[CR] Re: Half-step plus granny (was: FD that accommodates triple/half-step??)

(Example: Framebuilding)

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:07:48 -0600
From: "John Thompson" <JohnThompson@new.rr.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
References: <ABD079F38D58E54FBCC327A1D1BBD86302CB59CE@kaci-mail-10.na.bvcorp.net> <p06240836c1f144c97ff5@[10.0.1.14]> <45CBEFC0.10600@optonline.net>
In-Reply-To: <45CBEFC0.10600@optonline.net>
Subject: [CR] Re: Half-step plus granny (was: FD that accommodates triple/half-step??)

Joseph Bender-Zanoni wrote:
> I don't understand the attacks on the half step plus granny. Yes, modern
> equipment has rendered it obsolete. But for classic bikes, what is the
> proposal?
>
> Yes, you need to shift a lot. And the gear charts on the stem are nerdy.
> But you can dial in a really great set of ratios using classic era
> components and building custom freewheels. With no overlapping gears.
> Plus you can set up a super low granny at no detriment to all the
> closely spaced ratios in your power range. In my touring experience,
> you can't have enough ratios spaced closely (say every 3 gear inches)
> and evenly around 65-70 gear inches and it is a good idea to have a gear
> as low as 20 gear inches. What people forget to consider is that
> tendonitus and other physical problems can flair up on a long tour and
> you can either stop and rest, abandon or take it extremely easy.

I'm with you Joe. All my triples are half-step plus granny setups. I've never found a need for a gear chart. If it's on the big ring and I need to upshift, it's always a double shift (drop to the middle in front; drop to the next higher cog in back). If it's on the big ring and I need to downshift, it's a simple drop to the middle ring, &etc.

--

-John Thompson (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA