Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Jason Fuller]

Another good thing to note on the Albastache, is if you find the lever 
angle doesn't work for you (which was my issue), Velo Orange makes a flat 
bar style lever that works on 23.8mm road bars, including the 'stache.  
Then you'd be able to set them up truly like an Albatross, but have the 
more forward ergonomics 

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 10:47:30 UTC-8 DavidP wrote:

> Hi Sarah - I'm in the process of a road-ish/commuter-ish build using 
> Albastache bars. I've tried moustache bars in the past with the levers in 
> the standard position and never liked them as much as my Albatross bars. So 
> this time I'm moving the levers further back to be more like Albatross in 
> use:
>
> [image: PXL_20231110_194943840-chest-1024.jpg]
>
> [image: PXL_20231110_195003021-chest-profile-1024.jpg]
>
> This gives good access to brakes from the farthest back position and the 
> more forward "on the hoods" position, which are the two positions I use 
> most on my Albatross bar bikes. The forward most "in the hooks" position 
> does require a hand shift to get to the brakes but it's a small one.
>
> So why even use Albastache bars if you're just going to set them up like 
> Albatross bars? A couple of reasons come to mind: 
> 1) Looks - the Albastache are more roadish looking.
> 2) Less rearward extension means a shorter stem can be used than with 
> Albatross bars. I've got a 70mm stem on this bike.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-5 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>
>> Sarah, I completely understand wanting your brake levers close at hand. 
>> But keep in mind, as another here has said, that this is one reason for a 
>> short (but tall) stem. 
>> I use this setup for my touring bike too (a Sam) because it allows a 
>> chance to “stretch out” like riding in the drops on drop bars.
>> This is less useful if you are riding on a commute and making many stops, 
>> some unexpected and abrupt.
>> For longer rides, I find I am “at home”  in in my Lazy Boy” on the hoods.
>> This position may not work for you if your body won’t allow it. 
>> You might be better served by Albatross bars. But keep in mind that you 
>> can angle those for a bit more “aero” position on faster group rides.
>> Paul Germain
>> MIDLOTHIAN, Va
>>
>> Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023, 9:33 AM, Sarah Carlson <
>> sarahlik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Paul!
>> Thank you for sharing pictures of your set up, and an explanation of your 
>> gearing... I like what you have going here, my teen would say, "It's a 
>> vibe." I like the range of gears you have and I feel like that would work 
>> with how I ride. 36 seems like a sweet spot to ride in, while also having a 
>> 24 for hills, and a 46 which gives options when I am coming down hills 
>> because I just feel ungrounded when I'm totally spinning down hills. Great 
>> suggestions! 
>>
>> I'm going to have to test ride an Albastache bar somewhere, because your 
>> set up looks like a good possibility to be compatible for how I like to 
>> ride. The only thing is I know I like to have my break levers right under 
>> my hands and I tend to ride with my hands on the swept back part... so I'd 
>> need to see how it feels to keep my hands up front like that. Luckily 
>> learning what we like tends to involve riding and be fun so I'm up for it!
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>>
>> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple 
>> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 
>> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm 
>> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers 
>> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the 
>> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
>> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think 
>> the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?) 
>> I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain 
>> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave 
>> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
>> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains 
>> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
>> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum 
>> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or 
>> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of 
>> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire 
>> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even 
>> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take 
>> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If 
>> your group rides are entirely on 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

['Paul Germain' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Sarah, I completely understand wanting your brake levers close at hand. But 
keep in mind, as another here has said, that this is one reason for a short 
(but tall) stem. I use this setup for my touring bike too (a Sam) because it 
allows a chance to “stretch out” like riding in the drops on drop bars.This is 
less useful if you are riding on a commute and making many stops, some 
unexpected and abrupt.For longer rides, I find I am “at home”  in in my Lazy 
Boy” on the hoods.This position may not work for you if your body won’t allow 
it. You might be better served by Albatross bars. But keep in mind that you can 
angle those for a bit more “aero” position on faster group rides.Paul 
GermainMIDLOTHIAN, Va

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS


On Thursday, November 30, 2023, 9:33 AM, Sarah Carlson 
 wrote:

Hey Paul!Thank you for sharing pictures of your set up, and an explanation of 
your gearing... I like what you have going here, my teen would say, "It's a 
vibe." I like the range of gears you have and I feel like that would work with 
how I ride. 36 seems like a sweet spot to ride in, while also having a 24 for 
hills, and a 46 which gives options when I am coming down hills because I just 
feel ungrounded when I'm totally spinning down hills. Great suggestions! 

I'm going to have to test ride an Albastache bar somewhere, because your set up 
looks like a good possibility to be compatible for how I like to ride. The only 
thing is I know I like to have my break levers right under my hands and I tend 
to ride with my hands on the swept back part... so I'd need to see how it feels 
to keep my hands up front like that. Luckily learning what we like tends to 
involve riding and be fun so I'm up for it!
Sarah

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:

Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple chainrings 
and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 crankset. Also, 
the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm Nitto Dirt Drop stem. 
My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers the best of both worlds for 
me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the more upright Albatross bar on my 
single speed daily ride.I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners 
who don't think the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for 
you, too?) I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have 
different pain thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper 
to leave the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains are 
rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.I find my Homer Hilsen is 
the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum of bag capacity, I can carry a 
sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or vest, etc. Most every need for a day 
ride, which would include tools of course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is 
unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame 
handles dirt roads well, even on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with 
longer chain stays may take wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping 
point to tire width. If your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm 
tires should be the sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling 
weight of wider.I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably 
livelier, especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day 
on the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all 
know that is a very personal preference.)  My Hilsen set up this way for me is 
a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with 
others.https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
Paul GermainMidlothian, Va.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:

Did someone say PIE??! 不

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com wrote:

Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone told me 
that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding since I've been 
out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and see how it goes! I 
do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 12 x 36. Gravity is 
inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to fuel my engine with 
pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:

If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a lower 
gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, etc. as 
a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 cassettes 
on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 Ibis Mojo 
“Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Sarah Carlson]

Hey Paul!
Thank you for sharing pictures of your set up, and an explanation of your 
gearing... I like what you have going here, my teen would say, "It's a 
vibe." I like the range of gears you have and I feel like that would work 
with how I ride. 36 seems like a sweet spot to ride in, while also having a 
24 for hills, and a 46 which gives options when I am coming down hills 
because I just feel ungrounded when I'm totally spinning down hills. Great 
suggestions! 

