Are you a middle ring or big ring person?

[Mark1978]

If you don't use the full spread of gears available on each (typical regular) ride, the bike is not set up correctly for your style of riding. Gears are there to help you, not to be superfluous, redundant bits of metal that you cart around for the hell of it.

That's true for example most of my rides I would be ok with 34/23 as my lowest. But there are other rides I do where I do use 34/30. I'm not going to faff on changing cassettes for each ride.

[Mick F]

Having moved house a lot during my cycling career with commuting, I found that I needed a "re-gearing" for each move.

When I went to Double/5sp, firstly I was on Clydeside and it was a fairly flat ride, but then we moved to Lomondside and I had a few hills to climb - both ways - so I increased the gear range and went to double/6sp.

We moved to Plymouth, and at first the same gears suited quite well, but then we moved out into Cornwall and I again needed to increase the range and also the top gears. Next, we moved house again and by that time I'd amassed a few different chainrings and a whole boxful of Suntour sprockets.

I was able to mix and match quite easily, and I knew what I wanted and when. Eventually, I had two cassettes and used one when I was towing my trailer, and the other when not.

These days, I'm on a triple with a wide cassette and I'll stick at that.

[LittleGreyCat]

If you don't use the full spread of gears available on each (typical regular) ride, the bike is not set up correctly for your style of riding. Gears are there to help you, not to be superfluous, redundant bits of metal that you cart around for the hell of it.

That may be true if you are prepared to change the front and rear gear clusters on your bike whenever you are not involved in a typical regular ride, but this seems a bit impractical to me.

More specifically I see the bottom two cogs as an 'emergency only' essential fitting for serious hill climbing under adverse conditions - one of my motivators on short steep hills is to try not to go down to the 'granny' because I should be able to climb any road hill round here on 2-4 on smallest front cog.

When riding on the middle ring I would be a little wary of using the lowest or highest rear cog (1 and 8 in my case) because the same gearing could be achieved with a better chain line in a higher or lower cog. However this may not be a valid concern assuming the middle ring is positioned in the same place as the single ring on bikes without a front mech.

I see no major harm in carrying a couple of extra 'extreme' ratios for hard times or an increase in fitness.

Cheers

LGC

[NUKe]

Having used a compact double for a number of years I recently replaced the 50 tooth outer ring with a 48, i did this largely because the 50 was out of stock. But I have found therange now much more usable so I will be sticking with the 48 from now on.

[Rob Archer]

My recumbent came fitted with a 50-40-30 triple and a 11-34 9-speed block. I found I rarely used the 50t except on long downhills (not many of them in Norfolk!). After a lot of experimentation I've settled on a 42-28 double. I've not felt the need for higher gears and 28 x 34 is lower than I really need round here but comes in handy on my regular trips to the North-west Highlands! That said I spin 60-90 rpm rather than mash. I've also got a second rear wheel with a 11-28 on which is just about perfect for the Fens.

The double is simpler to set up than a triple and has allowed me to fit a chain protector in place of the 50t ring.

[OnYourRight]

The point that ‘coast 2 coast’ made at the bottom of page 1 is a good one. It informed my own choice of gearing.

What do I use? A 34T/46T double with an eight-speed 12–25T cassette. The large chainring, which at 46T is not really very large, is the cruising chainring. The ratios range from about 36 to 101 in gear inches.

This arrangement has numerous benefits, some of which are:

1. The chainline is optimised for the cruising gears, improving efficiency.
2. The flat-road, still-air cruising gear is in the middle of the cassette, leaving options on both sides to accommodate varying terrain, wind, and energy levels.
3. Because the big ring is smaller than on most doubles, headwinds and easy climbs don’t usually force a front shift. And when a front shift is needed, it’s smooth since the rings are only 12T apart.
4. Because the big ring is larger than the middle ring on most triples, the cruising ratios are effectively closer with typical cassettes – a fact seldom realised. (Think about it!) Power-transfer efficiency is also a little higher.
5. It’s simpler, lighter, and with a lower Q-factor than a triple.
6. It combines close ratios with a durable and cheap eight-speed drivetrain.

The downside compared to a standard or compact double (with a typical 50T or larger big ring) is the lack of ratios over 100 gear inches. But I would have no use for those outside of riding in a fast bunch or racing (e.g. increasing downhill speed fractionally at great effort).

