Author Topic: 1X, 2X, or 3X  (Read 1228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online staehpj1

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2021, 07:05:09 am »
FWIW - typically, the most physiologically efficient cadence for the average research subject is 50-60/min.

I had seen this somewhere also, but can't recall the source.  Anyone help?
Lots of confusion on this point as everyone pays attention to maximum power which occurs at higher cadence, but apparently maximum miles-per-calorie is at the slower grind.  I can keep a good spin darting around on club rides, but on a tour I always end up down at 50-60.

Hey John Nettles, how'd you get to that 14.5" gear? I'm down near 20 like everyone else but there have been times...

When I was a kid I ran across a Cincinnati machinist who had married a 5-spd hub to a 5-spd freewheel.  He had 50 gears with an unusably wide gear range of something like 10"-150".
I don't have a source, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.  I think folks at some point over reacted to the lesson when they were taught that mashing a huge gear at 30 rpm wasn't ideal and super high cadences became some kind of holy grail.  Personally I prefer to use a variety of cadences depending on the conditions.  I tended to do that any way, but felt like it was a flaw until at some point in my riding "career" I realized that many of my heroes were noodling along conserving their energy in the pro peloton at 60-70 rpm for a major portion of the day most days in major stage races like the TDF and the Giro.

I personally will find myself riding at 60-70 rpm at times and as much as 120 or a bit more at others.  Probably the majority of the time I am at 90-100 rpms when I bother to check, but the times I spin up or bog down are the times I am unlikely to check.  Actually I really don't need to check at 90-100 because I know what that cadence feels like.  When I vary from that I usually don't bother to quantify it I just know that I am faster or slower and have an idea of whether it is by a little or a lot.  I used to use the cadence meter, but stopped bothering with that long ago.  Once I knew exactly what 90-100 felt like its utilty seemed to fade.

Btw, I imagine a lot of folks use the harder to quantify metric of how hard a given cadence is on their body mostly when it cones to knee health.

Offline John Nettles

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2021, 09:49:39 am »
IN the CyclingUSA article, to me this is the key have decades of experience.  Unfortunately, as I get older the strength and the lungs have weakened. 

Here’s the magic: In order to be most efficient, you must select a gear that you have the strength to spin comfortably, while maintaining a rhythmic breathing pattern. Simple enough, right? Comfortable cadence and rhythmic breathing are your two keys to success when going uphill. This will insure that you’re managing both your aerobic and muscular energy output, which won’t leave you high and dry before you hit the hill top or the end of your rides. 
 
You just need to decide what is best for you and then work on climb training if it bothers you a lot.

As far as how I get so low:  I use a Rohloff with a 40t front sprocket and a 22t rear sprocket.  With 700x35 tires, Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator says I have a 13.8" low and with only a 72.5" high.  Again using the Gear Calculator, at 100rpms, my top speed would be 21.6mph (after which I am happy to coast) but as mentioned previously, I usually do a spin @ 120rpms, coast, repeat and get it increase speed on the flats when I have a massive tailwind.  My usual granny-gear-gasping-for-breath up-steep-climbs-at-60rpms speed is only 2.5mph (just above my usual 2.1mph walking speed).  Due to my lungs, I can maintain this for about 1/2 mile before the lungs give out.  Then I rest for a minute and do another 1/2 mile.  The high mountain passes can take me an entire day at times  :P .  For me, my lungs are the weak link (I have about 80% lung capacity) and since I can not improve the lungs, I have to do what I have to do to get up the climbs.

Tailwinds, John
« Last Edit: September 20, 2021, 09:52:09 am by John Nettles »

Offline HikeBikeCook

  • World Traveler
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Touring for over 50 years and still learning
Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2021, 10:19:34 am »
Try this calculator, I think it is better and more up to date. https://www.gear-calculator.com/
Surly Disc Trucker, Lightspeed Classic, Scott Scale, Klein Mantra Comp. First touring bike Peugeot U08 - 1966

Offline John Nettles

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2021, 10:29:00 am »
Sorry, but with a Rohloff, your gear calculator is a bit confusing for my old brain.  I will stick with Sheldon's. 

Offline HikeBikeCook

  • World Traveler
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Touring for over 50 years and still learning
Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2021, 10:41:49 am »
Sorry, but with a Rohloff, your gear calculator is a bit confusing for my old brain.  I will stick with Sheldon's.

Under Gears use the dropdown to select your Rolf Hub
Surly Disc Trucker, Lightspeed Classic, Scott Scale, Klein Mantra Comp. First touring bike Peugeot U08 - 1966

Offline John Nettles

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2021, 11:15:15 am »
I did.  I did it correctly.  I just prefer Sheldon's list of numbers versus a graph where I have to interpret the numbers.  Your prefer gear calculator is not bad, I just prefer the other.

Online staehpj1

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2021, 11:27:35 am »
Try this calculator, I think it is better and more up to date. https://www.gear-calculator.com/
Pretty nice.  I'll bookmark it.  The ability to drag ring sizes and to visually see gaps are both nice features.  Otoh I am so used to generating several tables and comparing them.  Old habits die hard.

Offline driftlessregion

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2021, 08:20:15 pm »

Offline ray b

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2021, 10:31:34 pm »
Reminder - everyone's different. In research, we talk a lot about results for the average subject. Might be a good place to start, but should not be mistaken for a goal.

Important heading in the second article -
"Proper... Cadence Depends On The IIndividual"
« Last Edit: September 23, 2021, 10:26:26 pm by ray b »
“A good man always knows his limitations.”

Offline froze

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2021, 08:53:35 pm »
Depends on the terrain you'll be riding, if there is a lot of mountain roads and you'll be packing medium to heavy loads then 3x is the only the way to fly, unless you track racer legs than a 1x is fine! But you want to spin fairly easily and effortlessly (I know, nothing is effortless in touring), so to save your knees go with the 3x.  Heck even if you will not be riding in mountains a 3x is good go have just in case in the future you find yourself riding in mountains. 

3x is not that more difficult to take care of than a 2x, and they are both extremely reliable.  I'm sure you have a bike now with 2x gearing, so ask yourself when the last time that front derailleur went bad?  NEVER!!

Offline dkoloko

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2021, 10:13:16 am »
I weighed the difference between a 2x and 3x setup, 2 oz., the weight of an empty water bottle.

Offline HikeBikeCook

  • World Traveler
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Touring for over 50 years and still learning
Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2021, 02:20:26 pm »
I only own triples. I have not had a 2X in twenty+ years and I have never had a front derailleur fail (I have been riding over 50 years), only a rear break and that was after a "tune-up" at my LBS :( .
Surly Disc Trucker, Lightspeed Classic, Scott Scale, Klein Mantra Comp. First touring bike Peugeot U08 - 1966

Online staehpj1

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2021, 06:22:28 pm »
I must be unusual.  I have had several shimano front deraileurs fail over the years.  Not a frequent thing or a big worry, but it hasn't been all that rare.

I don't think anyone would choose 1X for weight savings in a touring application, but maybe for simplicity.  It depends.  If the range is enough and the gaps between gears are close enough why add another one or two rings and a deraileur.  For me the range and spacing on some 1X setups seems adequate.  For some it wouldn't be.  Folks should choose accordingly.

Offline dkoloko

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2021, 08:08:40 pm »
In a review of a bicycle in Bicycling Magazine, the reviewer knocked the "added heft" of the triple crank .

Offline John Nettles

Re: 1X, 2X, or 3X
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2021, 08:41:35 pm »
I can almost guarantee the reviewer was not a touring cyclists then because the less than 1 pound total difference (chainring, different  front deraileur, etc.) between a 2x & 3x is not a big amount when riders (Pete excepted since my shoes probably weigh more than his total amount of gear  ;) ) are carrying 30-60 pounds of gear and food. That extra range of gears or the additional gears between the 2x gears really comes in handy of touring cyclists.  Road or club riders or even credit card touring cyclists, sure you only need a 2x but a fully loaded touring cyclist doing a long tour over varied topograpy benefits from as many and as wide a range as reasonable IMO.
Tailwinds, John