The O/T Giant Anthem thread
- Thread starter floz
- Start date
DaGonz
Eats Squid
so my first year physics on rotational dynamics are a little rusty... and some how doubt I will find anything about it in my 2nd + 3rd year textbooks (didn't keep any of my first year books...) so sitting down with a pen and pad... I come up with this (I'm sure you can fill me in where I've missed something?)...M@DM!KE said:
the kinetic energy of a particle is 1/2 mv^{2}. A wheel is just a whole bunch of bits all stuck together in a circle. You could get all fancy and start doing closed integrals but... The velocity at the edge of a circle is 2 x Pi x r x (rps) which just happens to the circumference of a the wheel by how fast it's spinning. because the wheel is moving with you, funilly enough the velocity at the edge of said wheel will be the same as the current velocity of the bike. cool... got that out of the way... so funnilly enough we're back to the Ke of a wheel being 1/2mv^{2}. you will note this is kinda linear to the mass. I see no exponential difference in mass there what so ever just 'cause it's spinning
so now I want to accelerate my wheel (and me )... and I apply a bunch of force. that force rotates the wheel and does a bunch of work which adds to the overall kinetic energy of my wheel. funnilly enough the kinetic energy of my wheel is still 1/2mv^{2} relative to my bikes velocity. I can't see how I have to add any different sort of work to increase the energy of my wheel? is rotational work some how different? it's still force x displacement ain't it?, that is the force required to accelerate that little particle over an arc length? add all the particles up and you get .... my wheel!
hey wow, those equations for the Ke of a wheel look surprsingly like the ke of well.... me! as I hurtle along the country side. so perhaps I can add them all up, but mass is linear in all of them so I can group them like this yeah?
1/2(M_{wheels} + M_{bike} + M_{me}) x v^{2}
holy mac... well that ain't no look no different to before!
I mean... I could be a little rusty, all I do is play with computers all day now (in an office chair incidently) and could easily be overlooking some fundamental law of physics... so far though I havn't figured out where I should be doing something special for my rotating bits..
so... i'm still not convinced I'm not missing something obvious, but when dealing with moving things, you can rely on kinetic energy as a basis. As m@dmike would know (being a fundamental law of physics), energy is always conserved, it doesn't just disappear or appear out of no where. funnilly enough, it's also associative, that is the energy of the system is equal to the energy of all it's parts.
That's not to say the weight of the wheel makes no difference. A heavy wheel will have a higher level of angular momentum. Angular momentum is what keeps a bike upright (more or less) (there's this thing called the right hand rule which explains this... kinda ) so I'm guessing if your wheels are heavier, then cornering on flat or off camber might be a bit more interesting, throwing the bike around in the air will be a bit harder etc... though it might track better down rutted and loose stuff.
why does a 2.5" tyre feel slower... 'cause it is. Again energy is always conserved, but you burn it in so many places, tyre wall flex, tread flex, traction etc... is just some. Then there's having to push 2.5" of rubber through the air at speed, never pretty. moutain biking though has a bunch of different conditions you have to put up with. clearly there are conditions where the 2.5" tyre is optimal. I would suggest there are lots where the maxxlite's are not...
So again... I could be wrong, but at least i've just offered more than a hand waving response. And johnjohn, who's a reasonably well respected cycling professional, has even coughed up some numerical numbers.
so if you are right, then please type something up and explain it, 'cause clearly then I'm missing something? Don't just insult us and respond back with "clearly everbody knows..." 'cause clearly I don't... shows some numbers, and write up... something which proves it. Currently you've done nothing to "Justify your position" other than to waive your hands about and quote some magazine article I don't have.
anyway... i'm done. I wasn't going to say anything but then you started insulting people without actually presenting any facts to your argument
neither Liamo, JohnJohn or myself have claimed that reducing any part of your bike weight will make no difference. We have all equally claimed though that in the scheme of things, it makes bugger all difference if you already have a reasonably light bike. The cost benefit ratio just isn't there for the average punter. all up you might get a couple of percent difference, the difference between the A grade guys and the C grade guys at wsmtb was closer to 30% I some how doubt a set of blingy wheels is going to bridge that...
*shrug*
Cheers
Gonz
lance
Likes Dirt
2 scenarios...
If the question is ' how much extra force is required to accelerate two wheels of different weights (x=2Akgs, @ $400; y=Akgs, @ $1400) to a given velocity?', wouldn't it be solved by putting the bikes in a workstand and hand cranking the wheels up to speed?
I sure know that it only takes a little arm power to get a wheel spinning a certain speed, and then only a marginal extra amount to keep it at that speed.
I also know that my legs are a feck load stronger than my arms, so the little arm strength difference translates into SFA leg power.
Given that highly scientific experiement, i'd save my hard earned $ and put it into something more meaningful, like better brakes, stiffer forks or a better/stiffer/lighter HT frame - all things that I know make me faster (through control/precision/less overall weight to lug around). I'm not going to go out of my way to get light wheels because someone on a internet forum misquoted the factors of influence on some highschool physics.
