Cassette sizes over the ages

[Joxster]

Reading through a few threads and seeing comments like I need a 29/30/32 got me thinking about when I was racing, the next couple of days were in the Alps. The mechanic was asking what gears I wanted for the next days stage, did I want a 41 or 42 chainring and I could have a 24t or a 25t if I was feeling tired. But If I wanted the 41 ring he would need to file the top of the spider so the chain would run better. We never had the choice of the range of gears you get these days, I'm now twice the man I was (too much wine and cheese) but I can still climb with a 39 x 23 without too much discomfort, even when I was back in France riding the climbs I used to train on in the 80's

[AngryScientist]

there are definitely more choices available today, and i think it's great. even campagnolo has come around and will be offering a 32t cassette with a mid cage RD in their potenza group.

the gear range has always been pretty widely available though, touring triple cranksets have been around forever and low gearing has been a choice for cyclists for decades.

i think the sport has gotten a lot smarter too, you see lot's of pros on compact cranksets and big rear cassettes for mountain stages. some people just climb better at higher cadence, nothing wrong with that, and better for lots of people.

it's similar to the 60's cars. back then the only way to go faster was more displacement in the engine. to hell with efficiency, ram more fuel and air down the throat of the carburetor and go faster. as technology evolved we can achieve the same "fast" today in lighter, more efficient and better handling cars.

[merckx]

You are absolutely correct about the evolution of bicycle gearing. I recall a 21 was a standard racing block with a 42 bolted to the crank. A 24 was reserved for the mountains. Watch the Tour footage of the Hinault/Lemond era, and it appears that they are wrestling an alligator up the cols. Quite a bit different from today's athlete.

[Ti Designs]

The limited gear range forced people to learn how pedal to generate either torque or leg speed. I don't see the disadvantage to knowing how to do both.

[shovelhd]

I started racing in 1981 when five speed free wheels and 42T inner rings were the norm. Six speed came a few years later. Still, I had a 28T Suntour freewheel that I used for racing up Smugglers Notch. 42/53 and 13/28, Campy SR shifted it all just fine. Today's ranges are wider with more gears but not that different.

For crits I raced a 13/17 five speed, which I replaced with a 12/17 six speed when it became available.

[Likes2ridefar]

The limited gear range forced people to learn how pedal to generate either torque or leg speed. I don't see the disadvantage to knowing how to do both.

Or it made people not ever want to ride a bike with such gearing.

[redir]

I've still got my '81 Guerciotti, full Campy NR, top of the line and about as good as it got back in the day. Regina freewheel 13,21. Spin fast down low and dig in deep up high. My new Synapse has a 32, oh it's like butter. I love taking my old girl out for a ride every once in a while but I avoid the mountains.

When I was racing a lot 12,23 was my preferred cassette on 9-speed. What I found was that if I could not push the 39,23 then there was no hope in getting on the podium anyway. Everyone else in the field will be pushing strong gears and if you cannot hang with them and choose a granny gear then that's your way off the back.

Really steep stuff is different though, that's where the mechanical advantage really takes over especially when you are 6'4" and 190 pounds like I am. I can really start to feel my weight on anything above about 9% climb.

[sparky33]

Or it made people not ever want to ride a bike with such gearing. :hello:

I am a friend of 32.

[bicycletricycle]

A higher cadence seems to be preferred these days.

I think it is better because it reduces fatigue (or something, I'm no scientist)

[bobswire]

The limited gear range forced people to learn how pedal to generate either torque or leg speed. I don't see the disadvantage to knowing how to do both.

Basically it kept many people from continuing to ride since lots of folks don't live at sea level flat lands. Cycling has never been as popular to regular folks as it is now because of easier gearing. Pedaling a bike doesn't have to be algebra some folks only need addition and subtraction. :rolleyes:

[Onno]

If my own experience is any guide, machismo (or whatever it is I have that passes for that) has something to do with this. I have always resisted "wimping" on easier gearing, only to wonder how I lived without it once I get it. Now I'm really happy to have a compact crank and a 28 cog. I'm a good climber and haven't gained much weight--I just love that I can spin up hills, avoiding the strain of big gears on my knees and ankles.

