Low Gears and Internet Shaming

[EB]

This all seems on-brand for Russ, whose channel is usually a variation on "the evil bicycling industry man is just trying to keep us down... and prevent us from having the gear and tire choices we need!"

I say this as someone who finds his videos entertaining sometimes.

As for people shaming me for my gear choices, that's just people telling me that they aren't the kind of people I need to hang out with.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by EB

As for people shaming me for my gear choices, that's just people telling me that they aren't the kind of people I need to hang out with.

for sure!

[Mark McM]

I've been involved in USA Cycling road racing for many decades, and also followed professional road racing. There definitely used to be a lot of "gear shaming" in racing, both explicit and implicit. Back when I started following professional racing, no self-respecting pro racer would be caught using "tourist" gearing. If you couldn't get over it in 39/23 (or maybe a 39/25, which was reserved only for the steepest climbs), then you weren't tough enough to be racer. There was a similar attitude in amateur racing as well. I started racing in the 7spd era, and like many racers at the time, I used 53-39 chainrings and had a 12-21 freewheel for most races, and a 12-24 freewheel for hilly races.

In Cat 5 (beginner) races people would show up with whatever bike they had of course. If they had a kickstand or fenders or (gasp!) a rear sprocket bigger than 25 tooth, they'd get the stink-eye from the other racers. By the time they upgraded to the next category, most had fallen into line and outfitted their bikes with the same over-sized gearing that everyone else had.

Of course, the racer crowd is just a specific sub-set of cyclists, and have always had their own peculiarities. However, when a certain racer from Texas with a compelling backstory started winning a famous race in France, it seemed that everyone had to have a bike just like his. And thus common ordinary cyclists started riding bikes that emulated pro racers, and many cyclists started bought bikes with impractically high gearing, and which only clearance for narrow high pressure tires. Only a few years ago did we start recovering from the hangover when every road cyclist had be riding a racing bike.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I've been involved in USA Cycling road racing for many decades, and also followed professional road racing. There definitely used to be a lot of "gear shaming" in racing, both explicit and implicit. Back when I started following professional racing, no self-respecting pro racer would be caught using "tourist" gearing. If you couldn't get over it in 39/23 (or maybe a 39/25, which was reserved only for the steepest climbs), then you weren't tough enough to be racer. There was a similar attitude in amateur racing as well. I started racing in the 7spd era, and like many racers at the time, I used 53-39 chainrings and had a 12-21 freewheel for most races, and a 12-24 freewheel for hilly races.

In Cat 5 (beginner) races people would show up with whatever bike they had of course. If they had a kickstand or fenders or (gasp!) a rear sprocket bigger than 25 tooth, they'd get the stink-eye from the other racers. By the time they upgraded to the next category, most had fallen into line and outfitted their bikes with the same over-sized gearing that everyone else had.

Of course, the racer crowd is just a specific sub-set of cyclists, and have always had their own peculiarities. However, when a certain racer from Texas with a compelling backstory started winning a famous race in France, it seemed that everyone had to have a bike just like his. And thus common ordinary cyclists started riding bikes that emulated pro racers, and many cyclists started bought bikes with impractically high gearing, and which only clearance for narrow high pressure tires. Only a few years ago did we start recovering from the hangover when every road cyclist had be riding a racing bike.

Indeed

And back to "Sport Touring" bikes we are with "All-Road" and "Endurance" bikes not to mention "Gravel" which all overlap with low gearing and wide tires.

Ebb and flow and flow and ebb we do.

Ride bikes.

[Baron Blubba]

I have not read through this entire thread, I'm sorry. Discussing old-school gears versus new school gears, I would speculate thusly:

In the 80's there were tight and limited gear clusters like 14/26 6-speeds, matched with 52-42 chainrings. I don't think this combo was originated because anyone thought this was all we needed, but because this was where derailleur and cassette/freewheel technology were at the time.
Someone with greater knowledge of pre-2000's bikes correct me if I'm wrong there.
I'd guess that many very strong/pro riders would have, even if initially resistant, very quickly seen the benefits of and adapted to, say, an 11-32 11-speed cassette. They just weren't there yet.

I'll speculate a little further: Somewhere in the netherworld betwixt generations, the idea became prevalent that the previous generations used these limited gears because they absolutely wanted to, because they were so tough as nails hard. This conflation became a piece of historical revisionism that influenced a more modern era of cyclists, to whom an ever wider range of road bike gears were available (first 11-28 teeth, then 30 teeth, then 32, 34, 36, etc), that true cyclists or true strong cyclists or however you want to phrase it, don't use any gear lower than a 25T on the back, and a 39 small chainring up front. Maybe a 52-36 with an 11-28 if you're heading to the hills.
This might have been true in the past, but the 'choice' was determined by the technological limitations of the moment, not by actual choice. Had the 'tough guys' of the 70's and 80's been able to put an 11-34 on their bikes, I think they would have.

Thank goodness this mentality, whether my speculation is correct or not, is being phased away. One of the great things about 11, 12, and 13 speed drivetrains is that we can have our cake and eat it too. That is to say, you can have all of your mid to high gears, and your ultra low gears, and not give anything up by doing so.

