Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
So. Calif.
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Are there others, like me, who get mildly annoyed with lack of an 18 tooth cog?

I have a 10sp shimano 12-25 cassette : 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25 ,
and a triple chainring: 50-39-30.

Especially when upshifting, I find the jump from 19 to 17 to create a noticeable decrease in cadence and associated leg force increase.

I'm ruminating whether to change to different cassette gearing, say the shimano 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23.

However , I might miss the 25T cog, as much of my riding is in hilly region (Palos Verdes Peninsula, So Calif).

At my present level of fitness, the 30 front / 25 rear typically gets used at least once every ride.

However, I would like :rolleyes: to believe that in another 4-5 weeks, I'll be strong enough that a 23T cog is sufficient.

Comments??

(BTW: I'm age 56, weight 172-174 lbs, road biking about 3 months.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,161 Posts
info...

Whether you need an 18T depends on your terrain and tolerance for change in cadence. In the smaller cogs, one tooth is about 8%, but as the cogs get larger, the percentage of change decreases to only 5%. If you don't have the 18, you get a large 10% jump.

I rode for years on moderately rolling terrain with a 12-21 9-speed drivetrain that included an 18T cog, then switched to a 12-25 10-speed, which does not have the 18 and rarely missed it.

Since you have a triple crank, and you are new to cycling, you should get stronger and find a 23T low cog adequate quite soon.

Another option, which I chose for the Colorado mountains, was to change the little ring from a 30T to a 28T. That will give you the same low gear, using a 12-23. The only downside to the 12-23 is it may cause you to use the little ring more often. You should not use the 39T chainring and the largest cog for extended periods due to the extreme chainline. If your lowest gear is only a 39/21 before you need to shift to the little ring, you may find that to be annoying.
 

·
So. Calif.
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
function said:
I love the 13-25 and use it for the majority of my riding in a hilly area. 53-13 is plenty fast enough for me too for non racing conditions.
I considered the 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 cassette.

But since I have only a 50T chain ring on the triple, I might max out a little too easily with a 13T cog ... with a tailwind , and flat or slightly descending road, I do occasionally use 50-12 combination.
 

·
Matnlely Dregaend
Joined
·
5,051 Posts
Old school 53x39, 12-25 here. I want 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,22,25. Somehow when I slow down, I REALLY slow down! Honestly, I think I may not even need the 22, maybe it should be 19,20, 25!

I always find myself in between the 17 and the 19 not being comfortable, I think my power output has just dropped that little bit since turning 35... quite a long time ago.
 

·
So. Calif.
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
function said:
I love the 13-25 and use it for the majority of my riding in a hilly area. 53-13 is plenty fast enough for me too for non racing conditions.
shoerhino said:
+1 - I like having the 18 tooth gear and find 53 - 13 to be enough. The 18 gets much more use than a 12.
The 53-13 combo = 108 gear-inches, which is nearly identical to my present 50-12 combo : 110 gear-inches.

If I were to convert to 50-13 = 102 gear-inches, it's about a 7% "slowing" of my highest gear.

I might be talking myself into the 12-23 cassette, on the assumption I can increase my strength at least 8% ... not too unreasonable, given that I've only accumulated a few 100 miles so far.
 

·
So. Calif.
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
DrSmile said:
Old school 53x39, 12-25 here. I want 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,22,25. Somehow when I slow down, I REALLY slow down! Honestly, I think I may not even need the 22, maybe it should be 19,20, 25!
[snipped]
Yes ... when I start hurtin' going up a hill, the larger increments on the larger cogs feel pretty good !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
I am a firm believer........

tom_h said:
Are there others, like me, who get mildly annoyed with lack of an 18 tooth cog?

I have a 10sp shimano 12-25 cassette : 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25 ,
and a triple chainring: 50-39-30.

Especially when upshifting, I find the jump from 19 to 17 to create a noticeable decrease in cadence and associated leg force increase.

I'm ruminating whether to change to different cassette gearing, say the shimano 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23.

