Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

"Gear inches" are irrelevant
Quote | Reply
Common question: How do you calculate "gear inches"?
Correct answer: Who cares? They are irrelevant.

The correct way to calculate the mechanical advantage between two gears on a chain is by division. Riding a 53-39 up front with an 11-25 out back? Your max gear is 53/11 = 4.818 and you minimum gear is 39/25 = 1.56. Tooth pitch is the same on both gears, so that and all the 2's and pi's drop out of the equation. There is absolutely no need for some semi-arbitrary factor of 26.39 to be included anywhere!

</irrelevant, arbitrary rant>
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What about wheel size?
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [Triagain2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triagain2 wrote:
What about wheel size?

Exactly.
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [Triagain2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triagain2 wrote:
What about wheel size?
Ba-zinga! :-)

AndyF
bike geek
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
and crank length?

Sheldon Brown saves the day!
http://sheldonbrown.com/gain.html
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [pi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You have absolutely no business replying here, look closely at the OP. I will even quote it and highlite this for you.

"Tooth pitch is the same on both gears, so that and all the 2's and pi's drop out of the equation. "


That is correct, you are out of the equation.
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [Triagain2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triagain2 wrote:
You have absolutely no business replying here, look closely at the OP. I will even quote it and highlite this for you.

"Tooth pitch is the same on both gears, so that and all the 2's and pi's drop out of the equation. "


That is correct, you are out of the equation.


Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [mrtopher1980] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is an awesome picture, and reply.
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [AndyF] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AndyF wrote:
Triagain2 wrote:
What about wheel size?

Ba-zinga! :-)

Ba-zinga what? You can get about the same variation with tire selection as you get going between 700c and 650c. Some older bikes with longer reach calipers you could swap between 26" and 27" wheels without much adjustment. What was the typical change up: 53 to 55 when you drop wheel size? Pffff...you don't spend that much time in your 11 sprocket for that to matter. ;)
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [pi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pi wrote:
and crank length?

Sheldon Brown saves the day!
http://sheldonbrown.com/gain.html


Sheldon agrees with me! Down with inches! ;) And, building on his other point, you only care about your bike(s). So, unless you ride a 650c tri bike with 160 cranks and a 700c road bike with 175 cranks, you need not care. ...oh, wait...based on Sheldon's table, those are basically the same thing! :)
Last edited by: Koz: Apr 17, 15 13:41
Quote Reply
Re: "Gear inches" are irrelevant [pi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pi wrote:
and crank length?

Sheldon Brown saves the day!
http://sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

Yes, Yes, crank length :)

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply