# gears and cranks basics.



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Standard doubles (if there is such a things as a standard double).

Compact.

Triple.

Can someone post pro's and cons.

In the next post I will give my experience from a long trip.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

A while back I went on a long bike trip with a cheap 12 speed bike. It was about 100 miles there, maybe 50 miles running around while their and about 100 miles back.

There was a net elevation change of 322 feet so that is not much of a factor but there are other issues.

On the first part of a the trip there are some fairly large rolling hills but they proved to not be a big deal then same miles and miles of going downhill but it was not too steep. On the way back these miles of downhill was annoying but not that bad. I dropped down the second lowest gear and crept up these miles of gentle up hill at faster than walking speed.

Next was miles of fairly flat ground with some long but gentle hills. At this point we have covered almost 25 miles.

The next 25 miles is a series of hills that are long but not too steep. My gears where fine for this.

The next 25 miles the fun really starts. It is rolling steep hills of various size. On the downhills I would be in the tallest gear and tried peddling as fast as I could to get more speed but it was pointless. The pedals where spinning but not contributing to forward motion. I would start to pedal at the bottom of the hill to start getting up the next hill. Two of the hills I pushed the bike up a little way. 

As I think about the last section I don't know if I needed a taller gear or not, the downhills there pedaling did not good I was probably traveling fast enough but not sure? I don't know how much a taller gear would have made the trip easier or not. 

The last 12 miles has some brutal hills but I sucked it up and did them without pushing the bike and I did make it but I am not sure having a lower gear would have made it easier. Perhaps I should have pushed the bike up some of these brutal hills or not. I would have been going slow in either case.

Of course doing down these hills the pedals did me not good. In addition to the brutal hills where quite a few long less steep hills that I manged just fine and some stretches of somewhat flat areas.

I am trying to figure out what the best gear layout would be doing this on two different bikes. A kind of heavy steel bike with a racing geometry. I am guessing it will have a wider range of gears than the cheap 12 speed. I am trying to decide if a triple would be helpful or if the standard double with a good selection of gears on the back will be so much better than the cheap 12 speed that it will be sufficient.

I think my biggest handicap I had was that I was using a junk bike. I would like to set up this bike to do this trip as fast as reasonable possible. I know if I try and go too fast I will wear out, going too slow is well, too slow.

The other bike I would try this with less often would be a Big Dummy a small load on the trip there and a heavier one on the return trip. With a Big Dummy I don't think I want to worry about getting there and back quickly. I wonder if the gear ratios on a Complete Big Dummy is suitable for this trip if I take it slow or if I need to change it?

Another bike I might try this with would be an Old Trek 520 if I choose to keep the bike. If I am not trying to do the trip fast I assume the Trek 520's stock gears are sufficient for a trip like this?


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

A standard double crank/chainring combo is usually 53 tooth large ring & 39 tooth small ring, or something close to that. 
_This is still the standard for most road bikes. Depending on the rear cogs it may make climbing hills more difficult, but if you use the big ring you can get a lot of speed. Shifting from one chain ring to the other is smooth & easy._

A compact double uses 2 chainrings on the front, but they are usually 50 tooth large ring & 34 tooth small ring, or something close to that.
_This combo will make it easier to climb but comes at the expense of top speed. Since most riders can't utilize their top gears for any length of time this is almost a non issue. Changing gears from one chain ring to the other is easy & smooth._

A triple has three rings and the rings can vary in # of teeth. A common combo might be 52 or 53 for the big ring, 40 or 42 for the middle ring, and 34 or 32 for the small ring.
_This set up will give you the largest selection of gears and probably the largest ratio spread between high & low gears. It's great, almost unbeatable for climbing steep hills, especially when carrying a load.
The downsides are more expense and funky shifting. Out of 30 potential gears you might be able to use only 25 or so. The reason(s) for this are that some gear combos will be identical or very, very close. Another reason is cross chaining. That's when you are on the big ring on the front and the largest ring in the rear. The angle of the chain will be so extreme that you probably won't be able to use that gear at all. The same applies to the small/small combo. Shifting the rear derailleur will be very similar with the other 2 options, e.g. easy & fast. Shifting the front derailleur will be somewhat difficult, maybe balky, & require more attention._

Hope this helps you out some.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Mr. Versatile said:


> A standard double crank/chainring combo is usually 53 tooth large ring & 39 tooth small ring, or something close to that.
> _This is still the standard for most road bikes. Depending on the rear cogs it may make climbing hills more difficult, but if you use the big ring you can get a lot of speed. Shifting from one chain ring to the other is smooth & easy._
> 
> A compact double uses 2 chainrings on the front, but they are usually 50 tooth large ring & 34 tooth small ring, or something close to that.
> ...


