed north at that point.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Midwest. Summer, winds from West and South 90% of the time. Winter, winds from the West and North 90% of the time.

Am Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:07:22 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:

On 6/25/2020 12:56 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Bike facilites are almost always crap. Good bike facilities are almost
always not recognizeable as bike facilites. Like, for example, using low
rolling resistance asphalt. Or rightsizing lanes.

I agree with you in general. I'm just not 100% adamant.

I'm neither, that's why I wrote "almost always".

IOW, I think
there can be bits of bike infrastructure that are beneficial, as rare as
they are. My favorites, in the few places I've found them, have been
shortcuts or "leaks" that let cyclists through places where motorists
have to drive the long way around. (I helped to get two of those in my
village.)

Sure. But what makes these shortcuts "bicycle facilities"? Are
pedestrians prohibited? What about other nonmotorized vehicles, what
about riders on horses? What about motorcycles which are bicycles by
law? (We unfortunately have those in Germany).

Why not just call them shortcuts, because they are?

Personally, I prefer shortcuts which are optimized for bike usage, but
still are useable and occasionally used by cars. It keeps the people in
charge honest. Just make the shortcut unattractive for cars, for
example by allowing motorized traffic both ways, but make it too narrow
for two cars. Nobody likes to drive a car backwards on a winding course.



Today we did a 30+ mile ride through the suburbs to get my new cycling
shoes. Much of it was on tangled residential streets specifically
designed to reduce cut-through traffic. I did a lot of intense
navigating, and was stymied a couple times by streets that were shown to
connect, but in real life did not.

This is a standard design for new housing estates in the countryside. I
hate it. Usually, this design includes mandatory sideway bike paths
shared with pedestrians, on all streets that do not follow this
pattern, because parents in those estates think bicycles are for
children, only.



If those streets had ended with connector paths, the residents would
still have the low motor vehicle traffic they cherish, but bicyclists
would have an easier and more pleasant way of getting to practical
places. (I guess that's roughly the definition of a "bicycle boulevard.")

People quicky find out that their garbage cans perfectly fit into those
connector paths, just like dog walkers find that unowned patch of green
(common green?) perfectly useable for their dog ****ting on it. See
"tragedy of the commons".





BTW, we passed just two short bike lanes. I avoided them entirely and
rode the normal travel lane. Why? There was so much gravel I feared
getting a flat.

Sure. So do I. I try to steer around mazes, too, especially around
mazes that contain traps looking like shortcuts. :-) I have had enough
experience with such traps. Flats are easy, broken bones and damaged
nerves are not.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

On 6/27/2020 5:28 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:07:22 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:

On 6/25/2020 12:56 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Bike facilites are almost always crap. Good bike facilities are almost
always not recognizeable as bike facilites. Like, for example, using low
rolling resistance asphalt. Or rightsizing lanes.

I agree with you in general. I'm just not 100% adamant.

I'm neither, that's why I wrote "almost always".

IOW, I think
there can be bits of bike infrastructure that are beneficial, as rare as
they are. My favorites, in the few places I've found them, have been
shortcuts or "leaks" that let cyclists through places where motorists
have to drive the long way around. (I helped to get two of those in my
village.)

Sure. But what makes these shortcuts "bicycle facilities"? Are
pedestrians prohibited? What about other nonmotorized vehicles, what
about riders on horses? What about motorcycles which are bicycles by
law? (We unfortunately have those in Germany).

Why not just call them shortcuts, because they are?

I think one difference from "just shortcuts" is surface quality or
ridability. A shortcut could contain stairs or dropoffs, unridable
gravel or other things that permit walking but preclude bicycling.

Personally, I prefer shortcuts which are optimized for bike usage, but
still are useable and occasionally used by cars. It keeps the people in
charge honest. Just make the shortcut unattractive for cars, for
example by allowing motorized traffic both ways, but make it too narrow
for two cars. Nobody likes to drive a car backwards on a winding course.

That sounds closer to what's actually called a Bicycle Boulevard over
here. (Not that we have one in my riding area.) I agree, the ones I've
ridden elsewhere have been very nice. I'm in favor of them.

Today we did a 30+ mile ride through the suburbs to get my new cycling
shoes. Much of it was on tangled residential streets specifically
designed to reduce cut-through traffic. I did a lot of intense
navigating, and was stymied a couple times by streets that were shown to
connect, but in real life did not.

This is a standard design for new housing estates in the countryside. I
hate it. Usually, this design includes mandatory sideway bike paths
shared with pedestrians, on all streets that do not follow this
pattern, because parents in those estates think bicycles are for
children, only.

In my state, we're fortunate to have a law specifically stating that a
cyclist can't be forced to use a bike facility; bicyclists can always
choose the road, assuming it's not a limited access highway.


--
- Frank Krygowski