Author
|
Thread |
|
|
Andy M-S
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Hamden (greater New Haven) CT6/2/21 9:01 AM |
*Finally* a use for the 11t cog!
Over the weekend, I converted my bike to a 1x9. I went from a 46/30 x 12-25 9-speed setup to a 42 x 11-36. It looks a little weird not to have a front derailer on there, and sometimes the jumps between shifts are a little off from what I would consider ideal, but the range! everything from 42/11 (3.82) to 42/36 (1.17) on one hand.
Previously, I had messed around with this using just the 30 and the existing cassette, so my range was 30/13 (2.31) to 30/25 (1.2).
I think this is going to be fun...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6897
Location: Maine6/2/21 10:38 AM |
You’ll like it
I have a 1x11 on my Checkpoint (gravel bike) and love it. I wanted mine to be D2R2 worthy, so I have a 38 with 11-42. With that setup, when I couldn’t get into the 11 for awhile due to a bent hanger, I really missed it! Couldn’t care less about the gaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19099
Location: PDX6/2/21 11:12 AM |
Riding solo or with others geared with holes also no big gig...
Road ride with closer ratio-ed riders... Not so much..
I still have a few 2x with a seldom, but not never, used 28t.
28/40, 28\42,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy M-S
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Hamden (greater New Haven) CT6/4/21 6:53 AM |
Yeah!
I'm really enjoying the 1x9 experience. This weekend, I expect that I will remove the left shifter pod from my handlebars and neaten things up a little but, overall, it's really a rather nice way to go.
I expect there are much lighter cassettes than the one I bought; it's pretty clear that the bike is heavier now, but since a few grams doesn't matter for the kind of riding I do (if it did, I would diet), I'm not terribly worried.
Other changes coming to the bike--the stem that I bought is quite high (even bottomed out in the head tube), which troubles me from a purely aesthetic point of view. I will likely flip the handlebars over and cut the stem about 1.5"-2" to see if things look a little better that way. My hands will be at (nearly) the same place--a little more forward, but not much.
Final thing: Sprung Brooks saddles seem to have a tendency to creeeeak, I'm going to be looking into lubricating the metal/metal points of contact. Creaky as the saddle may be, however, it makes the upright position a whole lot more comfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19099
Location: PDX6/9/21 10:17 AM |
What cassette did you decide for the 1x launch?
Not many ways around these 34+ cassette weights it seems. I do have a XTR 11-40 that is impressively light for what it is. Used for 75.00, new on them I am too cheap for.
I do have a few Sunrace 36-42 upper end that are reasonable considering... And not too pricey either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy M-S
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Hamden (greater New Haven) CT6/10/21 5:10 AM |
I paid $20 plus shipping for a Microshift 11-36. Clearly hefty, but cheap!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheels
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 1160
Location: Needham, MA7/1/21 3:38 PM |
Huh?
53 x 11 was my cruising gear when I rode mega miles. (Kidding). But I did spin it out twice going 60 mph down a mountain pass road in Utah.
Wheels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6897
Location: Maine7/1/21 5:15 PM |
Right
Yeah Wheels, I’m sure you powered over the rollers in the ol’ 53-11. ..😅.
I don’t think I ever used a 53-11, but I did spin out a 53-12 once in the sprint at a race at Lake Wiinnepasaukee. The finish rolled down the hill to the Lake followed by about 200m flat. My weight was an advantage. I won the sprint but unfortunately I guy had broken away so I didn’t win the race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3238
Location: Midland, MI7/2/21 9:15 AM |
Spun
quote:
I did spin it out twice going 60 mph down a mountain pass road in Utah.
By the time you get to about 35 mph you are faster in a tight tuck than you can pedal because sitting up to pedal increases your aero drag so much. Simple physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy M-S
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Hamden (greater New Haven) CT7/2/21 11:03 AM |
No FIghting Dog
I have no canine in this fracass since my chainring is a 42. I do think that for my age, 42x11 is about all I'm ever going to need.
As Kerry points out, there are ways to get faster, I just have to find the right hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheels
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 1160
Location: Needham, MA7/2/21 1:20 PM |
quote:
By the time you get to about 35 mph you are faster in a tight tuck than you can pedal because sitting up to pedal increases your aero drag so much. Simple physics.
Sorry Kerry, disagree. Mountain road was 8% (North Ogden Pass) and had a few twists and turns at the top and only about 4000 ft or so or relatively straight downhill section before sweeping left back into North Ogden. Coasted down that road section many times and could never get about 45-50 in full tuck. One day decided to pedal as fast as I could from the top in a semi-tuck to see how fast I could go. Probably around 110 - 120 pedal rpm max (maybe not full spin out but I couldn't make the bike go faster) Max pedaled, dropped into a tuck for about 20 seconds, saw 60 on the computer, felt the bike start to shimmy and immediately started to sit up which slowed me down to 45 before the brakes had any measurable effect.
Scariest and possibly the most stupid thing I have done on a bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19099
Location: PDX7/2/21 1:29 PM |
The reason I disagree also is based solely on the now illegal super tuck, more so that pros were pedaling while in it. In my minds eye anyway. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3238
Location: Midland, MI7/4/21 3:08 PM |
Doing the math
quote:
could never get about 45-50 in full tuck. One day decided to pedal as fast as I could from the top in a semi-tuck to see how fast I could go. Probably around 110 - 120 pedal rpm max
You can't beat the math. 120 rpm in a 53/11 is about 45 mph. If you pedaled up to 60 mph, you were doing 160 rpm. I have no idea whether this is within your capabilities, but no way were you going 60 mph at 120 rpm. Do the math yourself and report back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19099
Location: PDX7/4/21 5:16 PM |
Yeah but, he is running 36" rims... ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6897
Location: Maine7/4/21 5:31 PM |
Except that
What he said was he maxed out pedaling and then dropped into a tuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Payne
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 2626
Location: Canberra, Australia7/5/21 8:32 PM |
quote:
Except that
What he said was he maxed out pedaling and then dropped into a tuck.
Yeah, but if max speed on that descent in a tuck is 45-50, pedalling up to that speed and then getting into a tuck isn't going to get you any faster...
Speaking of 36" rims, for anyone who has a GCN+ subscription, have a look at the video "Reinventing The Wheel" - 6'8" ex-pro Conor Dunne has a custom frame built around that wheel size to finally get a bike that fits him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19099
Location: PDX7/5/21 10:18 PM |
I have seen 6'6" and 6'8" claims..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|