Thanks,

You helped a lot but I do have one more question at the end of this.

I don't like things to be finicky so I will avoid the triple except on a big dummy, that I will think about.

I will stick with the double but it will be a hard choice for me. I plan on taking a trip every month that has miles and miles and miles of a gentle downhill slope where I can use my tallest gear the whole way with ease. It will be a hard choice between the standard and the compact for me.

No on to my question. Can the spacing between the gears on a double be spaced wider than normal? Hmmm, maybe it is too big of a jump?

Could that be made up on the rear gears where you have the effect of a high high and a low low with wider spacing in between?

I am sure there is a reason this is not done. I just don't know what it is unless big jumps are difficult.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

I did some digging. I see it is a jump problem.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

Mr. Versatile said:


> The downsides are more expense and funky shifting. Shifting the front derailleur will be somewhat difficult, maybe balky, & require more attention.


Mr V and I are usually in agreement on most things, but when it comes to shifting triples, we have differing views.

Yes, shifting the front of a triple can be funky, balky, sloppy or finicky--choose your word. When that's the case, the fault almost always lies in either the mechanic who set it up, or the rider.

Both the small and middle rings have trim positions, needed for the outermost two cogs in the middle, and the outermost three cogs in the small. 

Upshifting from a smaller ring to a bigger one from the "base" position requires a longer lever sweep to get past the trim position to the bigger ring. If you're already in the trim position, it's instant like on a double. As with the doubles, soft-pedaling is preferred when upshifting.

Since the length of the lever throw and the smoothness of the shift depend on the FD's position before the shift, the mechanic needs to have the positions in the right places and the rider need to remember where their FD is currently positioned.

Downshifting to a smaller ring is instant from big to middle, but going from middle to small, again it depends on if you're in the middle's trim or the "base" position. If in the trim position, it's two clicks of the paddle. If in the "base" position, it's only one. 

This is why many riders and mechanics alike say indexed shifting the front of a triple is finicky or sloppy. No, it's not finicky, nor is it sloppy. It requires some thought and memory from the rider, and the mechanic must set up the trim positions properly.

I've found it's nearly impossible to set up the trim positions in the work stand, because my wrist angles on the lever are different than when riding. I get it as close as I can, then test ride. I *always* have to re-adjust during the test ride. 

Note too that Shimano's instruction sheets include troubleshooting help whereas Park Tool's do not. On each FD and RD instruction sheet there's a box at the end with several "If it does this, do that" scenarios. Park Tool's site and books neglect this matter.

If the rider forgets or doesn't know or care which position their FD is in when shifting, or if the mechanic doesn't fine tune the trim positions on a test ride, the front shifting will always be finicky and sloppy. This is why I've learned how to do my own work.

There are several ways an unscrupulous or incompetent mechanic can make a triple behave poorly. They almost always involve trim positions. When I bought my Portland, the guy who set it up had every position one click off. It was maddening to ride.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

jsidney said:


> Thanks,
> 
> You helped a lot but I do have one more question at the end of this.
> 
> ...



What exactly are you trying to accomplish?


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

jsidney said:


> I plan on taking a trip every month that has miles and miles and miles of a gentle downhill slope where I can use my tallest gear the whole way with ease. It will be a hard choice between the standard and the compact for me.
> 
> No on to my question. Can the spacing between the gears on a double be spaced wider than normal? Hmmm, maybe it is too big of a jump?
> 
> Could that be made up on the rear gears where you have the effect of a high high and a low low with wider spacing in between?


The spacing between the front on doubles can differ. You'll note that the standard 53/39 is 14 teeth difference and the compact 50/34 is 16. Back in the day, 52/42 was "standard". Cyclocross doubles are 46/36. There are variations of all of these.

At the back, yes, you can choose between close-ratio and wide cassettes. Around town, I ride a standard with a close-ratio 12-23 or 11-21 cassette. For rolling hills on rides of up to 50 miles, I switch to a 12-27 cassette. Newer running gear allows 11-28 and 11-30 cassettes.

I have a ride coming up that's 11,000 feet of climbing. I'm not that good that I can push a standard with any cassette in a century with 11,000 feet of climbing. I could swap a triple from one of my other bikes, but I've never used a compact, so I bought one of those and installed it last weekend.

What I'm finding is that I hate it around town. At my usual pace I'm cross-chained no matter which ring I use. It's maddening. Plus, when I'm feeling my oats, I have to shift the front in the middle of every block, or cross-chain away from stoplights in the 50.

On a 70-mile hilly ride yesterday, I came to terms with it. On a couple of 12% grades I was happy to have the 34/27. Breaking over the top of a roller, rather than shifting the back three or four times in rapid succession, I shifted the front once.

So I think there's a place for compacts. For me it's just not in the city. The 39s of my standards or my triples are just perfect for my power output.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

spade2you said:


> What exactly are you trying to accomplish?


What I am trying to accomplish is several things.

I want a bike that would be part of probably a 2 bike or just maybe a three bike setup. I would prefer it to be two bikes in the end but that might not be practical.

I will not be using anything motorized for the next couple of years.

The first bike would be a Big Dummy to do what a Big Dummy does.

The second bike will have a variety of roles. It will be called upon to go to a near by city once a month 100 miles each way up to 50 miles riding around in the city so it will do 250 mile days. There are lots of hills, and several poor roads with no shoulder, when will have to negotiate a city.

Another role is maybe once a week 25 miles of paved road, followed by 7 miles of dirt road followed by 5 miles of riding in hard packed tire ruts.

Another role would be trips that require a bunch of 10 -20 5 minute stops sometimes in very hilly country.

I am in a very low population density area with no bike shops.

My thinking is stay away from triples for maintenance reasons. I have up to 7 mile stretches of slight downhill where I thought a tall gear would be useful and I will be doing a bit of climbing as well wanting the lower gears.

I want this bike to do everything except for jobs calling for heavy hauling, or doing mt mike type duty.


----------



## sherlock (Aug 6, 2011)

A single cyclocross bike with two sets of wheels would suit, no? Gravel for dirt tracks and road slicks for your long inter-city haul?

Get a 53/34 or something with a 11-28 rear cassette if you're climbing and descending often. That's a big range of gears and unless you're climbing walls then you won't have issues on the uphill run either.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

sherlock said:


> A single cyclocross bike with two sets of wheels would suit, no? Gravel for dirt tracks and road slicks for your long inter-city haul?
> 
> The gravel and dirt is not so much for the intercity haul but local getting around. 25 miles here means close by.
> 
> Get a 53/34 or something with a 11-28 rear cassette if you're climbing and descending often. That's a big range of gears and unless you're climbing walls then you won't have issues on the uphill run either.





















Sometimes you have to get to a road. These pictures are taken a little more than 7 miles from anything paved. This is how much of the population lives out here. This actually isn't that bad as it is very hard packed form a century of being driven on. It used to be horse drawn wagons and buggies and today it is pickups and cars.

This is the way to get to one of my friends house. I should someday get a movie camera and show my daily bike life. Most people in the USA would find this part of the country primitive.

I know sport riders do hard riding and I am not trying to make too much of a comparison but my riding is a bit harder than most realize but not exactly the same. It is hard to not get bumps and bruises on things when not riding due to all the other gear and tools around.

I lost a cell phone once when a horse stepped on it and there have been days where I have literally seen more bison than cars or people.

Sometimes out there you can save time when you are on a paved road trying to get to another paved road by going miles on dirt to save x 5 that distance staying on asphalt.

LBS is a little hard to find around here but I can find the farm and feed store 

To be honest I don't know very many people that even own a bicycle around here and they are not that common of a site here except for once a year when a big heard of them go by on the best road in the county. There are no interstates at all going through this county.


----------



## sherlock (Aug 6, 2011)

jsidney said:


> Sometimes you have to get to a road. These pictures are taken a little more than 7 miles from anything paved. This is how much of the population lives out here. This actually isn't that bad as it is very hard packed form a century of being driven on. It used to be horse drawn wagons and buggies and today it is pickups and cars.


I would go for a good cyclocross with 32mm gravel/dirt tyres on strong wheels (32-spoke, maybe 28 up front if you're not overly heavy). Would be no problem on those tracks.

Steel frame, alu frame, carbon frame, take your pick. Maybe disc brakes if you have a preference for them.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

jsidney said:


> My thinking is stay away from triples for maintenance reasons.