I'm going to have to test ride an Albastache bar somewhere, because your 
set up looks like a good possibility to be compatible for how I like to 
ride. The only thing is I know I like to have my break levers right under 
my hands and I tend to ride with my hands on the swept back part... so I'd 
need to see how it feels to keep my hands up front like that. Luckily 
learning what we like tends to involve riding and be fun so I'm up for it!

Sarah

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:

> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple 
> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 
> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm 
> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers 
> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the 
> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think the 
> way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?) I 
> would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain 
> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave 
> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains 
> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum 
> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or 
> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of 
> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire 
> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even 
> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take 
> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If 
> your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm tires should be the 
> sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling weight of wider.
> I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably livelier, 
> especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day on 
> the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all 
> know that is a very personal preference.)  My Hilsen set up this way for me 
> is a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with 
> others.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
> Paul Germain
> Midlothian, Va.
> [image: IMG_7763.jpeg]
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Did someone say PIE??! 不
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone 
>>> told me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding 
>>> since I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and 
>>> see how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 
>>> 12 x 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to 
>>> fuel my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>>>
 If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
 lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.

 You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
 etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your 
 “3 
 cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
 Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
 pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
 becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
 but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.

 On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and 
> Mama bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for 
> everyone!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> IMO redundant gears are more of a 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Bill Lindsay]

I think Piaw Na's story gets to the heart of it:  No amount of objective 
information is going to tell you what you like.  The only way to find out 
what works for you as a cyclist is to try things out.  Experience is the 
only way to rule things out or find out what works best.  The information 
you gather before making your choice will never tell you what works best 
for you.  It can only help you prioritize what you are going to decide to 
try next.  Piaw Na seems to understand that the stuff he likes ONLY applies 
to him and his particular idiosyncratic relationship with bicycles and 
cycling.  He seems to understand that his advice is only good or relevant 
for other cyclists who ride like him and treat their bikes like him, and 
have his personality.  I don't ride like him, treat my bikes like him, and 
don't have his personality, so it's a good idea for me to take his advice 
with a grain of salt.  Same goes for my advice or anybody's advice.  Pretty 
much the only objective thing we can say about bikes and bike parts is 
their weight.  Everything else is subjective.  I think that's important 
when gathering and consuming opinions.  It's still YOUR choice.  You may 
end up loving something that another very smart, very sensitive, very 
accomplished cyclist hates, and that's OK.  1x drivetrains, 2x drivetrains 
and 3x drivetrains are all excellent when used the right way on the right 
kind of application.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:43:39 AM UTC-8 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> Those "chainwatchers" have caused me more trouble than they're worth. 
> Invariably (because I abuse my bikes and ride them off road), they will 
> fail to catch the chain and the chain will jam in below them. When that 
> happens, you have an ever harder time putting the chain back on! When that 
> happens I get out my multi-tool, remove the chain watcher and toss it into 
> the nearest trash can. I know that my experience is not universal --- most 
> people don't ride aggressive enough environments to cause those problems. 
> But that's why I place a lot of value on simplicity and fixability. When 
> you're out in the middle of nowhere with your entire family with you 
> there's no one to call to bail you out. Everything has to be rock solid 
> reliable and I have no time or patience with "technology" like 
> chainwatchers, indexed shifting, or finicky drivetrains.
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:39 AM Toshi Takeuchi  wrote:
>
>> I agree that dropping the chain when shifting into the small ring is a 
>> major disadvantage of a triple, but I use a “chainwatcher” that guides the 
>> chain onto the small ring and that solves the problem for me.
>>
>> Toshi
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:00 AM Piaw Na  wrote:
>>
>>> I'll chime in. I'm here in the Bay Area (I noticed Sarah mentioned Mt 
>>> Diablo), and I've found that Bay Area hills are not kind to triples. I 
>>> switched to a 1x and am much happier: 
>>> https://blog.piaw.net/2022/06/a-transition-to-1x-drivetrains.html
>>>
>>> I'm sure this is a contrarian view, but my take is that the drop into a 
>>> 24 is challenging enough that you will drop chains every so often and learn 
>>> not to use it. My knees are much happier with 1x than with 3x. And I'm 
>>> happy to give up the top end and restrict myself to spinning out at 30mph.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>>>
 Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple 
 chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 
 crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm 
 Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers 
 the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the 
 more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
 I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think 
 the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?) 
 I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain 
 thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave 
 the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
 Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge 
 Mountains are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
 I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a 
 near-minimum of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a 
 lightweight 
 jacket or vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include 
 tools of course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 
 38mm tire capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads 
 well, even on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays 
 may take wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire 
 width. If your 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[藍俊彪]

Those "chainwatchers" have caused me more trouble than they're worth.
Invariably (because I abuse my bikes and ride them off road), they will
fail to catch the chain and the chain will jam in below them. When that
happens, you have an ever harder time putting the chain back on! When that
happens I get out my multi-tool, remove the chain watcher and toss it into
the nearest trash can. I know that my experience is not universal --- most
people don't ride aggressive enough environments to cause those problems.
But that's why I place a lot of value on simplicity and fixability. When
you're out in the middle of nowhere with your entire family with you
there's no one to call to bail you out. Everything has to be rock solid
reliable and I have no time or patience with "technology" like
chainwatchers, indexed shifting, or finicky drivetrains.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:39 AM Toshi Takeuchi  wrote:

> I agree that dropping the chain when shifting into the small ring is a
> major disadvantage of a triple, but I use a “chainwatcher” that guides the
> chain onto the small ring and that solves the problem for me.
>
> Toshi
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:00 AM Piaw Na  wrote:
>
>> I'll chime in. I'm here in the Bay Area (I noticed Sarah mentioned Mt
>> Diablo), and I've found that Bay Area hills are not kind to triples. I
>> switched to a 1x and am much happier:
>> https://blog.piaw.net/2022/06/a-transition-to-1x-drivetrains.html
>>
>> I'm sure this is a contrarian view, but my take is that the drop into a
>> 24 is challenging enough that you will drop chains every so often and learn
>> not to use it. My knees are much happier with 1x than with 3x. And I'm
>> happy to give up the top end and restrict myself to spinning out at 30mph.
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple
>>> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24
>>> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm
>>> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers
>>> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the
>>> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
>>> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think
>>> the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?)
>>> I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain
>>> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave
>>> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway.
>>> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains
>>> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
>>> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum
>>> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or
>>> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of
>>> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire
>>> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even
>>> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take
>>> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If
>>> your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm tires should be the
>>> sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling weight of wider.
>>> I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably livelier,
>>> especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day on
>>> the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all
>>> know that is a very personal preference.)  My Hilsen set up this way for me
>>> is a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with
>>> others.
>>>
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
>>> Paul Germain
>>> Midlothian, Va.
>>> [image: IMG_7763.jpeg]
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>
 Did someone say PIE??! 不

 On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com
 wrote:

> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone
> told me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding
> since I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and
> see how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with
> 12 x 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to
> fuel my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>
>> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting
>> a lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>>
>> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Toshi Takeuchi]

I agree that dropping the chain when shifting into the small ring is a
major disadvantage of a triple, but I use a “chainwatcher” that guides the
chain onto the small ring and that solves the problem for me.

Toshi

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:00 AM Piaw Na  wrote:

> I'll chime in. I'm here in the Bay Area (I noticed Sarah mentioned Mt
> Diablo), and I've found that Bay Area hills are not kind to triples. I
> switched to a 1x and am much happier:
> https://blog.piaw.net/2022/06/a-transition-to-1x-drivetrains.html
>
> I'm sure this is a contrarian view, but my take is that the drop into a 24
> is challenging enough that you will drop chains every so often and learn
> not to use it. My knees are much happier with 1x than with 3x. And I'm
> happy to give up the top end and restrict myself to spinning out at 30mph.
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>
>> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple
>> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24
>> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm
>> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers
>> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the
>> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
>> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think
>> the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?)
>> I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain
>> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave
>> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway.
>> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains
>> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
>> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum
>> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or
>> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of
>> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire
>> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even
>> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take
>> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If
>> your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm tires should be the
>> sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling weight of wider.
>> I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably livelier,
>> especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day on
>> the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all
>> know that is a very personal preference.)  My Hilsen set up this way for me
>> is a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with
>> others.
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
>> Paul Germain
>> Midlothian, Va.
>> [image: IMG_7763.jpeg]
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>> Did someone say PIE??! 不
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone
 told me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding
 since I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and
 see how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with
 12 x 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to
 fuel my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24!

 On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:

> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting
> a lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>
> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma
> Clipper, etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and
> have your “3 cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36
> on my 1998 Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use
> the 43 on pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24
> when gravity becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes
> more sense, but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some
> time.
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and
>> Mama bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for
>> everyone!
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern
>>> than a real issue. If 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Piaw Na]

I'll chime in. I'm here in the Bay Area (I noticed Sarah mentioned Mt 
Diablo), and I've found that Bay Area hills are not kind to triples. I 
switched to a 1x and am much 
happier: https://blog.piaw.net/2022/06/a-transition-to-1x-drivetrains.html

I'm sure this is a contrarian view, but my take is that the drop into a 24 
is challenging enough that you will drop chains every so often and learn 
not to use it. My knees are much happier with 1x than with 3x. And I'm 
happy to give up the top end and restrict myself to spinning out at 30mph.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:

> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple 
> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 
> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm 
> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers 
> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the 
> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think the 
> way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?) I 
> would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain 
> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave 
> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains 
> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum 
> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or 
> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of 
> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire 
> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even 
> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take 
> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If 
> your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm tires should be the 
> sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling weight of wider.
> I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably livelier, 
> especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day on 
> the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all 
> know that is a very personal preference.)  My Hilsen set up this way for me 
> is a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with 
> others.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
> Paul Germain
> Midlothian, Va.
> [image: IMG_7763.jpeg]
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Did someone say PIE??! 不
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone 
>>> told me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding 
>>> since I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and 
>>> see how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 
>>> 12 x 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to 
>>> fuel my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>>>
 If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
 lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.

 You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
 etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your 
 “3 
 cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
 Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
 pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
 becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
 but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.

 On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and 
> Mama bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for 
> everyone!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern 
>> than a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>>
>> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
>> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
>> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
>> medium and small cogs and back. 
>>

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Joe Bernard]

Did someone say PIE??! 不

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone told 
> me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding since 
> I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and see 
> how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 12 x 
> 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to fuel 
> my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>
>> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
>> lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>>
>> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
>> etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 
>> cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
>> Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
>> pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
>> becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
>> but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
>>> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern 
 than a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:

 - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
 - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
 - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
 medium and small cogs and back. 

 Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
 gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 

 Eric 
 Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 


 On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
 wrote:

> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm 
> telling myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible 
> thing?
>
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>
>> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, 
>> which is something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to 
>> their own practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a 
>> drivetrain by identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high 
>> you want your high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly 
>> combination to get there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that 
>> you'll find that you need to drop into the small ring for every hill, 
>> whereas if you have a triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring 
>> most of the time and save a lot of front shifts, even though you have 
>> more 
>> rings up there. 
>>
>> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - 
>> above that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 
>> tops. On the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want 
>> something in the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 
>> 24-25 
>> inches is good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings 
>> such that I truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can 
>> run 
>> a big ring on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 
>> 11-34 is a great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some 
>> smaller steps on the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most 
>> situations 
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>>
>>> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
>>> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' 
>>> if 
>>> you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when 
>>> I 
>>> hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the 
>>> rear 
>>> alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low 
>>> double, you would be spinning like crazy if you tried the same thing
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent point, and one that launches me into bike nerd mode... 
>>> apologies in advance if this is too much.
>>>
>>> The "standard" chainring gap became 16 teeth when "compact double" 
>>> 50x34 combos became all the rage. 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Nick A.]

Hi Sarah, I also fuel my engine with pie and love the triple crank on my 
commuter. It's 48-34-28, with a 12-36 9sp in rear. I love it and use that 
34t all the time to push around. Just the right range for hilly Northern VA.

Nick in Falls Church

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:47:53 PM UTC-5 Drew Saunders wrote:

> If you’re spinning out the 42, many triple FDs and RDs will handle a 
> 24-36-46 with a 12-36. Alternately, you could use the 24-34-44 with an 
> 11-34 or 11-36, both of which are made in 9 speed. A 44x11 is easy math, 
> it’s the same 4:1 ratio that was the standard high gear when professional 
> racers ran a 42-52 up front with a 13-21 freewheel. 
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone 
>> told me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding 
>> since I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and 
>> see how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 
>> 12 x 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to 
>> fuel my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>>
>>> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
>>> lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>>>
>>> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
>>> etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 
>>> cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
>>> Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
>>> pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
>>> becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
>>> but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
 bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for 
 everyone!

 On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:

> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern 
> than a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>
> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
> medium and small cogs and back. 
>
> Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
> gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 
>
> Eric 
> Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 
>
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm 
>> telling myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible 
>> thing?
>>
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>
>>> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, 
>>> which is something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible 
>>> to 
>>> their own practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a 
>>> drivetrain by identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how 
>>> high 
>>> you want your high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly 
>>> combination to get there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that 
>>> you'll find that you need to drop into the small ring for every hill, 
>>> whereas if you have a triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring 
>>> most of the time and save a lot of front shifts, even though you have 
>>> more 
>>> rings up there. 
>>>
>>> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - 
>>> above that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 
>>> 100 
>>> tops. On the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want 
>>> something in the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 
>>> 24-25 
>>> inches is good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings 
>>> such that I truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can 
>>> run 
>>> a big ring on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 
>>> 11-34 is a great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some 
>>> smaller steps on the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most 
>>> situations 
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller 
 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Drew Saunders]

If you’re spinning out the 42, many triple FDs and RDs will handle a 
24-36-46 with a 12-36. Alternately, you could use the 24-34-44 with an 
11-34 or 11-36, both of which are made in 9 speed. A 44x11 is easy math, 
it’s the same 4:1 ratio that was the standard high gear when professional 
racers ran a 42-52 up front with a 13-21 freewheel. 

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone told 
> me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding since 
> I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and see 
> how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 12 x 
> 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to fuel 
> my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>
>> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
>> lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>>
>> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
>> etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 
>> cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
>> Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
>> pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
>> becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
>> but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
>>> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern 
 than a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:

 - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
 - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
 - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
 medium and small cogs and back. 

 Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
 gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 

 Eric 
 Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 


 On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
 wrote:

> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm 
> telling myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible 
> thing?
>
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>
>> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, 
>> which is something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to 
>> their own practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a 
>> drivetrain by identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high 
>> you want your high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly 
>> combination to get there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that 
>> you'll find that you need to drop into the small ring for every hill, 
>> whereas if you have a triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring 
>> most of the time and save a lot of front shifts, even though you have 
>> more 
>> rings up there. 
>>
>> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - 
>> above that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 
>> tops. On the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want 
>> something in the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 
>> 24-25 
>> inches is good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings 
>> such that I truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can 
>> run 
>> a big ring on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 
>> 11-34 is a great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some 
>> smaller steps on the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most 
>> situations 
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>>
>>> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
>>> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' 
>>> if 
>>> you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when 
>>> I 
>>> hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the 
>>> rear 
>>> alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low 
>>> double, you would 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Stephen Durfee]

Hey Sarah - fun to follow this thread because I am also in the midst of a 
Homer road bike build, to complement my All-Rounder adventure bike. I have 
the same Silver 38/24 on the AR and found it to be frustrating even on the 
flats - I picked up a single 46T chainring and (when I find the time) will 
be swapping that in for the chainguard to make mine a more useful triple. 
Meanwhile, the Homer will be getting a 46/30 crankset from VO and an 11-34 
cassetteNexave RD and Rich-built Velocity Synergy wheelset (33mm Jack 
Browns) collected from folks on the list. I'm putting the finishing touches 
on mine now, let's plan a Homer parade for GGP when you get yours built!


On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone told 
> me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding since 
> I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and see 
> how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 12 x 
> 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to fuel 
> my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>
>> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
>> lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>>
>> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
>> etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 
>> cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
>> Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
>> pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
>> becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
>> but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
>>> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern 
 than a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:

 - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
 - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
 - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
 medium and small cogs and back. 

 Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
 gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 

 Eric 
 Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 


 On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
 wrote:

> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm 
> telling myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible 
> thing?
>
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>
>> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, 
>> which is something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to 
>> their own practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a 
>> drivetrain by identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high 
>> you want your high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly 
>> combination to get there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that 
>> you'll find that you need to drop into the small ring for every hill, 
>> whereas if you have a triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring 
>> most of the time and save a lot of front shifts, even though you have 
>> more 
>> rings up there. 
>>
>> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - 
>> above that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 
>> tops. On the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want 
>> something in the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 
>> 24-25 
>> inches is good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings 
>> such that I truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can 
>> run 
>> a big ring on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 
>> 11-34 is a great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some 
>> smaller steps on the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most 
>> situations 
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>>
>>> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
>>> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Sarah Carlson]

Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone told 
me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding since 
I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and see 
how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 12 x 
36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to fuel 
my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:

> If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
> lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
>
> You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
> etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 
> cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
> Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
> pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
> becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
> but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
>> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than 
>>> a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>>>
>>> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
>>> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
>>> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
>>> medium and small cogs and back. 
>>>
>>> Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
>>> gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 
>>>
>>> Eric 
>>> Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm 
 telling myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible 
 thing?

