I agree with Joe and Peter.
I have favored and recommended half-step gearing for years.
It gives the rider the best of all worlds, except for the hard core racers,
who are in a different dimension.
Years ago we could custom fit gear ratios to the rider's strengths and
weaknesses and have the riders enjoy a logical sequence and progression that
made sense and was easy to master.
With the rationalization of standardized gearing all that part of serving
the riding public has been lost.
The modern stock triple chainwheel spacing and the stock cassette selection
give no rhyme or reason to the gear ratio sequence except that one has the
high and low ratios but the in between smooth progression is thrown out the
window like the baby with the bathwater.
IMO the modern power train are only interested in bottom line and are little
more than commodity brokers, in spite of all the celebrated innovations.
When it comes to this topic they IMO have their HUTA's.
AFAIC when it comes to making the gear ratios easier to work in logical
order with today's great technology they suck donkeys big time.
Back to one inch pitch, block chains, and fixed gears until they graduate
and get relieved of duty on the Texas ostrich farm.
Ted Ernst
Palos Verdes Estates
CA USA
>I don't understand the attacks on the half step plus granny. Yes, modern
>equipment has rendered it obsolete. But for classic bikes, what is the
>proposal?
>
> Yes, you need to shift a lot. And the gear charts on the stem are nerdy.
> But you can dial in a really great set of ratios using classic era
> components and building custom freewheels. With no overlapping gears.
> Plus you can set up a super low granny at no detriment to all the closely
> spaced ratios in your power range. In my touring experience, you can't
> have enough ratios spaced closely (say every 3 gear inches) and evenly
> around 65-70 gear inches and it is a good idea to have a gear as low as 20
> gear inches. What people forget to consider is that tendonitus and other
> physical problems can flair up on a long tour and you can either stop and
> rest, abandon or take it extremely easy.
>
> My favorite for a cheap and acceptable front derailleur for touring setups
> is the Campagnolo 980.
>
> Joe Bender-Zanoni
> Great Notch, NJ
>
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>> Cheung, Doland wrote:
>>> Well, since we are on the subject, other than the Huret Success FD, are
>>> there any other candidates that would work on a triple and half-step
>>> set-up that would combo nicely with a Huret Jubilee RD? I have a
>>> Jubilee long cage RD and some Sugino AT triple cranks and need an FD for
>>> them. Any candidates?
>>
>> If you're bound and determined to use (yuck!) half-step-plus-granny,
>> basically any "double" type front derailer will work fine.
>>
>> Modern "triple" front derailers don't like the small difference between
>> middle/large rings, but doubles don't mind.
>>
>> Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ha-i.html#halfstep" Brown
>> +------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every |
>> | decision that he makes and we should just support that. |
>> | -- Britney Spears, September 4, 2003 |
>> +------------------------------------------------------------------+