Low Gears and Internet Shaming

[Spdntrxi]

sorry but he's whiny... and he's been whiny about racers and other cyclists for years. His stick is old to me.

[prototoast]

In the "real world" it used to be a thing to run the biggest gears you could, and a status symbol to prove how tough you are. That's really gone away in the last decade as compact cranks and wide range cassettes have become the norm. I can't remember the last time I heard a rider passing judgment on another's gearing choices... Maybe 2012?

But Russ is on the internet and gets money with clicks, so he tends to post deliberately provocative videos, and so he's going to attract a range of comments, both positive and negative. He's not out there posting videos with titles like "these new bike industry trends may or may not be good for you depending on your physiology and preferences" and so not all the comments he gets back are "I'm glad you found a gear range that you're happy with based on your physiology and preferences."

This comes across to me like the "just asking questions" defense. He knows what he puts out there, and he knows what kind of reaction it's going to generate. That's the game. Be happy with it or change yourself.

[benb]

I like his channel & content a lot. He covers a lot of stuff I find interesting and a lot of interesting bikes that very few of the shops around here would ever even think of carrying.

But I would say he is probably being intentionally whiny for business reasons. He is running a business. Youtube rewards whiny behavior and controversy. I would expect he's going to be selling his own cranks or some other parts pretty soon and the channel is going to drum up business. He has mentioned he doesn't put his content on his podcast any more because it wasn't returning enough money even though it's a convenient format for the kind of content he puts out. It's about money.

I also don't really think he's really explained what is wrong with the ultra low range options that are actually on the market and more mainstream. I kind of struggle to understand why 1x isn't good enough and MTB oriented drivetrains aren't good enough. He rides a lot of flat bar bikes that work perfectly fine with MTB drivetrains. I have 30x50 on my MTB. The bike can't really be pedaled over 20mph at all but in the lowest gear I can ride uphill on technical terrain as slow as someone who got off and is walking their bike up in front of me. But if it was on a loaded bike where you're averaging a really slow speed and/or spending huge time up mountainous dirt roads like he is frequently seen riding why would not being able to pedal hard above 20mph be a big problem? And for me the slower I ride the less I care about the spacing issues. Even if you gotta have 2x there are some mainstream things that work fine, although he seems to like huge gaps between the chainrings, and the more mainstream stuff doesn't do that because they want good shifting. Shimano Cues offers a lot of the stuff he's after for example.

For whatever reason though I hate 50/34. I totally support him hating on 50/34. 50/34 is simultaneously not low enough for the cases he talks about, not high enough most of the time for a lot of go-fast people, has an annoying spread and is very weird with a tight cluster, and is on way way too many bikes. I hate that in a lot of pure race bikes even if you spend $10k they don't offer a single model with 52/36 or 53/39. They are selling ridiculously high end race bikes, but if you're actually racing & you're fast 50/34 sucks unless it's that once in a blue moon incredibly hilly race. There was one single USA Cycling race I ever did where the 50/34 would have been useful to anyone who wasn't getting dropped and pulled.

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by benb

For whatever reason though I hate 50/34. I totally support him hating on 50/34. 50/34 is simultaneously not low enough for the cases he talks about, not high enough most of the time for a lot of go-fast people, has an annoying spread and is very weird with a tight cluster, and is on way way too many bikes. I hate that in a lot of pure race bikes even if you spend $10k they don't offer a single model with 52/36 or 53/39. They are selling ridiculously high end race bikes, but if you're actually racing & you're fast 50/34 sucks unless it's that once in a blue moon incredibly hilly race. There was one single USA Cycling race I ever did where the 50/34 would have been useful to anyone who wasn't getting dropped and pulled.

When I got the BLE back from a repaint in 2015, I bought a new Chorus 11 group since I had moved the parts over to another bike. I decided to try a 50/34 with a 12-27 and it just never worked for me. In a fast group, I always felt under or over geared. I eventually swapped it out for a Chorus 52/36 and got my groove back. The 50/34 went on the trainer bike with an 11-28. I use Zwift and gearing doesn't matter as much.

Back in the day, I time trialed with a 55/44 and a 13-26 (campy) and it was a good combo on a flat route.

[palincss]

Originally Posted by carpediemracing

I didn't realize that gear shaming was a thing.

So it's the 1980s and Look cleats are brand new. I'm riding a child adapted tandem with my daughter, who is probably in middle school at this time. The bike was set up with a 23.6" low gear.

So we're on a local club ride that's going up MarLu Ridge, a famous local climb. At the start of the ride, a number of people in the club notice the tandem and ridicule our gearing: "Why on earth do you need a low gear like that? Real riders don't need granny gears like that."

And now we're grinding our way up MarLu Ridge and we roll up on two of the guys who were gear-shaming us at the start of the ride. They've had to get off to walk, and their shoes are slipping on their Look cleats. I see them in my memory standing in place with whirling feet like a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

As we creep by I make sure to say loudly to my daughter, "I'm sure glad we have this absurdly low granny gear to help us climb this hill!"

[glepore]

Originally Posted by benb

I like his channel & content a lot. He covers a lot of stuff I find interesting and a lot of interesting bikes that very few of the shops around here would ever even think of carrying.