 On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:

> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, 
> which is something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to 
> their own practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a 
> drivetrain by identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high 
> you want your high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly 
> combination to get there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that 
> you'll find that you need to drop into the small ring for every hill, 
> whereas if you have a triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring 
> most of the time and save a lot of front shifts, even though you have 
> more 
> rings up there. 
>
> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - 
> above that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 
> tops. On the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want 
> something in the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 24-25 
> inches is good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings 
> such that I truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can 
> run 
> a big ring on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 
> 11-34 is a great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some 
> smaller steps on the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most 
> situations 
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>
>> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
>> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' 
>> if 
>> you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when 
>> I 
>> hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the 
>> rear 
>> alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low 
>> double, you would be spinning like crazy if you tried the same thing
>>
>>
>> Excellent point, and one that launches me into bike nerd mode... 
>> apologies in advance if this is too much.
>>
>> The "standard" chainring gap became 16 teeth when "compact double" 
>> 50x34 combos became all the rage. That's a 39% jump, the way I measure 
>> it 
>> (Ln(50/34)), or about 2.5 times the 15.4% jump from 18 to 21 in back. 
>> Now, 
>> if you keep that 16 tooth gap but go down to 40x24, that's a ginormous 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Drew Saunders]

If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.

You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 
cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than 
>> a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>>
>> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
>> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
>> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
>> medium and small cogs and back. 
>>
>> Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
>> gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 
>>
>> Eric 
>> Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm telling 
>>> myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible thing?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>>
 You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, which is 
 something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to their own 
 practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a drivetrain by 
 identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high you want your 
 high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly combination to 
 get 
 there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that you'll find that you 
 need to drop into the small ring for every hill, whereas if you have a 
 triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring most of the time and 
 save 
 a lot of front shifts, even though you have more rings up there. 

 For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - above 
 that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 tops. 
 On 
 the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want something 
 in 
 the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 24-25 inches is 
 good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings such that I 
 truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can run a big ring 
 on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 11-34 is a 
 great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some smaller steps 
 on 
 the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most situations 

 On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:

> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>
> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' if 
> you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when I 
> hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the 
> rear 
> alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low 
> double, you would be spinning like crazy if you tried the same thing
>
>
> Excellent point, and one that launches me into bike nerd mode... 
> apologies in advance if this is too much.
>
> The "standard" chainring gap became 16 teeth when "compact double" 
> 50x34 combos became all the rage. That's a 39% jump, the way I measure it 
> (Ln(50/34)), or about 2.5 times the 15.4% jump from 18 to 21 in back. 
> Now, 
> if you keep that 16 tooth gap but go down to 40x24, that's a ginormous 
> 51% 
> jump, which is 3.3x the 18-21 jump. I have a 42x26 on my Waterford ST-22, 
> and it's definitely jarring to drop to the small ring when you hit a 
> hill, 
> requiring a bit of advance planning to shift a cog harder in the rear, 
> first. I spent plenty of time riding half-step gearing, so I'm facile 
> with 
> double-shifting, but after a couple hundred kms I'm too tired for that. 
> For 
> my Breadwinner G-Road I went with 44x32, which is a gentle 32% jump. It 
> means there's more overlap in the gearing, or to put it another way, I'm 
> not maximizing the total 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Toshi Takeuchi]

Here's what I was thinking of.  It's a Roadini with Wavie bars.  I think I
would like the Albastache better with the brakes up front like my Cheviot,
but that's my personal preference.
https://www.rivbike.com/products/47cm-roadini-mermaid

Toshi


On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:28 AM Toshi Takeuchi  wrote:

> I'm almost positive there was a Roadini set up with an Albastache bar in
> one of Will's updates.  My Cheviot uses Albastache bars and I like it
> because I have an upright position at the rear of the bars and a lower
> position at the front of the bars.  My brakes are at the front--not in the
> back. The distance is perfect--kind of roadish, but much easier to brake
> than drop bars.  I've attached a picture here.
>
> Rich Lesnik has a Roadeo set up with Albastache bars.  It's a wonderful
> bike.  The Albastache is designed, as far as I have experienced to take a
> similar stem as the drop bars and similar position as the drop bars, but
> much nicer on the back!  I would ask Rich about his stem length on the
> Roadeo compared to his previous drop bars.
>
> --I have triples on all my bikes.  You can start with a 11-28 cassette,
> but use a mountain rear derailleur and you can swap to a larger cassette if
> you feel like you want lower gears for the hills.  All of mine or 48-38-24,
> but 46-36-24 or variations thereof should be absolutely fine.  The only
> problem I've ever had with triples is dropping the chain when shifting into
> the small ring.  You can get a "chain watcher" or some variation thereof to
> guide the chain onto the small ring and it will solve that problem if you
> have it.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAGB59xzoXCp%2B1-JFvr%2BXdap6FL6ZYMVaC1wO1vXyVUGwwR02JA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Greg J]

Forgive me for bike-splaining here, but it seems like you're narrowing it 
down, so here's some more for your consideration.

Given where you ride, it makes sense to start with a triple, since that 
will cover all your bases (steep uphills, general riding, and fast 
downhills).

   1. What type of triple?  There are different bolt circle diameter (bcd) 
   standards for cranksets, and that dictates the sizes of the chainrings. 
The "Riv standard" is 110/74 (110 for middle and large; 74 for small). 
The smallest chainring for a 74bcd is 24T, and the smallest chainring for 
   110 bcd is 34T.  The 110/74 is probably the "Riv standard."  (There's also 
   94/58, which can give you smaller middle and small chainrings, but these 
   cranksets are harder to come by.)
   2. What size chainrings?  This depends on what you feel you're missing 
   currently, between the front chainrings and rear cassette.  If you're using 
   a 24T, do you use the largest rear cassette?  Do you want an even "easier" 
   gear?  In the 34T, do you use generally the middle range of your cassette? 
or are you biased towards the larger or smaller half?  For the large 
   chainring, unless you want to go faster than your coasting speed downhill, 
   you likely won't need anything any larger than 46T.   Typically, the 
   standard combos comprise of 46-48T large, 34-38T mid, and 24-28 small.
   3. What cassette?  This should be decided in combination with #2 above. 
The smallest cog is typically 11-13T.  The largest is all over the place, 
   but with "standard" long cage rear derailleurs, imo a good range is between 
   28 and 36T.
   4. Index or friction shifting?  I would not rule out friction shifting 
   for the front, as indexing front shifters can be finicky.  The rear is 
   entirely your preference.  
   5. A not-so-radical alternative.  Many people who don't need to go fast 
   downhill will skip the large chainring of a triple and just use the inner 
   and middle.  For example, if you're happy with your 34 or 36T middle 
   chainring and the smallest cassette cog of 11T, then you'll save some 
   weight and benefit from less complexity by leaving out the large chainring. 


Good luck!
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than 
>> a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>>
>> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
>> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
>> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
>> medium and small cogs and back. 
>>
>> Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
>> gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 
>>
>> Eric 
>> Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm telling 
>>> myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible thing?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>>
 You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, which is 
 something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to their own 
 practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a drivetrain by 
 identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high you want your 
 high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly combination to 
 get 
 there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that you'll find that you 
 need to drop into the small ring for every hill, whereas if you have a 
 triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring most of the time and 
 save 
 a lot of front shifts, even though you have more rings up there. 

 For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - above 
 that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 tops. 
 On 
 the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want something 
 in 
 the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 24-25 inches is 
 good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings such that I 
 truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can run a big ring 
 on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 11-34 is a 
 great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some smaller steps 
 on 
 the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most situations 

 On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:

> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Patrick Moore]

For road riding, at least in my world, a 1X10 with granny ring works fine:
95" high and 1-tooth steps in the cruising range, bigger gaps between the
inner cogs, with a much smaller granny ring.

But I did find that I missed a triple when riding rolling offroad terrain,
neither firm and flat nor steep and technical, where I wanted a middle
range of gears between about 65" and 30" and even with 10 cogs in back -- I
haven't tried more -- a triple works best.

Patrick Moore, who now rides flat dirt on a single speed.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:24 AM Sarah Carlson 
wrote:

> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama
> bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than
>> a real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>>
>> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding
>> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
>> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your
>> medium and small cogs and back.
>>
>> Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant
>> gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway.
>>
>> Eric
>> Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgs-Eyu%2Bzd29NYkuDh-s4GMW7%3D2JQmxRyLhqQ9TABF2EaA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Sarah Carlson]

This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and Mama 
bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for everyone!

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:

> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than a 
> real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
>
> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your 
> medium and small cogs and back. 
>
> Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant 
> gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway. 
>
> Eric 
> Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio 
>
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm telling 
>> myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible thing?
>>
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>
>>> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, which is 
>>> something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to their own 
>>> practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a drivetrain by 
>>> identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high you want your 
>>> high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly combination to get 
>>> there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that you'll find that you 
>>> need to drop into the small ring for every hill, whereas if you have a 
>>> triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring most of the time and save 
>>> a lot of front shifts, even though you have more rings up there. 
>>>
>>> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - above 
>>> that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 tops. On 
>>> the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want something in 
>>> the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 24-25 inches is 
>>> good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings such that I 
>>> truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can run a big ring 
>>> on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 11-34 is a 
>>> great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some smaller steps on 
>>> the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most situations 
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:
>>>
 On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:

 I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
 range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' if 
 you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when I 
 hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the 
 rear 
 alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low 
 double, you would be spinning like crazy if you tried the same thing


 Excellent point, and one that launches me into bike nerd mode... 
 apologies in advance if this is too much.

 The "standard" chainring gap became 16 teeth when "compact double" 
 50x34 combos became all the rage. That's a 39% jump, the way I measure it 
 (Ln(50/34)), or about 2.5 times the 15.4% jump from 18 to 21 in back. Now, 
 if you keep that 16 tooth gap but go down to 40x24, that's a ginormous 51% 
 jump, which is 3.3x the 18-21 jump. I have a 42x26 on my Waterford ST-22, 
 and it's definitely jarring to drop to the small ring when you hit a hill, 
 requiring a bit of advance planning to shift a cog harder in the rear, 
 first. I spent plenty of time riding half-step gearing, so I'm facile with 
 double-shifting, but after a couple hundred kms I'm too tired for that. 
 For 
 my Breadwinner G-Road I went with 44x32, which is a gentle 32% jump. It 
 means there's more overlap in the gearing, or to put it another way, I'm 
 not maximizing the total range of the system, but I very much prefer to 
 make that trade-off. At 41%, the 14-tooth gap on the Silver 42x28's on my 
 Sams is pretty much the outer limit for me. The Wide-Low (38x24) is a 46% 
 jump which is pretty high.

 Ted Durant
 Milwaukee, WI USA


 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
 Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/yo4eRz3flb0/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
 rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1a3954ba-86af-4775-8090-f3e4bba4fa44n%40googlegroups.com
  
 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Ted Durant]

> On Nov 27, 2023, at 8:55 AM, Eric Daume  wrote:
> 
> IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than a 
> real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:
> 
> - a middle ring for the majority of your riding 
> - a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
> - a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your medium 
> and small cogs and back. 
> 

Perfectly described. 

Sarah, given that you have said you pretty much live in your 34t, this sounds 
like it fits your use case well. There’s a slight learning curve to getting 
comfortable shifting a triple, but with the right combo of chainrings and front 
derailer, it should work reliably. Grant has written a good description of how 
to get reliable shifts, but it presumes the mechanical things are set up 
correctly. Also, if you are going up a really steep hill, you might not have a 
half revolution worth of momentum. 

Imagine the circular pedal path as the face of a clock, and shift at 
4:30. That’s half of your success.

When your shifting foot is at 6:00, stop muscling the pedal entirely. 
Let it drift to 12:00. Call this ‘floating,’ 
and it’s the other half of success.

As you float that pedal to 12:00, you also have to float the other side 
pedal to 6:00. The point is to eliminate 
power for half of a pedal revolution to de-tension the chain and give 
the shift time to take. When you 
honest-to-goodness float the pedal after the shift for, it takes just 
half a stroke. If you apply power even though 
you're not supposed to, the shift goes to hell, you lose your momentum, 
you fail.


Ted Durant
Milwaukee, WI USA

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/D115BF4B-9160-4D66-B870-064DE89EF884%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Eric Daume]

IMO redundant gears are more of a conceptual or theoretical concern than a
real issue. If you’re setting up a triple, you really end up with:

- a middle ring for the majority of your riding
- a small ring for big hills, use it with the biggest cogs in back
- a big ring for downhills or otherwise going fast. Use it with your medium
and small cogs and back.

Yes, your small/small and big/big combos will give you those redundant
gears, but who cares? You don’t need to use them anyway.

Eric
Who lives the 1x life in flat central Ohio

On Monday, November 27, 2023, Sarah Carlson 
wrote:

> Thank you for bringing up the redundant gears... in my brain I'm telling
> myself maybe it's overkill... but is it really such a terrible thing?
>
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:27:48 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>
>> You bring up a good point Ted about so-called redundant gears, which is
>> something many cyclists try to eliminate as much as possible to their own
>> practical detriment. It's better to approach planning a drivetrain by
>> identifying how low you want your low gear to be, how high you want your
>> high gear to be, and then finding the most user-friendly combination to get
>> there. A big issue with wide-range doubles is that you'll find that you
>> need to drop into the small ring for every hill, whereas if you have a
>> triple, you can generally stay in the middle ring most of the time and save
>> a lot of front shifts, even though you have more rings up there.
>>
>> For me, I find I don't need anything above about 95 gear inches - above
>> that and I'm going to coast, maybe tuck in and get aero. Maybe 100 tops. On
>> the low end, if it's used off-road or to carry loads I'll want something in
>> the 18-20 gear inch range, but if it's a roadish bike, 24-25 inches is
>> good. So what I tend to do is run a double but size the rings such that I
>> truncate the big gears I'll almost never use, so that I can run a big ring
>> on the double that I can stay in on gentle climbs. 40/28 to 11-34 is a
>> great combo, for instance. Even 38/26 to 11-28 to get some smaller steps on
>> the back, and 38-11 is a big enough top gear for most situations
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Ted Durant  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>>
>>> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more
>>> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' if
>>> you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when I
>>> hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the rear
>>> alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low
>>> double, you would be spinning like crazy if you tried the same thing
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent point, and one that launches me into bike nerd mode...
>>> apologies in advance if this is too much.
>>>
>>> The "standard" chainring gap became 16 teeth when "compact double" 50x34
>>> combos became all the rage. That's a 39% jump, the way I measure it
>>> (Ln(50/34)), or about 2.5 times the 15.4% jump from 18 to 21 in back. Now,
>>> if you keep that 16 tooth gap but go down to 40x24, that's a ginormous 51%
>>> jump, which is 3.3x the 18-21 jump. I have a 42x26 on my Waterford ST-22,
>>> and it's definitely jarring to drop to the small ring when you hit a hill,
>>> requiring a bit of advance planning to shift a cog harder in the rear,
>>> first. I spent plenty of time riding half-step gearing, so I'm facile with
>>> double-shifting, but after a couple hundred kms I'm too tired for that. For
>>> my Breadwinner G-Road I went with 44x32, which is a gentle 32% jump. It
>>> means there's more overlap in the gearing, or to put it another way, I'm
>>> not maximizing the total range of the system, but I very much prefer to
>>> make that trade-off. At 41%, the 14-tooth gap on the Silver 42x28's on my
>>> Sams is pretty much the outer limit for me. The Wide-Low (38x24) is a 46%
>>> jump which is pretty high.
>>>
>>> Ted Durant
>>> Milwaukee, WI USA
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> topic/rbw-owners-bunch/yo4eRz3flb0/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1a3954ba-86af-4775-8090-
>>> f3e4bba4fa44n%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> 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 view this 

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Sarah Carlson]

I am having regrets about not getting a 24 on my Platypus chainring, and am 
looking into correcting that. I thought to keep up with group rides I 
needed a big ring up front to be "fast" but what it turns out is really 
important is a low gear. I especially learned that when I went on a flat 28 
mile ride and somehow the leader took us on a wrong turn and we ended up on 
Mt. Diablo... So I'm looking at the wide low double which I think will meet 
most of my needs, but I am going to ask about the triple!

I am considering the Albastache, how do you have yours set up? And what was 
the switch for you like from other bars? These are the ones I am most 
curious about so SPILL! I have been a Billie Bar/Albatross loyalist and am 
hoping to at least test ride the Albastache to make sure I'm not missing 
anything. 

I did consider the Roadini, also tempting because of the difference in 
price... but I find I just always feel a bit squished up on a shorter 
frame. Also I recall reading that you can't put an Albatross bar on there 
and drops are a nono because I have a wacky shoulder that I need to be kind 
to.  

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:41:23 AM UTC-8 ttoshi wrote:

> I take the triple weight penalty because I like my 48 chainring on the 
> flats and my 24 chainring for the really steep stuff or when I’m tired.
>
> I keep it slightly lighter by using a 28 cassette in the rear.
>
> I use an Albastache, which may not be as upright as your other bars. It’s 
> worth considering.
>
> My other thought is to use nice tires. I would use Grand Bois Lierre EL or 
> the Compass equivalent or Parimoto 38 mm.
>
> My final thought is why not a Roadini? That’s what I would do if it’s 
> mostly pavement. (Piaw rides his almost? everywhere.)
>
> Have fun,
> Toshi in Oaktown
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 6:27 AM Sarah Carlson  
> wrote:
>
>> I think I learned what N + 1 syndrome is I have two very lovely 
>> bikes, and Atlantis and a Platypus. Between the two I have been able to do 
>> most of the kind of riding I can dream of. Chase around my kid on the 
>> Atlantis which is built up as an all rounder (Because I had only road bikes 
>> and I have a kid who can't stay away from dirt and gravel). I have been 
>> taking my Platypus out on club rides which has been working out fine... 
>> until I started to have aspirations to try out some of these rides that 
>> involve a lot of hills... so of course I decided to buy A Homer that I 
>> would like to build up specifically for rides with lots of hills! (To 
>> clarify, I am totally happy to take my time getting up hills on my Platypus 
>> which I have set up with racks and bags, fenders... but I like to ride with 
>> other people which are usually people with traditional road bikes with all 
>> the carbon fiber things). 
>>
>> So I would love some guidance on setting up the gearing, and handlebar 
>> types, and random suggestions on how to do a lighter build. I know weight 
>> isn't the most important thing... but I can for sure tell a difference when 
>> I run up and down the stairs at the BART station with my Platypus when I 
>> have it laden with all the things vs when I first got it... and I love it 
>> now with all the things... so of course another bike, n + 1 is the answer. 
>>
>> I've been considering the Wide Low double (38 x 24).
>>
>> I use the Billie Bars, and Albatross bars on my other bikes... am I 
>> missing out on anything by not considering other options? (I have a 
>> shoulder that sometimes misbehaves so drop bars have not been my friend). 
>>
>> I am open to bikesplaining.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/49f93342-a6b4-4f7c-872c-e98242083272n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b0bf45ad-0bfa-4895-a728-7be52809c2bcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Toshi Takeuchi]

I take the triple weight penalty because I like my 48 chainring on the
flats and my 24 chainring for the really steep stuff or when I’m tired.

I keep it slightly lighter by using a 28 cassette in the rear.

I use an Albastache, which may not be as upright as your other bars. It’s
worth considering.

My other thought is to use nice tires. I would use Grand Bois Lierre EL or
the Compass equivalent or Parimoto 38 mm.

My final thought is why not a Roadini? That’s what I would do if it’s
mostly pavement. (Piaw rides his almost? everywhere.)

Have fun,
Toshi in Oaktown


On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 6:27 AM Sarah Carlson 
wrote:

> I think I learned what N + 1 syndrome is I have two very lovely bikes,
> and Atlantis and a Platypus. Between the two I have been able to do most of
> the kind of riding I can dream of. Chase around my kid on the Atlantis
> which is built up as an all rounder (Because I had only road bikes and I
> have a kid who can't stay away from dirt and gravel). I have been taking my
> Platypus out on club rides which has been working out fine... until I
> started to have aspirations to try out some of these rides that involve a
> lot of hills... so of course I decided to buy A Homer that I would like to
> build up specifically for rides with lots of hills! (To clarify, I am
> totally happy to take my time getting up hills on my Platypus which I have
> set up with racks and bags, fenders... but I like to ride with other people
> which are usually people with traditional road bikes with all the carbon
> fiber things).
>
> So I would love some guidance on setting up the gearing, and handlebar
> types, and random suggestions on how to do a lighter build. I know weight
> isn't the most important thing... but I can for sure tell a difference when
> I run up and down the stairs at the BART station with my Platypus when I
> have it laden with all the things vs when I first got it... and I love it
> now with all the things... so of course another bike, n + 1 is the answer.
>
> I've been considering the Wide Low double (38 x 24).
>
> I use the Billie Bars, and Albatross bars on my other bikes... am I
> missing out on anything by not considering other options? (I have a
> shoulder that sometimes misbehaves so drop bars have not been my friend).
>
> I am open to bikesplaining.
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/49f93342-a6b4-4f7c-872c-e98242083272n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAGB59xz0yKQLschsS00BM7m-Ygirr35Wt7NqbArOzVJ57B1Psg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[Sarah Carlson]

I think I learned what N + 1 syndrome is I have two very lovely bikes, 
and Atlantis and a Platypus. Between the two I have been able to do most of 
the kind of riding I can dream of. Chase around my kid on the Atlantis 
which is built up as an all rounder (Because I had only road bikes and I 
have a kid who can't stay away from dirt and gravel). I have been taking my 
Platypus out on club rides which has been working out fine... until I 
started to have aspirations to try out some of these rides that involve a 
lot of hills... so of course I decided to buy A Homer that I would like to 
build up specifically for rides with lots of hills! (To clarify, I am 
totally happy to take my time getting up hills on my Platypus which I have 
set up with racks and bags, fenders... but I like to ride with other people 
which are usually people with traditional road bikes with all the carbon 
fiber things). 

So I would love some guidance on setting up the gearing, and handlebar 
types, and random suggestions on how to do a lighter build. I know weight 
isn't the most important thing... but I can for sure tell a difference when 
I run up and down the stairs at the BART station with my Platypus when I 
have it laden with all the things vs when I first got it... and I love it 
now with all the things... so of course another bike, n + 1 is the answer. 

I've been considering the Wide Low double (38 x 24).

I use the Billie Bars, and Albatross bars on my other bikes... am I missing 
out on anything by not considering other options? (I have a shoulder that 
sometimes misbehaves so drop bars have not been my friend). 

I am open to bikesplaining.


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/49f93342-a6b4-4f7c-872c-e98242083272n%40googlegroups.com.