Conference noted::bicycle

    FWIW:
    
    I have found that changes in technology mean that a modern 7 speed rear 
    hub is just as reliable (if not more)/easy to maintain and use as a 5
    speed hub from 6 years ago.
    
    I have 2x7 on my racing/training bike and 3x5 on my touring bike (which
    is about 4 years older).
    
    For touring having the third ring is *really* wonderful.  Ok so you
    can't ever see yourself needing a 27 inch (84cm in continental speak)
    gear.  If 100 miles into a day you have a couple of miles of 10% it's
    nice to know you can go into a lower gear if needed - especially if you
    dont do many miles outside your touring activities.  Also, I for one
    find I cannot get out of the saddle when I've got panniers.  Given this
    basic premise of needing low gears for touring,  and a very conservative
    top gear (38x14) if you are not going to have holes you need the rings.
    Triple rings have also been spotted in the Tour de France Peleton.
    
    I cannot speak for mountain biking but I could imaging that a stump
    puller is a good idea and thus having a triple is good.
    
    As far as racing and training go - I feel I have a real hole between 13
    and 14 and 15, but there again maybe I am to cadence-critical.  Going
    directly from 18 to 20 is less of a hit but unless you have thighs like 
    <enter name of favorite rider> a 13-19 straight hub (12-19 for you 
    wild-men americans:-) can be a real embarassment....
    
    So for touring I think you need the range despite maybe having some
    duplication and for racing you need the close spacing...
    
    Of course we will now be flooded by the `always do the first three
    races of a season a 42x17 fixed' or the `well my sturmey archer 3 speed
    was always good enough' :-)
    
    rod

    The bottom line is that many (I'd be pushing it by saying "most")
    people who buy a bicycle do not put many miles and tend to pick a speed
    that they like and stick to it - unless going up a major hill.  People
    are becoming more sophisticated - wanting the best and get into a sport
    wanting to do it right.  They will be the ones who will start to
    understand the importance of cadence and shifting.
    
    As previously stated, until you understand the dynamics of "proper"
    riding, the difference between a 10 speed and a 24 speed is mute.  If
    you realitically plan on riding a fair bit (say, >50 miles/weekend),
    then discuss your needs (and budget) with a reputable dealer or a
    knowlegeable friend.  They will ask the right questions and steer you
    to the bike best for you.
    
    Eric

    
    "Why so many speeds" is partially due to "techno/marketing momentum"
    or inertia.  Once embarked in a given direction (in this case, more
    gears), designers have recursively refined things beyond what is
    absolutely necessary.  But the foregoing notes give good advice.
    
    As Rod said ("spacing for racing, range for touring"), I now appreciate
    having more gears than used to seem necessary.  In a competitive 
    situation (or at least when you are trying to *perform*), then 
    lacking the right gear (the "holes" Rod referred to) can be felt
    with every stroke. You know you are frittering away either power
    or performance by a couple of percent with every stroke.
    
    And by the same token, I knew that my 42x52/13x26 was good for
    anything, since they'd toured the Alps, 'til I encountered Britain, 
    and recognized that was so only in moments when the muscles were fresh
    and the bravado untested.  :-) 
    
    -john

    
    	It's important to realise that although these bikes have 18 or 21
    gears that because of chain alignment, some gears aren't usable. For
    example, if your riding 42/52 and 13-18, 42x13 and 52x18 shouldn't be
    used because of the angle and therefore strain that you'll be putting
    on your chain. Then taking into consideration the number of identical
    gears that you'll have, your figure will come down significantly. A 21
    speed will only have 15 usable gears just because of the chain
    alignment problem alone.
    	That's why some roadmen are using triple chainrings. It's not
    that they need that amount of gears, but it improves their chain
    alignment when going down to smaller gears since it allows them to stay
    in the middle of the block, at either end of the ratio scale.
    
    Graham.
    

	I knew we had been missing something for a while, here we go again!!

so ....
	Exactly - 3 times 7 does not really equal 21.  I am currently 
experimenting with 32/40/50 x 14-18,20,24 which in reality means I can use 4,5 
and 5 on the respective chainrings.  I can't say I like the triple much, it 
makes the whole thing very clumsy but it does give me all the ratios I need 
because on any outing here in the Alpes-Maritimes you are likely to use ratios 
between <top> and 45 inches.
	On the 2 chainring side, I'm not convinced I need a 14 top sprocket but
have as yet not been able to find a 7-speed freewheel with 15 top - any ideas
anyone??  I don't want to use smaller rings because I want to stick with
chainsets that offer 39 smallest on the inside.  The current training bike 
uses 39/52 and a 6-speed of 15-18,20,24 which is not bad but I would be happier 
with a 7 so I can have 23,28 or 22,26 for the last 2.
	The whole question of gears and "holes" is interesting - I raced for 
years on fixed gears between 79 and 84 and rode everywhere else on 64-67 and 
it seemed OK, but I did live in Essex and Suffolk where the biggest hill was 
300' (100 metres) !!  Where I live now it rises that much just going to the 
breadshop.

PS Don't mock the Sturmey - the Boot used one when he set up the straight out 
100 record and "Poofter" had to use all the gear available plus a main road 
full of traffic to beat it.......

.4>    	That's why some roadmen are using triple chainrings. It's not
.4>    that they need that amount of gears, but it improves their chain
.4>    alignment
    
    Aah, right... So when I see someone twiddling up a hill, they're only
    using a triple to get *good chain alignment*. Now I understand.
    
    
.5>	On the 2 chainring side, I'm not convinced I need a 14 top sprocket but
.5> have as yet not been able to find a 7-speed freewheel with 15 top - any 
.5>    ideas anyone??
    
    Can't you get Maillard blocks made to spec? (You've probably tried.)

.5>      I don't want to use smaller rings because I want to stick with
.5> chainsets that offer 39 smallest on the inside.
    
    Ha! I've just managed to get a TA 38-tooth ring onto my Shimano 105SC
    crankset. Complete with the 12-28 7-speed cassette at the back, I'm
    ready for the hills!
       

.5> PS Don't mock the Sturmey - the Boot used one when he set up the
.5> straight out  100 record and "Poofter" had to use all the gear
.5> available plus a main road  full of traffic to beat it.......
    
    I can translate this if anyone's having difficulty.
    
    
    Re .0: I hope you're following all this! The bottom line is that you
    won't find anything but junk with only five speeds, unless you get
    someone to put a custom set of components together for you. My opinion
    is that you should go with the flow and accept all those gears. In
    truth, there's no big deal with using them. You should select the gear
    that feels comfortable to cycle in, and you'll find that modern systems
    work far better than older five speeds. Try it - you'll like it.
    
    
    Rod

    Just the other day, I was tellin gmy self, "Self, it's been a long
    time since we've had a gearing discussion.  I miss Reg and his advicacy
    for fixed gears."
    
    I have nothing to add however...
    
    ed

.5>	On the 2 chainring side, I'm not convinced I need a 14 top sprocket but
.5> have as yet not been able to find a 7-speed freewheel with 15 top - any 
.5>    ideas anyone??
    
.6>    Can't you get Maillard blocks made to spec? (You've probably tried.)

	Ah I get it - I just send a few disks of steel and a file to 
Sachs-Huret, together with a cheque for n.000.000,00 ff.  What do you mean, 
don't be facetious?
	The best I have been able to find is 14/15 double top, not only is the 
15 top difficult but also the 16 second.  I read some stuff about Regina 
Americas being easier because the holes are all the same with the top screwed 
on only, but I suspect that you can have ANY top sprocket as long as it's 12 
or 13.

.5>      I don't want to use smaller rings because I want to stick with
.5> chainsets that offer 39 smallest on the inside.
    
.6>  Ha! I've just managed to get a TA 38-tooth ring onto my Shimano 105SC
.6>   crankset. Complete with the 12-28 7-speed cassette at the back, I'm
.6>    ready for the hills!

	Good news - I suspect that the 39 I got for the Shimano 600 was in 
fact TA because it was much cheaper and said "Made in France".  I still object 
to carrying around (say) a 12 top which I am unlikely to use when I know I 
would use a 15.  We came back along the Bord de Mer the other day with a back 
wind and J__n W____n and B__l S____g couldn't keep up with me on 52x18 and 17. 
 As for using a big 'un downhill - I find I can get up enough speed 
freewheeling to turn what remains of my hair a nasy shade of white.......

PS I'm glad to have made Ed happy - cycling in the South of France has made a 
happy man very old ;>)
       

    Well, thanks for the responses.  Not being an avid cycler myself (I
    haven't owned one in 5-6 years, and even then it was several-time-a
    week recreational cycling, or for a couple of years, commuting a short
    distance to work).  So, it was a little tough following all the termin-
    ology and numbers, but I'm glad to know that it's not all just
    marketing hype (like a car that can go 150mph, etc) and that there are
    some valid reasons for more gears.
    
