Re: [CR] Gearing ratios

(Example: Framebuilders:Alex Singer)

From: Stephen James <sj52@hotmail.com>
To: <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>, <ehbusch@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:53:57 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7543b4a40909060650l28c0faa2i2d2300e4cee56b59@mail.gmail.com>
References: <633837670909051728x279b7c26g1405f872a8d12900@mail.gmail.com> <000301ca2eed$6bf42650$6400a8c0@OFFICE1>
Cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Gearing ratios


Hi Brad,

I ride a one-speed, so I'm biased :) But, I agree that you should work on raising your cadence (rpms) before worrying about getting a bigger gear --in this case. It's true that you can keep your rpms down --yet go faster-- if you put on a bigger chainring or use a freewheel (OT) with fewer teeth. However, ime, huge gears were only needed for track sprints and descending very steep hills. I needed a huge gear because I ran out of rpms. On a flat road, though, it's relatively easy to keep up with traffic using a lower gear. In fact, on the street, ime, lower was better --but my rides were never completely flat.

So, I guess I'd say that you need a bigger gear if you've really run out of rpms. Not trying to lecture, just reminiscing. I remember John Howard quoted as saying something like '52t chainrings are for wimps', but I seem to recall an emphasis on lower gearing and "suppleness" earlier on. I was wondering if there is/was an "OT" style of riding the gears on these OT bikes. Maybe the ideas of the 80s differed from those of te 70s, etc.

regards, Steve James Bronx, NYC, USoA

ps. apologies to eh for the duplicate.