However , I might miss the 25T cog, as much of my riding is in hilly region (Palos Verdes Peninsula, So Calif).

At my present level of fitness, the 30 front / 25 rear typically gets used at least once every ride.

However, I would like :rolleyes: to believe that in another 4-5 weeks, I'll be strong enough that a 23T cog is sufficient.

Comments??

(BTW: I'm age 56, weight 172-174 lbs, road biking about 3 months.)
I am a firm believer Tom that dependent upon what gearing you have is the strength you maintain and can ride at. I don't think you'll miss the 25 in a very short period of time. I equate this to weight lifting, if you only push the lighter weights do you ever think you'll be comfortable lifting the heavy ones? I think that when folks go out and buy very expensive light weight bikes, half of what they feel is the strength to weight ratio difference and once their body adjusts to the new lower weight( lifting lighter weights), things start to feel the same again unless they push things a bit.

I recently went from a compact 52/36 to a 53/39 and what a bear the 39/25 felt. Now I ride very comfortably up hill in the 39/23 or even the 39/21 at times.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,573 Posts
Meh, I can live with it, or without it. On my solo training wheel, I have a 13-25 (10 speed) I like the 25 because it allows me to stay in the big ring 99% of the time. I guess that I got used to not having an 18 from my 7, 8 & 9 speed days. I have no problem with a 17-19, 21-23, or 23-25 jump.
 

·
Registered
Escorted from the White House
Joined
·
38,735 Posts
tom_h said:
Especially when upshifting, I find the jump from 19 to 17 to create a noticeable decrease in cadence and associated leg force increase.
Really? A two-tooth jump is bothersome? Wow. :skep:

You're lucky you didn't do your first double-century on the bike I did... 6-spd freewheel, 14-17-20-24-28-32. Now those are some bothersome jumps, 'least for a road bike.

Said it before, I'll say it a'gin... everybody won't be happy 'til we're all riding 11-28 straight blocks... or CVT. Yeesh.

...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
429 Posts
I love my 18T, for example, I am in 50x18 when going 32-35 kph, which is typical moderate group pace and spend signifiicant time in 34x18 on my easy days (my easy days are *very* easy!). The point is that I spend a lot of time in my 18T because it is at the right rpm range that I like for speeds that I spend the most time in, e.g., I like to be at about 95-100 rpm's in a group ride.

I don't have an 18 in my 12-27 cassette which I use in the mountains so I have to swap cassettes every time I get back from trips to hilly terrain (unfortunately not as often as i would like) and put my 12-23 back on. That was made a whole lot simpler when I put in a quick release master link on my chains.

Regarding the "old" days of 6 speed freewheels, well I lived in those days and I am so glad to still be riding now with 10 speed cassettes and everything else I was dreaming of in those days. By the way, I made myself a 16-21 straight block in 1984 which suited my riding style better.

And then there were the real "old" days, e.g., Gino Bartali winning the 1938 Tour de France with a 46x19 on the Tourmalet (no derailleur and that was a dirt road in those days).

When I lived in LA, my easiest gear was a 39x24 and I didn't have too many problems, especially not Palos Verdes. I would think that 30x23 should be sufficient for most climbs in the LA area, except maybe in Pasadena where I lived, e.g., Lake Street which keeps getting steeper to about 10% and when you finish there, you can go to Cheney Trail which starts with a 20% section and then there is about 3 miles of steady 12+% climbing (which was rather serious weightlifting in 39x24). You don't run into too many people there, nice place to ride :).

-ilan
 

·
Registered
Escorted from the White House
Joined
·
38,735 Posts
ilan said:
Regarding the "old" days of 6 speed freewheels, well I lived in those days and I am so glad to still be riding now with 10 speed cassettes and everything else I was dreaming of in those days.
There's a happy middle ground between now and then, tho'. :cool:

I wasn't implying that my old 1980s 14-32 6-spd freewheel and 52-42 chainring setup was great (it wasn't) only that one could have it a lot rougher than to have to endure a 2-tooth jump (lol).