Alternatively, i'd not work so long because i don't need to earn more $ to spend on lighter wheels, and i'd ride more.
I'd also not waste my time arguing on internet forums with randoms who claim to have written the MTB bible, or have read every authorative article under the sun
Lance.
Or lastly, like my name sake, i'd spend the $ on some good gear. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
If the question is ' how much extra force is required to accelerate two wheels of different weights (x=2Akgs, @ $400; y=Akgs, @ $1400) to a given velocity?', wouldn't it be solved by putting the bikes in a workstand and hand cranking the wheels up to speed?
I sure know that it only takes a little arm power to get a wheel spinning a certain speed, and then only a marginal extra amount to keep it at that speed.
I also know that my legs are a feck load stronger than my arms, so the little arm strength difference translates into SFA leg power.
Given that highly scientific experiement, i'd save my hard earned $ and put it into something more meaningful, like better brakes, stiffer forks or a better/stiffer/lighter HT frame - all things that I know make me faster (through control/precision/less overall weight to lug around). I'm not going to go out of my way to get light wheels because someone on a internet forum misquoted the factors of influence on some highschool physics.
Alternatively, i'd not work so long because i don't need to earn more $ to spend on lighter wheels, and i'd ride more.
I'd also not waste my time arguing on internet forums with randoms who claim to have written the MTB bible, or have read every authorative article under the sun
Lance.
Or lastly, like my name sake, i'd spend the $ on some good gear. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
Last edited:
Let the dust settle and go riding.....
As mentioned much earlier:
POINT 3 - There is little point trying to calculate just how much time a weight saving will make up, because there are TOO MANY VARIABLES to consider that WILL effect the outcomes of any experiment (ie ride)
DaGonz, you have gone into much depth, and i appreciate your efforts to clarify this issue. I think you have nailed everything physical you have mentioned just about square on the head. I have spent countless hours revisiting everything I ever learned at university and now teach in my classrooms, (yes i am willing to admit i am a little rusty too), without being able to give reasonable data. I feel the issue is far to complex to work out in an hour, a day, or a week. Maybe this would make a great thesis topic for a cycling physics nerd to spend their next few years in an attempt to settle our differences of opinion.
I am not disputing the contributing variables you have identified. Good job by the way. Looks like you listened in class more than occasionally. However, i do believe they merely touch the surface of the issue, which is why i am "waving hands" at Willlets very 'simple' experiment. Especially considering the complexity of the Newtons 2nd law (as used in Willett's experiment) when combined with rotational physics, acceleration, deceleration, road friction, wind resistance etc etc etc and the entire host of variables he has absolutely NO control over.
I do beg you to consider one key point though:
Newtons 3rd Law. I'm sure you know it well.
Simply: For every force there is an equal, but opposite force.
ie: the heavier the bike/wheel/whatever, the more force is required to accelerate/decelerate it. I believe this is the crux of our dilemma.
I have spent quite a long time (as the weather has been awful for riding) in an attempt to calculate (quantify) just how much difference it does make to have lighter wheels. I feel it is almost impossible as the variables just keep adding up. It is far too complex for Willet to just say come out and give a percentage.
Saying that wheel weight makes almost no difference is probably a little extreme. Whilst saying that weight makes an "exponential" difference, I know, is far from the truth also. At the end of the day, the rider has to ride the bike! As you suggest; there is a large difference between C grade and A grade. No a new set of wheels will NOT allow a C grader to become a world champ.
As far as dollars spent:weight saved:rider velocity. Sure, the average punter wouldn't see a couple of grand for a new set of lightweight wheels/tires as worth it. But for a few thousand dollars to make a small difference in race times (even if it is only 1 or 2 percent) makes all the difference to a serious competitor. Even a 1% diffence in an expert XC race (say 2hr15mins total) makes a 1min 21secs diffence. That's enough to miss the podium altogether. In a 100km race, 1% would contribute to (approx) 4mins for a pro, maybe 7 or 8 places. Approx 5-6mins for a competitive enthusiast, maybe 10-12 places.
Sure, your average punter doesn't care, but they tuned out a long time ago.
It really depends what sort of rider you are as to how important such an upgrade means for you on race day. If you've got the money to upgrade, and wouldn't mind a lighter rig, i say go for it. At the end of the day it is less for you to lug around the track, and will give you a bit more credit in a weight weenies forum. However, if you've already got a nice light bike, the only thing that will get you out of C grade is spending less time riding your computer chairs and more time on the bike as originally suggested by our good friend Johnie. An idea i must say I am all for.
As mentioned much earlier:
POINT 3 - There is little point trying to calculate just how much time a weight saving will make up, because there are TOO MANY VARIABLES to consider that WILL effect the outcomes of any experiment (ie ride)
DaGonz, you have gone into much depth, and i appreciate your efforts to clarify this issue. I think you have nailed everything physical you have mentioned just about square on the head. I have spent countless hours revisiting everything I ever learned at university and now teach in my classrooms, (yes i am willing to admit i am a little rusty too), without being able to give reasonable data. I feel the issue is far to complex to work out in an hour, a day, or a week. Maybe this would make a great thesis topic for a cycling physics nerd to spend their next few years in an attempt to settle our differences of opinion.
