Patrick, If you start getting particular about your gearing preferences, I think the whole issue becomes quite subjective and driven by personal preferences. Michael clearly likes his arrangements, which I certainly don't, and he specifically recommends against arrangements I use and particularly like. What you are going to like is, ... well I guess I haven't much of a clue. But as a counterpoint to Michael's take I will submit the following. When I change rings, I want to it change my gear by more than a cog or two in the back would. For me changing rings is about moving back towards (or past) the center of the cassette after working towards one end (or avoiding going out to towards the end in the first place). Back in the 70s I rode 44/52 rings with a 14-18 freewheel and liked it a lot. But now that many of us have moved from 5 cog freewheels to 9 cog cassettes, I think larger differences between chainrings make more sense and work better. When I used to race I really valued one tooth steps in back, but now days I am more relaxed about effort and two tooth steps in the middle cogs seems ok and the increased range back there seems worth the loss in resolution. If your cassette has steps of two teeth in your "cruising" gears and three or four teeth on the big end then that also argues for bigger steps in your chainrings than a cassette that has one and two tooth steps. As is so often the case what you like is up to you, and you should ride what you like. I hope you enjoy figuring out what works best for you and your preferences.
regards Ted On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:36:16 PM UTC-7, Michael Hechmer wrote: > > Deacon, I'm sitting in an Inn after a hard drive across a chunk of Md., > all of Delaware, NJ, and up NY to Rhinebeck so my brain is too tired for a > full answer. So here's the short version. > > All gearing combinations involve trade offs among 4 variables - hi/low > which you have identified; but also how big the jumps are between gears; > the ease of getting from one gear to the next; and where your favorite > gears are. > > The wider the hi/low range the wider the steps between gears, but this can > be counteracted to some degree by going to a dbl and then a triple. A wide > range cassette always yields large steps between gears, which I don't like. > I usually run a 12-27 or at most an 11-28. Even with that, on our riding > in flat Virginia I only used 3 gears but two of them were too far apart. > > So the double will let you get a pretty wide range with smaller steps. > But with many doubles the next gear can be an awkward front shift and a 2 > or 3 click rear shift leaving you between the gear you would really like. > A ring difference of 10 tends to yield the simplest shifting pattern - a > single click to the next gear. 14 tooth difference yields 2 clicks to the > next gear. I tend to find the 12 difference leaving me between gears. I > try to create sets with about 10% between gears especially in the most > used middle. > > Finally, think about which gears you use the most and try to get a good > chain line and easy pattern between them. > > I rarely use a ratio of less than 1 to 1 and never more than 4-1. For > example my Ram has a 44/30 and an 11/27 while the Saluki a 48/34/26 (24 for > big long climbs) with a 12-27. The tandem, likes easy shifting, so > 48/38/28 with a 12-27. It feels very stressful to me to try to spin a > ratio much below 1-1 fast enough to keep a bike upright for a long time. > To each his own. > > Simplification is good, over simplification makes life more complicated > than it needs to be. > > Michael > > > On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 9:45:03 PM UTC-4, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >> I am contemplating whether to go 1 x 9 or 2 x 9 with my drive train. here >> is the gear ration range comparison: >> >> In gain ratios: >> >> Current range (excluding my big ring, which I rarely use and will be >> dropping): >> 1.5 - 6 >> >> 1 x 9 (28 x 12-36) >> 1.6 - 4.7 >> >> 2 x 9 (24/36 x 12-36) >> 1.3 - 6 >> >> I don’t really need lower than 1.5, and I am unsure how the drop to 4.7 >> from 6 translates to speed loss. On flat or gradual descents, I suspect I >> would miss those upper gears. Can anyone provide their wisdom here? >> >> I am asking the question because I want to go as simple as is practical. >> I’d love to go with the 36t on a 1x set up, but it would add significantly >> to the number of hills i’m walking, especially when bikepacking. Perhaps >> going with a 30 or 32t 1x set up is the way to go? I will no doubt get >> stronger and the loss may not be a big deal with that. But then it’s better >> to lose gears on the upper range and coast more, and enjoy the ride on the >> climbs without killing myself. >> >> All wisdom deeply appreciated. >> >> With abandon, >> Patrick >> >> *www.MindYourHeadCoop.org <http://www.MindYourHeadCoop.org>* >> *www.OurHolyConception.org <http://www.OurHolyConception.org>* >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
