[CR]Re: Too many gears? or just dumb ratios...

(Example: Framebuilders:Tubing)

From: "Brian Baylis" <rocklube@adnc.com>
To: Grant McLean <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca>
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
References: <A5E72E8AE73AD311954A009027887CFF60DD58@SLSERVER>
Subject: [CR]Re: Too many gears? or just dumb ratios...
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:48:18 -0700

Grant,

Here is my reasoning and experience regarding 7 speed cassettes. First, 126mm spacing. I think we all know the ramifications of that relative to wheel dish, rim weight, and the resulting wheels. Plus it is compatable with many older frames without realigning the rear triangle. For those who insist on modernizing really old frames with 120mm spacing the move to 126mm is most often tolerable; the move to 130mm is often unaccepable. I won't make that move unless I remove both bridges and even then I oppose it.

The 7 speed cassette era not only included an 11 tooth cog but also offers SEPERATE cogs of all sizes up to 32 teeth. That was thanks to MTB groups before the advent of "microdrive" which killed the larger cogs. So all of the options are there, and if somone wanted less than a 53 x 11 top gear one can use a smaller ft. chainring if a 12 or 13 cog wasn't proper. It is not law that the 11 T has to run with a 53 T chainring but when you like top end (I suck wheels on tandem group rides and large groups speeding down significant hills so I use my 56 x 11 gear a lot more than you might imagine). The 7 speed cassette is spaced the same as the 8 speed stuff so ergo, DT, or barend shifters(all indexing if you prefer) works with the cassette and does not require a super narrow chain.

To me these things represent all of the practical aspects of older gear in addition to some of the most important developments in the modern stuff. For me it seems ideal. That's why I like it. I'm not against technology, I'm not really opposed to marketing either; both things make the world go around and neither one is going away. But for my needs they were met about 1993, after which I quit racing anyway. Now my needs are not for keeping up with the pack but keeping things affordable and practical. Racing isn't about practical; it's about winning. My riding now isn't about winning, it's about enjoying time with my friends and riding the bike for pleasure. The So. Cal crowd knows the racer hasn't left me completely; it's only left my legs.

Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA Shift quietly and ride a big chainring.
>
> >Brian Baylis wrote: They (the industry) should have stopped at the 7
> speed cassette period in my opinion. From there it's been all about
> who comes out with the next higher number of cogs and how many times
> they can use the words "carbon fiber and titanium" while pitching
> their groups, and then jamming it down everyone's throat.
>
> >Tom Dalton wrote: Yes, Campy has definitely way out-Shimanoed
> Shimano, particularly by going to 10 speed. Worse still, they did it
> right after going to 9, instead of milking the 9-speed cow for a
> while. Maybe it's good because it was such a pathetic reaction that
> Shimano would look petty by trying to go further.
>
> Grant is writing: Guys... How many is too many depends on the ratios
> and your needs. The number of cogs in the back can't answer that.
>
> Personally, 9 is right for me, if I can get 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23
> with 42/52. This is great for the terrain I ride. This combo has
> the "all-star-Grant-special-ratio 52/18" which is my signiture "hammer
> my friends" gear. Ironically, Campagnolo 10 speed has only 11-23
> which has no 18t or 12-25 which also has no 18t. (side bar: Just
> how many people need 53/11??) So my point being.. it's not
> about how many, but whether they are the right ones.
>
> I think lots of 10speed riders buy it for wide ratios (like 13-29, so
> they don't have to go triple.) Sometimes more is more, sometimes
> less is more.
>
> The common theme here is like all the topics discussed on this
> list... hardly ever do "generalizations" about what's good or bad hold
> true in a vaccuum. It depends on the particular situation. I've
> learned this a lot reading this list over the past 3 months. In this
> case think it's more interesting to discuss what ratios are or are not
> available in different freewheels or cassettes. I'm sure you feel
> better by ranting against the forward march of technology, but your
> opinion holds more credibility when you explain why. Tom, I have a
> question: since Campagnolo has offered a choice of componenets in
> both 9 and 10 since 1999, and they both fit on the same hub, explain
> to me how this is "out shimanoing" shimano....

>

> Grant McLean

>

> toronto, canada