But I would say he is probably being intentionally whiny for business reasons. He is running a business. Youtube rewards whiny behavior and controversy. I would expect he's going to be selling his own cranks or some other parts pretty soon and the channel is going to drum up business. He has mentioned he doesn't put his content on his podcast any more because it wasn't returning enough money even though it's a convenient format for the kind of content he puts out. It's about money.

I also don't really think he's really explained what is wrong with the ultra low range options that are actually on the market and more mainstream. I kind of struggle to understand why 1x isn't good enough and MTB oriented drivetrains aren't good enough. He rides a lot of flat bar bikes that work perfectly fine with MTB drivetrains. I have 30x50 on my MTB. The bike can't really be pedaled over 20mph at all but in the lowest gear I can ride uphill on technical terrain as slow as someone who got off and is walking their bike up in front of me. But if it was on a loaded bike where you're averaging a really slow speed and/or spending huge time up mountainous dirt roads like he is frequently seen riding why would not being able to pedal hard above 20mph be a big problem? And for me the slower I ride the less I care about the spacing issues. Even if you gotta have 2x there are some mainstream things that work fine, although he seems to like huge gaps between the chainrings, and the more mainstream stuff doesn't do that because they want good shifting. Shimano Cues offers a lot of the stuff he's after for example.

For whatever reason though I hate 50/34. I totally support him hating on 50/34. 50/34 is simultaneously not low enough for the cases he talks about, not high enough most of the time for a lot of go-fast people, has an annoying spread and is very weird with a tight cluster, and is on way way too many bikes. I hate that in a lot of pure race bikes even if you spend $10k they don't offer a single model with 52/36 or 53/39. They are selling ridiculously high end race bikes, but if you're actually racing & you're fast 50/34 sucks unless it's that once in a blue moon incredibly hilly race. There was one single USA Cycling race I ever did where the 50/34 would have been useful to anyone who wasn't getting dropped and pulled.

Yeah. But for those of us that don't race, its not so bad. I liked 52 36 until I hit 60 and moved to the mtns. I could go sub compact but not really an option with older 11 spd stuff.

As far as crank choices go, join the chorus of the folks with 12-14k bikes that need a $1500 cockpit swap. Modern bikes are a hornets nest.

[charliedid]

I'd have more sympathy for Russ' feelings being hurt if he were a little less contemptuous of others views, choices and opinions outside his tribe. A bit too sanctimonious for my taste.

It's tiring to constantly be told what something isn't.

"Road Bike, NOT Racing Bike"

[bikinchris]

Eventually, everyone eill need to move to lower gears. That's life.

[Spdntrxi]

Originally Posted by charliedid

I'd have more sympathy for Russ' feelings being hurt if he were a little less contemptuous of others views, choices and opinions outside his tribe. A bit too sanctimonious for my taste.

It's tiring to constantly be told what something isn't.

"Road Bike, NOT Racing Bike"

we had a disagreement in regards to powermeters vs heartrate a number of years ago and I offered to send him a spare power meter to prove my point. He scoffed at me and basically called me an elitist racer... Ive ignored his ilk since.

[benb]

Originally Posted by glepore

Yeah. But for those of us that don't race, its not so bad. I liked 52 36 until I hit 60 and moved to the mtns. I could go sub compact but not really an option with older 11 spd stuff.

As far as crank choices go, join the chorus of the folks with 12-14k bikes that need a $1500 cockpit swap. Modern bikes are a hornets nest.

I’m only talking about the Superbikes and Aerobikes that are totally impractical for anything but going really fast.

If I’m going to go slower and use lower gears I have no desire to be on a CF Aero frame with proprietary everything and internal everything.

I’m kind of already there anyway in terms of having lost interest in that kind of bike. But if you go shopping for them as a complete bike they are heavily biased towards the 50/34 and someone who is doing racing other than hill climbs is probably having to swap rings and/or cranks.

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by benb

I’m only talking about the Superbikes and Aerobikes that are totally impractical for anything but going really fast.

If I’m going to go slower and use lower gears I have no desire to be on a CF Aero frame with proprietary everything and internal everything.

I’m kind of already there anyway in terms of having lost interest in that kind of bike. But if you go shopping for them as a complete bike they are heavily biased towards the 50/34 and someone who is doing racing other than hill climbs is probably having to swap rings and/or cranks.

It’s not the latest and greatest racing bike, but it was pretty easy to swap the 52-36 that came on my 2016 Supersix Evo HM to a 46-30. 46/11 is a 111 inch gear and higher than anything I rode BITD when I was younger and stronger. It’s a bit overkill to run the 11-36 cassette, I could go back to the 11-34 or 11-32, but the ZTTO cassette is so light with its alloy large cogs that I just stick with that cassette.

[Spdntrxi]

I'm in my mid 50s.. The group rides I enjoy, I dont even touch the small ring. yes there are some double digit pitches but they are not long enough for me to worry about a small ring. Hell I recently switched to a 54/40 when I got Shimano 12sp. Love it.

Other bikes have 52/36 or SRAM 48/35. Gravel is basically 46/32