[Look585]

The limited gear range forced people to learn how pedal to generate either torque or leg speed. I don't see the disadvantage to knowing how to do both.

Do a few standing start 500s at the track. Cadence range 0-140rpm in <30s. Definitely teaches you to generate both torque and leg speed.

You'd be shocked at the gearing on my road bike. I've found that pushing a big gear around on the road *doesn't* make me faster when it counts.

[Tandem Rider]

IMO, not to start a war, but I think that modern race bike gearing was brought on, at least in part, by EPO era doping. :eek:
Blood vector doping increases the aerobic capacity, easier to spin at 100+ rpm under torque. EPO does not increase how hard a racer can push on the pedal, but rather, increases how quickly a racer can transport oxygen raising the rate of "turnover" or cadence under load.
That being said, I'm still keeping my 39 ring:)

[nooneline]

I've found that pushing a big gear around on the road *doesn't* make me faster when it counts.

Same. I can hit way faster sprint speeds on the track than I can on the road, and it's because on the road I always bail out into a bigger gear thinking it will help - and it just doesn't.

[Joxster]

Copy the Pro's leg speed, not the Pro's gears

[stephenmarklay]

IMO, not to start a war, but I think that modern race bike gearing was brought on, at least in part, by EPO era doping. :eek:
Blood vector doping increases the aerobic capacity, easier to spin at 100+ rpm under torque. EPO does not increase how hard a racer can push on the pedal, but rather, increases how quickly a racer can transport oxygen raising the rate of "turnover" or cadence under load.
That being said, I'm still keeping my 39 ring:)

I always thought that too. Actually, whenever I would hear that lance was spinning at 110 I thought of course is does :)

[El Chaba]

IMO, not to start a war, but I think that modern race bike gearing was brought on, at least in part, by EPO era doping. :eek:
Blood vector doping increases the aerobic capacity, easier to spin at 100+ rpm under torque. EPO does not increase how hard a racer can push on the pedal, but rather, increases how quickly a racer can transport oxygen raising the rate of "turnover" or cadence under load.
That being said, I'm still keeping my 39 ring:)

...and the electric motors tend to generate more power at higher RPM's as well...:banana:

[stephenmarklay]

The limited gear range forced people to learn how pedal to generate either torque or leg speed. I don't see the disadvantage to knowing how to do both.

Ti Designs, I have wondered about leg speed and your the expert to answer this.

I always seem to hear studies that show that around and 80rpm (simplify here I am sure) is the most efficient. Does it make sense to race (without EPO :cool:) with more legs speed then? I say race only since I do think there must be a longer term benefit with an economy of motion improvement.

[okie1kenobi]

You are absolutely correct about the evolution of bicycle gearing. I recall a 21 was a standard racing block with a 42 bolted to the crank. A 24 was reserved for the mountains. Watch the Tour footage of the Hinault/Lemond era, and it appears that they are wrestling an alligator up the cols. Quite a bit different from today's athlete.

Yup exactly what I used in the early to mid '80s too.

52/42 - 13-21 most of the time
13-24 for hills
13-18 corn cob for flats and crits.

Anything bigger than that and you got funny looks :D

[Mark McM]

Ti Designs, I have wondered about leg speed and your the expert to answer this.

I always seem to hear studies that show that around and 80rpm (simplify here I am sure) is the most efficient. Does it make sense to race (without EPO :cool:) with more legs speed then? I say race only since I do think there must be a longer term benefit with an economy of motion improvement.

This is a case of getting the wrong answer because the wrong question was asked.

These cadence efficiency studies typically only measure gross efficiency, and often at low power outputs. But very few cyclists should be concerned about gross energy efficiency, and in particular, bike racers should care not at all about it at all. Afterall, the winner of a bike race is determined by who gets to the finish line first, not who gets there with the least energy used. A typical person is carrying many tens of thousands of calories of energy on their body at all times. Unless you are riding multiple hundreds of miles a day for several days in a row, you won't run out of actual energy stores.

Instead, what limits cycling endurance is fatigue and/or glycogen depletion. At medium to high power outputs, it is likely that a cadence that delays fatigue and/or conserves glycogen is higher than a cadence that produces the highest gross efficiency.

[Mark McM]

Cassette size evolution is a strange thing. My first good decent road bike (in 1980) had a 14-26 5 speed freewheel, mated to a 42/52 crank, and this carried me wherever I wanted to go. Over the years, component manufacturers started adding sprocket to the freewheel/cassette - but usually to the wrong end of the freewheel/cassette. Instead of adding larger sprockets, they added smaller sprockets; first a 13, then a 12, and then an 11 - who needs an 11? Now that they've reached the limit on the small end of the cassette (they really can't put a 10 tooth sprocket onto current freehubs), they have finally started adding sprockets to the correct end of the cassette.

As Ti mentioned, the limitation on gear sizes forces a cyclists to learn to pedal over a wide range of cadences. When cassettes were acquiring smaller and smaller sprockets (bigger and bigger high gears), it seemed like cyclists were forgetting (or never learning) how to spin. I do much of my riding with a maximum gear size of 52/13, and yet I've never been dropped on a downhill (even at speeds in excess of 50 mph). I can't really understand people complaining that they need an 11 tooth sprocket for fast downhills.

[Red Tornado]

My first "real" road bike, a Bridgestone 500 had a 14-26 5-speed with 42/52 up front (170mm, by the way). Pretty standard gearing for the time and on all but the really steep or long stuff didn't have any problems.
Remember a friend of a friend had something he called the "corn cob". I think the sprocket tooth count only increased by 1 for all 5 or 6 gears?

[classtimesailer]

Everything is bigger theses days. Bigger tires, bigger frame tubes, bigger cogs. Many riders only know blocky carbon frames, a 34/28 climbing gear, and 25(28)mm tires. I bet they would do just fine on a heavy steel bike like mine with a 39/23 and 22mm sprinters. But they don't know any better. Many of them came to the road bike from MTB and the modern road bikes look like a 29er to me. Nothing looks more cool (and that is what I am about) than skinny stays spread to 120mm framing low profile rims and a corncob freewheel.

[Likes2ridefar]

I just did my first ride on a sram force one setup today. 50t up front and 10-42 rear. Loved it.

Same with the hydraulic discs...

[Ti Designs]

I always seem to hear studies that show that around and 80rpm (simplify here I am sure) is the most efficient. Does it make sense to race (without EPO :cool:) with more legs speed then? I say race only since I do think there must be a longer term benefit with an economy of motion improvement.

Almost all of the studies I've seen (a few hundred at this point) have been conducted by people who have never really learned how to pedal a bike, so they ask pointless questions like what is the most efficient cadence?

These days when I do a fitting, I teach use of large muscle groups within a range where they have good mechanical advantage, in other words glutes work from 1:00 to 4:00, quads work from 11:00 to 2:00. I have to teach the use of the glutes, because it's the basis for posture on the bike. Given enough time I'll also go over the use of the quads (with hip flexors added in to get the pedal over the top). With both large muscle groups working in isolation (adding them together comes later - this is the first stage of the learning process) I'll put the bike into the hardest gear and ask them to use just the quads, pushing forward over the too. They'll struggle for a few seconds, but it's clear that it's not sustainable. Then I'll have them switch to using the glutes, They get their body weight over the pedals and suddenly the can generate that amount of torque without struggling. Then I tell them not to move, while I shift the bike into a much smaller gear. Falling into the pedals (my way of tricking the body into using the right muscle group) doesn't work - gravity is what it is, the pedals no longer support the body weight, the weight winds up on the bars. On a bike your body has two motors, the big V8 that rotates the femur at the hip. and the turbo 4 that extends the lower leg at the knee. It's not a question of the best cadence, it's a matter of learning how to use your body, not just the muscle group mapped to the dominant skill set.

GCN did an interesting test, They put one of their riders on a rolling treadmill for a duration, once with clipless pedals, the next time with flat pedals. What they were trying to figure out was which was more efficient. What they didn't get was that using flat pedals was eliminating all of the smaller muscle groups, leaving the work to just the largest muscle group, so it came as no shock to me when their results said that flat pedals are more efficient. Had they lowered the gear and raised the cadence past 80RPM, the results would have been far different.