I ride a 48x10-44 one by set up on my main road bike, and various similar set ups (Sram XPLR and Campy Ekar) on many of my other road and gravel bikes. No one has ever shamed me or made any negative comment, they just get a kick out of seeing such a big cassette on a road bike.

I did once almost lose a friend who wanted me to sell her a bike and help her build it. This was in like 2014, 2015. I suggested an 11-28 with 52-36, telling her that with an 11-speed drivetrain there's really no reason not to 'upgrade' from the 11-25 she'd been using previously. She wouldn't hear of it, because that's what she'd always used and that's what all the strong cyclists use, and how dare I suggest that she needed a handicap.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by Baron Blubba

I have not read through this entire thread, I'm sorry. Discussing old-school gears versus new school gears, I would speculate thusly:

In the 80's there were tight and limited gear clusters like 14/26 6-speeds, matched with 52-42 chainrings. I don't think this combo was originated because anyone thought this was all we needed, but because this was where derailleur and cassette/freewheel technology were at the time.
Someone with greater knowledge of pre-2000's bikes correct me if I'm wrong there.

In terms of racing, you're not wrong.

I started riding as a 13-year old in 1986 and rode with the adults in a touring/recreational club: the Mid-Hudson Bicycle Club (New York state). There were plenty of riders in the "B" and "A" groups that were running triple front chainrings and long-cage rear derailleurs. Some of them were even still running "half-step plus granny" on their front triple. Lots of SunTour and Shimano; some exotic European brands. So the tourists and serious recreational riders had the options back then.

For the racers over in the Hudson Valley Velo Club, it was roughly 50-50 Campagnolo and Shimano, with 52-42 and 12-24 being pretty common if I remember correctly. At the time, just on the cusp of indexed shifting, tighter gaps in the chainrings or cogs shifted better, so that's what racers generally went with -- alongside the machismo or status symbol of big gears.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Baron Blubba

In the 80's there were tight and limited gear clusters like 14/26 6-speeds, matched with 52-42 chainrings. I don't think this combo was originated because anyone thought this was all we needed, but because this was where derailleur and cassette/freewheel technology were at the time.
Someone with greater knowledge of pre-2000's bikes correct me if I'm wrong there.

Even before that, there was much wider gearing available. For example, here's the "gearing" page from the 1974 Schwinn catalog (50 years ago):

https://waterfordbikes.com/SchwinnCa...0/1974_04.html


As an example, the 1974 Schwinn Sports Tourer came with a 54-40 double crankset and a 14-34 5 speed freewheel, which give a low gear of 31.8". Specialty touring bikes often had even wider gearing, often using triple cranks. Even Campagnolo, known mostly for their racing components, made drivetrains that could handle wide range gearing, with sprockets over 30 teeth.

[54ny77]

We all rode 8% grades for miles with a Regina corncob, and we liked it.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

We all rode 8% grades for miles with a Regina corncob, and we liked it.

Funny thing is my fastest avg pace up the one 5 mile long 8% grade climb on several occasions have been with the PDG Paramount and it's 42T small chain ring. More a result of how I mash uphill than it is the result of any true power out of my legs. LOL!

[steamer]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

^^^This. I have heard admiration for enormous pie plate cogs -- "wow, I'll bet you could climb a wall with that thing! I need to get me one of those!" -- but never any negative comments about low gears.

[fried bake]

I’m just disappointed that we seemed to have just discovered the extensive range of Shimano rear derailleurs. I distinctly recall pining for a triple because I preferred the gearing and being told that the 34/32 was max capacity on my 6800 equipped bike. So much unnecessary suffering!

[AngryScientist]

Go ahead, gear-shame me. I can take it!

[RWL2222]

Gearing guidance was such a weird thing. In early 2020, when I got back on the bike after 15 years off, I knew nothing of how things had changed, and went to two otherwise good bike shops to ask what could be done to address the 53/42, 11-27 setup that was a struggle on my old routes. Both said 27 was as large as I could go in back, and made no mention of compact rings. Both said I should just sell the bike (which honestly wasn't a bad suggestion at the time, but not what I wanted). It wasn't until I came here to PL that I got onto the idea of a 50/34 and 11-34 setup (with a wolf tooth extender and SGS rd). It made me now want to go back to the shops, even though I like those guys and know they mean well. There was no shaming really, that's just how it was, as recently as a couple of years ago.

I can see the point of the Russ videos, but I can't get on with them, if only because of the twitchy video editing.

[unterhausen]

It's funny to watch racing videos from the '70s now, they really needed lower gears. That lasted even after Contador put MTB gearing on his bike and just rode away from everyone else on a steep climb. Nowadays the pros usually ride up very steep hills with low enough gears that they don't bog down. Still occasionally see a climb where people are paperboying up the hill.

As far as the video OP is talking about, I watched it all. I was left with two ideas: one is that he is just reacting too much to typical youtube trolls. And the second is that he needed some material and the postman hasn't brought him anything interesting this week.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Go ahead, gear-shame me. I can take it!

it's not the gears, but the BLING!!!