Wrong thinking. As said above, there is no "maintenance issue" with triples. And last time I looked, mountain- and serious touring bikes which get used on all sorts of terrain and in all sorts of weather do just fine with triples.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

sherlock said:


> I would go for a good cyclocross with 32mm gravel/dirt tyres on strong wheels (32-spoke, maybe 28 up front if you're not overly heavy). Would be no problem on those tracks.
> 
> Steel frame, alu frame, carbon frame, take your pick. Maybe disc brakes if you have a preference for them.


My body weight is an issue, I am top heavy and not exactly light. I am 5,8.5 235 pounds 34 inch waist.

I am afraid of carbon. I understand it does not like abrasion or small impacts.

I have never had a bike for a month without scratched up paint that actually scratches in the metal itself. There occur without the bike ever falling down and some when not even riding. There will be bumps even in storage, we are clumsy that way.

This has not happened to me but I saw it happen to a pickup truck. It caught a probably 50 year old buried string of barbed wire from a long gone fence, it took out the sidewall of the tire and put a small dent in the door.

Carbon might be fine but it scares me that the surface will get abraded leading to a failure. Tools sheds and barns outnumber garages. A surprising number of houses here has no garage. My bike live in a very old tool shed. 

Disk brakes, I have never seen them on a bike in real life. The problem here is I don't see many bikes and 0 good bikes. I don't get to try things so I have to go off of what I read.

In this thread however I am wanting to learn what the best gearing for the bike will be.


----------



## sherlock (Aug 6, 2011)

jsidney said:


> My body weight is an issue, I am top heavy and not exactly light. I am 5,8.5 235 pounds 34 inch waist.
> 
> I am afraid of carbon. I understand it does not like abrasion or small impacts.


I wouldn't be. 235lbs isn't great, but it's far within the capability of a good carbon frame. If you're that worried though, just stick with alu or steel. 

Gearing doesn't seem to be a huge issue. Get a good cassette on the back (11-28T) and either a wide-range triple or a compact with a low small ring (34T) up front and you'll be fine.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

sherlock said:


> I wouldn't be. 235lbs isn't great, but it's far within the capability of a good carbon frame. If you're that worried though, just stick with alu or steel.
> 
> Gearing doesn't seem to be a huge issue. Get a good cassette on the back (11-28T) and either a wide-range triple or a compact (50/34) up front and you'll be fine.


I am going to go steel on the frame. 

I guess the big issue is if the hills I face are worth getting a compact for. Maybe a triple isn't that bad of an idea. I need to think about the pros and cons people have posted.

I am not familiar with cross chaining but I think it is something I might have been doing for a long time. I guess this is a bad practice.


----------



## Sylint (Jul 27, 2009)

I'd look at a cross bike with Apex. Comes with an 11-32 cassette standard, but if I'm not mistaken, can handle cassettes without such a broad difference as well. So you'd just need to change out the wheels/cassette depending on your ride.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Sylint said:


> I'd look at a cross bike with Apex. Comes with an 11-32 cassette standard, but if I'm not mistaken, can handle cassettes without such a broad difference as well. So you'd just need to change out the wheels/cassette depending on your ride.


Having never changed out a cassette how hard and how long does it take to change out a cassette. Being able to change out a cassette might be a good idea if it is not that much trouble to do. I like this idea if it is practical.


----------



## Sylint (Jul 27, 2009)

jsidney said:


> Having never changed out a cassette how hard and how long does it take to change out a cassette. Being able to change out a cassette might be a good idea if it is not that much trouble to do. I like this idea if it is practical.



This should help.


Park Tool Co. » Park Tool Co. has a walkthru for pretty much everything.


Park Tool Co. » ParkTool Blog » Cassette and Freewheel Removal


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

jsidney said:


> The other bike I would try this with less often would be a Big Dummy a small load on the trip there and a heavier one on the return trip. With a Big Dummy I don't think I want to worry about getting there and back quickly. I wonder if the gear ratios on a Complete Big Dummy is suitable for this trip if I take it slow or if I need to change it?
> 
> Another bike I might try this with would be an Old Trek 520 if I choose to keep the bike. If I am not trying to do the trip fast I assume the Trek 520's stock gears are sufficient for a trip like this?


