SA_SA_SA wrote:Wouldn't a step-up 2x stage be more efficient?
do you think there is very much difference between a gear-down and a gear-up?
cheers
SA_SA_SA wrote:Wouldn't a step-up 2x stage be more efficient?
Brucey wrote:...do you think there is very much difference between a gear-down and a gear-up?...
rofan wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:it's an SA 5 speed - with a standard 3 speed, but two selectable sets of planets -
can you remember the model/type?
tks
SA_SA_SA wrote:Brucey wrote:...do you think there is very much difference between a gear-down and a gear-up?...
I think I remember reading somewhere that in bicycle wheel epicyclic gears stepping up was more efficient than stepping down: I think either/or both in blurb/reviews about the SA 8 speed ot Tony hadland's book.
Brucey wrote:BTW Bob's 5s gear is one from the 1980s, essentially S5-II mechanicals in a different looking shell, I think. 90% of the internals would be hard to tell apart from a 1947 FW hub.
SA_SA_SA wrote:Would the 'Brucey Special' 2x3 6speed hub have one or two control cables?
jimlews wrote:And which is or was the best Sturmey Archer Five speed?
My vote would go with the FW though it isn't a five; or is it?
I never found much use for the + 50% top gear of the S5 however many levers were needed.
SA_SA_SA wrote:Would the 'Brucey Special' 2x3 6speed hub have one or two control cables?