    I'll probably "go with it" and get a more modern bike ...
    
    	-Jim [author of .0]

re                 <<< Note 1917.7 by NOVA::FISHER "It's Spring" >>>
>                                -< not even 2� >-

>    Just the other day, I was tellin gmy self, "Self, it's been a long
>    time since we've had a gearing discussion.  I miss Reg and his advicacy
>    for fixed gears."
    
>    I have nothing to add however...
    
>    ed


	Well, IffYa insist - here's tu'pence-worth:


	"Granny gears are self fulfilling prophecies"

	"The holes refered to earlier are the holes you build"

	"Riding a fixed in Vermont is the perfect way to ensure that 
	you are in the wrong gear at all times.  This is goodness,
	since you will be forced to spin and you will be forced to
	grunt." 

	"Keep a riding log, especially mark the BLACK DAYS when you 
	touched your brakes or put a foot down at the lights"

	"If biking is mostly for exercise, why make it easier ?"



	There, that should do it for another year or two......


	Reg	{currently pulling  AS HARD AS I CAN  on a rope at the
		back of a ski boat - can't win against a 200+ HP V8} 

    	On a tangent, but Reg started it.
    
    	Last night, Discovery showed a new device for water skiers.
    	It's a small boat (40 HP) that the skier controls remotely
    	while skiing. They said it was small enough to fit into
    	a van or large station wagon.
    
    	Reg, maybe this is what you're looking for.
    
    	Scott

re        <<< Note 1917.11 by LJOHUB::CRITZ "John Ellis to ride RAAM '91" >>>

>    	On a tangent, but Reg started it.
    
>    	Last night, Discovery showed a new device for water skiers.
>    	It's a small boat (40 HP) that the skier controls remotely
>    	while skiing. They said it was small enough to fit into
>    	a van or large station wagon.
    
>    	Reg, maybe this is what you're looking for.
    
>    	Scott

	Thanks Scott, but I have a tournament boat {serious stuff - I 
had thought bikes were expensive}

	These things are of doubtful legality, in most places there
are regulations about having a spotter  "in the boat"  and minimum age
for the boat driver (what boat driver ?) when a skier is being towed, etc. 
They're probably a blast for just cruising straight, but I'd bet they 
slow down a lot when you try to pull against them for cuts.  

	Reg

    RE:    <<< Note 1917.10 by ULTRA::BURGESS "Mad Man across the water" >>>
    >                  -< You SURE you miss this stuff ? >-
    
    Gee I feel humbled, I dont usually use these gears but my fixed wheel
    is in storage:-)
    
    rod

    
    well this reply is actually related to the number of speeds, I guess.
    
    I have a '80 Reynolds 531 frame that came with a  5 speed read.
    I put a Campy 6 speed axle so as to get a 6 speed cluster.  My 
    questeion is: back in the dark ages of 79-80 what was the width
    of the read drop out? If I'm measuring the beasty correctly, I
    get 124mm.  The 6 speed axle is 126 mm.  Does this sound right?
    
    also will a Shimano 7 speed Ultrfreewheel fit on a 126 mm axle?
    The bike shop I was talking to said I'd have to spread the frame
    (but I also told them that it was originally a 5 speed read).
    
    oh well, I guess I just have to stay out of the shops and stop looking
    at all those nice sleek (ie expensive) 8 speed beauties 8^)
    

    All of the non-ATB 5's I've ever seen referenced were 120 but that
    doesn't mean that that's all there ever was.  124 to 126 is no big
    deal.  You could have the rear cold-set so that it's happy at 126
    and doesn't need forcing.  The shop would also realign the derailleur
    dropout so that it's parallel to the frame's track instead of being
    slightly toed in from the triangle's being forced.  This is more
    important if you're going to use a 7 speed and even more important
    if you're going to use any of the SIS clones.  (Otherwise
    you get Sometimes It Shifts instead of Shimano Indexed System.)
    
    ed

    
    Giant puts out something called the Brownstone.  Chrome-moly
    frame, but only a rear derailleur for 5 speeds.  Upright riding,
    with fenders.  Looks like a nice commuting package, but the
    price is something like $300 and some change... knock off $75,
    and it would make a great round-town beater.
    
    	Dave