Not long after that bike, I got a Bridgestone 550, tricked it out with a 53-39 crank (before 39T was popular), and a 13-15-17-19-21-23-26 7-spd freewheel. That set-up did pretty much everything I wanted to do, and without having to shift across a ton of cogs or having to put up with them there wee little 10-spd chains that used to break a whole lot when they were first introduced. :lol:

I love tech, but as with drinking, there seems to be a point where it's judicious to say, "when".

...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
429 Posts
SystemShock said:
There's a happy middle ground between now and then, tho'. :cool:

I wasn't implying that my old 1980s 14-32 6-spd freewheel and 52-42 chainring setup was great (it wasn't) only that one could have it a lot rougher than to have to endure a 2-tooth jump (lol).

Not long after that bike, I got a Bridgestone 550, tricked it out with a 53-39 crank (before 39T was popular), and a 13-15-17-19-21-23-26 7-spd freewheel. That set-up did pretty much everything I wanted to do, and without having to shift across a ton of cogs or having to put up with them there wee little 10-spd chains that used to break a whole lot when they were first introduced. :lol:

I love tech, but as with drinking, there seems to be a point where it's judicious to say, "when".

...
Well, pretty much every technology advance has made my cycling easier and more enjoyable. In rough chronological order, at least for me, each of these steps revolutionized my cycling experience:

Wool -> lycra -> current material (couldn't tell you what they're made of)

Hairnet -> real helmet

Clipless pedals (the biggest improvement, saved my knees and cycling career)

Friction -> index shifting -> dual control

Tubulars -> clinchers (for training)

42 -> 39 -> 34 chainrings.

5 to 6 to 7 to 9 to 10 speed rear cogs.

Cotton -> technical wicking undershirts

Nothing -> Speedometer, heart rate monitor, power meter.

10kg -> 9kg -> 7kg bikes.

No sex life -> cutout saddles

---------------------------------------------

And I don't have too many complaints about the new technology. My only gripes are wider cranks (my current "narrow" cranks have about 10mm more tread than my ancient Record cranks) and adjustment of threadless stems.

-ilan
 

·
Registered
Escorted from the White House
Joined
·
38,735 Posts
ilan said:
Well, pretty much every technology advance has made my cycling easier and more enjoyable.
Someone could easily come up with a very long list showing the opposite. In fact, collectively, they have... there's a very popular thread here on RBR listing all the crappy modern fads that've made cycling worse, not better:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=134885


Again, I like technology, but only when it really does make things better... I don't like stuff when it's only virtue is being 'new'. :frown2:

Some tech is great, but other tech (the kind born in the mind of the marketing guy, not an engineer or avid bike enthusiast) can really, deeply, suck. My intro to that was those crappy ultralight/ultranarrow clinchers that the industry pushed on us so hard back in the early '90s... yeah, 700x18C just doesn't work, unless you're as light as a hummingbird.

On the plus side, I sure did get a ton of practice in replacing pinch-flatted tubes. I think I can do it in my sleep now. :lol:


...
 

·
So. Calif.
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
SystemShock said:
... You're lucky you didn't do your first double-century on the bike I did... 6-spd freewheel, 14-17-20-24-28-32. Now those are some bothersome jumps, 'least for a road bike. Said it before, I'll say it a'gin... everybody won't be happy 'til we're all riding 11-28 straight blocks... or CVT. Yeesh. ...
I guess we all 'make do' with what we have available at the time ;-)
I date myself, but when I first started riding as a kid , "10 speed" meant not the cassette, but 2 chainwheels and a 5 cog freewheel.
A pretty popular car transmission at the time was GM's 2-speed Powerglide automatic.
Some modern cars tout "7 speed transmissions" as though it were a virtue, instead of saying "our cars have crappy, narrow power bands and need all those gears."
I suppose as I've aged, my 'power band' has gotten narrower also ;-).
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top