A Surly Big Dummy? Really? Seriously, your Trek 520 if it is in good shape is all that you need. Hopefully it's a late enough model to have cantilevers, 1987 or later and made with Reynolds 531 (good strong light steel). With possibly a few upgrades (or not) this would be the bike for you!


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

onespeedbiker said:


> A Surly Big Dummy? Really? Seriously, your Trek 520 if it is in good shape is all that you need. Hopefully it's a late enough model to have cantilevers, 1987 or later and made with Reynolds 531 (good strong light steel). With possibly a few upgrades (or not) this would be the bike for you!


I carry quite a bit on a bike from time to time. Multiple trips have been taken many times. I figure a Big dummy can haul a lot more.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

jsidney said:


> I carry quite a bit on a bike from time to time. Multiple trips have been taken many times. I figure a Big dummy can haul a lot more.


Forget the Big Dummy and get a trailer..:thumbsup:

Oh, BTW. At 90 rpm, a compact crank (50T) losses 2mph over a standard 53T crank. You will only notice this at speeds over 30 mph


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Ummm,

How hard is a trailer to go to the city with. 100 miles for me.

Maybe I am thinking wrong but I even plan on hauling bikes on a Big Dummy.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

jsidney said:


> How hard is a trailer to go to the city with. 100 miles for me.


Depends on how much climbing you have to do.Trailer or Big Dummy: you're talking about a loaded bicycle. And as everyone who's ever done a loaded tour can tell you, riding a loaded bike where there are hills is a whole different ballgame. So different, in fact, that you might want to ask some questions in the touring section of this forum and check out touring reports here: crazyguyonabike.com: Bicycle Touring: A place for bicycle tourists and their journals Sorry, I didn't make up the web site name...


----------



## nismo73 (Jul 29, 2009)

jsidney said:


> Standard doubles (if there is such a things as a standard double).
> 
> Compact.
> 
> ...


Add mid-compact


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

jsidney said:


> Ummm,
> 
> How hard is a trailer to go to the city with. 100 miles for me.
> 
> Maybe I am thinking wrong but I even plan on hauling bikes on a Big Dummy.


Actually, there is nothing wrong with the Big Dummy; it would probably work very well for you. I just like the versatility of removing the trailer if you don't need it. OTOH, if your primary concern is moving loads, the Big Dummy is your bike. Keep in mind the Big Dummy is a "long bike," similar to a tandem. Due to the long chain stays, especially with your weight, there will be noticeable flex. I have a Burly Tandem and weigh about 175lb and flex actually adds to the comfort. Two other considerations is the need for a very stable double kickstand to support the loaded BD when your not on it and get really good brakes. Either high end V brakes or even better discs. You may even want to have the dropouts spread so you can use a tandem rear wheel. I did this with a Surly Long Haul Trucker when I built one up for a 300lb rider and bike is still going strong after 5 years. This would also allow for a tandem drum brake if you find the bike is difficult to control on the downhills when it's fully loaded.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

I would go with a compact or a triple and 11-32 rear and a trailer. I think this would give you most versatility. I get the Big Dummy but it them limits your use as well. It is too specialized/niche bike. I prefer options to un-hitch and ride around unencumbered


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Mr. Versatile said:


> A standard double crank/chainring .... Shifting from one chain ring to the other is smooth & easy.[/I]
> 
> A compact double .... Changing gears from one chain ring to the other is easy & smooth.[/I]
> 
> A triple...funky shifting.


This is the "conventional wisdom", but my experience is definitely different.

Conventional double - I agree - smooth ring to ring shifting because of relatively small jumps

Compact double - I disagre. I've found it much more difficult to get smooth front shifting compared to both the conventional double and triple because of the large jumps between the rings. Plus, you just have to do a lot more front/rear shifting because of those big jumps.

Triple - I've found the shifting to be equally as smooth as the conventional double because the jumps between the rings are comparable (i.e. smaller than the compact double). In addition, you simply shift the front much less with the triple compared to the compact double.

To me, for someone who needs good low gears, the triple's advantages far outweigh it's only disadvantage which is (literally) a few ounces more weight.

Oh, another disadvantge is that it is hard to find a good lightweight grade of road triple any more. Shops barely offer Ultegra or Dura Ace triples any more and Sram doesn't make them. That's the reason I am currently on a compact on my lightweight bike (I wanted to try Sram). It works fine, and I like the double tap. But still love the Ultegra triple I put on my cross/commuter. Much more versitile (both lower and higher gears), and smoother shifting.


----------