The overall range is lower than with a triple, but some of the triple’s range is wasted at the high end. Lower ratios would occasionally be useful, but would compromise some of the strengths listed above.

I’m fussy about cadence and efficiency, so I gave my gears a lot of thought. They work well for me.

[al_yrpal]

On my touring bike, an almost standard Salsa Vaya 3, when riding around the local area, which is mainly for fitness and pleasure, I deliberately stay on the 50 tooth ring as much as possible because I think that this increases my leg strength and endurance. I have a 40t middle ring and a 22 tooth non standard small ring too. The sprocket is 12 to 32 giving a huge gear range of 115" to 19". I try to keep the 22 tooth chainring solely for loaded touring and ascending stinkers with my 17.5 kg cycle camping touring load. Having lost 10kg of flab recently ascending hills has become less of a problem. I am hoping to loose the remaining 7.5kg over the next few months to discover what being light is really like? Being heavy is a huge disadvantage.

Al

[vinyl_theif]

On my town (hack) bike of the two it's normally the big ring,
Trails bike for welsh mountain routes of the three it's small & middle,
& finally on my touring bike I've no choice as use a Rohloff!

[Flinders]

I use all three. Small for long or steep uphills, middle for flat or slight uphills, large for downhills and those rare occasions when the wind is behind me.
I have the biggest spread of gears the shop could do me on the type of gear system I have.

I used to insist I needed lower gears and that I 'needed' them all. But in fact, when I fell in a river (don't ask) and bent the derailleur 15 lumpy miles from home, I had no choice as I couldn't get the small ring to work. A combination of not having the low gears, and me being drenched in cold water from head to foot on a not so warm day with no change of clothes possible, meant I got home without the bottom ring, and in record time- and dry. Made me realise I'm probably just idle. But even as an idle person, I still need the big front ring and smallest back rings for going downhill, or I'd be spinning like fury.

[Flinders]

Having lost 10kg of flab recently ascending hills has become less of a problem. I am hoping to loose the remaining 7.5kg over the next few months to discover what being light is really like? Being heavy is a huge disadvantage.

Al

Well done! You're doing far better than I am. I'm trying to lose a bit of weight for similar reasons, it isn't easy. I refuse to do faddy diets, I already have a healthy diet, and I don't need to lose much, so I'm just eating a less and exercising a lot more. I'm significantly thinner (testimony of clothes) but not a lot lighter, only about 7lbs (testimony of scales).
I'm getting cross about it and the next four weeks I will be going flat out to meet my target- to lose at least another 3-4 pounds before my walking trip to Skye.......the real purpose of the regime.

[maff1977]

a triple wth 38/28 rings and a chainguard on top. i never used the large ring on previous setups. too many climbs not enough knees

[whoof]

I get a lot of amusement watching people on my commute determined to stay in the big ring and a small spocket. Some of them look as if they are trying to propel the bike like a hand operated railway cart. There is one guy who rides up the huge climb of Bitton Steam Railway car park (approximately 100 metres max 7 % gradient) in such a large gear he has to traverse from side to side weaving across the car-park, if he rode in a straight line he would come to a halt and fall over. He's been doing it for at least three years but has still not found the gear lever.

[MikeF]

If the terrain is fairly flat or downhill, I use the big ring. If it's "hillier" or stopping and starting is necessary, I use the middle ring. If it's "hillier" still, I use the small ring. I change to whatever is the most appropriate for me. That's what gears are for.
If I'm riding a bike with two rings I use only two rings.

[RonK]

Pretty obviously, "real men" use the big ring.

Me, I prefer the close ratios on the small end of the cassette, so I mostly use the middle ring of a triple or the small ring of a double

[Trigger]

Don't really have a big ring on either bike, one is a 44t and the other a 48t.

Both are where I spend most of my time. If the hill is short and steep then I prefer to punch up it out of the saddle, I hate being sat twiddling because I'm rubbish at it, I will blow up in about 30 seconds in a twiddling gear but I can mash up short hills in a bigger gear no problems.

I wouldn't say I was a masher but I do feel more comfortable at a slower cadence with some resistance to the pedals, I can't spin to save my life, it just feels plain wrong.