I am not disputing the contributing variables you have identified. Good job by the way. Looks like you listened in class more than occasionally. However, i do believe they merely touch the surface of the issue, which is why i am "waving hands" at Willlets very 'simple' experiment. Especially considering the complexity of the Newtons 2nd law (as used in Willett's experiment) when combined with rotational physics, acceleration, deceleration, road friction, wind resistance etc etc etc and the entire host of variables he has absolutely NO control over.
I do beg you to consider one key point though:
Newtons 3rd Law. I'm sure you know it well.
Simply: For every force there is an equal, but opposite force.
ie: the heavier the bike/wheel/whatever, the more force is required to accelerate/decelerate it. I believe this is the crux of our dilemma.
I have spent quite a long time (as the weather has been awful for riding) in an attempt to calculate (quantify) just how much difference it does make to have lighter wheels. I feel it is almost impossible as the variables just keep adding up. It is far too complex for Willet to just say come out and give a percentage.
Saying that wheel weight makes almost no difference is probably a little extreme. Whilst saying that weight makes an "exponential" difference, I know, is far from the truth also. At the end of the day, the rider has to ride the bike! As you suggest; there is a large difference between C grade and A grade. No a new set of wheels will NOT allow a C grader to become a world champ.
As far as dollars spent:weight saved:rider velocity. Sure, the average punter wouldn't see a couple of grand for a new set of lightweight wheels/tires as worth it. But for a few thousand dollars to make a small difference in race times (even if it is only 1 or 2 percent) makes all the difference to a serious competitor. Even a 1% diffence in an expert XC race (say 2hr15mins total) makes a 1min 21secs diffence. That's enough to miss the podium altogether. In a 100km race, 1% would contribute to (approx) 4mins for a pro, maybe 7 or 8 places. Approx 5-6mins for a competitive enthusiast, maybe 10-12 places.
Sure, your average punter doesn't care, but they tuned out a long time ago.
It really depends what sort of rider you are as to how important such an upgrade means for you on race day. If you've got the money to upgrade, and wouldn't mind a lighter rig, i say go for it. At the end of the day it is less for you to lug around the track, and will give you a bit more credit in a weight weenies forum. However, if you've already got a nice light bike, the only thing that will get you out of C grade is spending less time riding your computer chairs and more time on the bike as originally suggested by our good friend Johnie. An idea i must say I am all for.
Last edited:
Bodin
GMBC
I'm really appreaciative of everyone here who's gone to the trouble of having this argument about weight and wheels. I've learnt something about physics and I've learnt a lot about M@DM!KE. However, nothing anyone has put down has even slightly changed my opinion on the issue of weight.
The fact remains: lighter wheels means a faster bike.
Yes, if you train more, you will ride faster. Yes, bigger tyres help you deal with technical terrain better. But this thread is specifically about an elite-level XC race bike and I think anyone that comes in to a thread about an elite-level XC race bike and claims that lighter wheels don't go faster deserves to have shreds torn off them.
Magazine after magazine recommends that one of the best ways to "spice up your ride" is to throw lighter treads on and regardless of any of the physics equations that have been discussed here at length, nobody can deny that if you take half a kilo of rubber off your bike, you will ride faster on anything but the most technical of trails.
'Nuff said, I reckon...
However, nothing anyone has put down has even slightly changed my opinion on the issue of weight.The fact remains: lighter wheels means a faster bike.
Yes, if you train more, you will ride faster. Yes, bigger tyres help you deal with technical terrain better. But this thread is specifically about an elite-level XC race bike and I think anyone that comes in to a thread about an elite-level XC race bike and claims that lighter wheels don't go faster deserves to have shreds torn off them.
Magazine after magazine recommends that one of the best ways to "spice up your ride" is to throw lighter treads on and regardless of any of the physics equations that have been discussed here at length, nobody can deny that if you take half a kilo of rubber off your bike, you will ride faster on anything but the most technical of trails.
'Nuff said, I reckon...
craign
Likes Dirt
I read somewhere on-line recently, wish I could remember where, about a study on saving weight at the wheels vs. saving non-rotational weight. My hazy recollection is that the study found a very small percentage advantage (i.e. fractions of a percent) to saving the weight on the wheels.
Anyway, ignoring what I may have read, won't the wheel have both kinetic energy in the forward direction (as the whole bicycle is moving forward) and rotational energy? I.e. the total energy of the wheel is its translational kinetic energy and its rotational kinetic energy.
Anyway, ignoring what I may have read, won't the wheel have both kinetic energy in the forward direction (as the whole bicycle is moving forward) and rotational energy? I.e. the total energy of the wheel is its translational kinetic energy and its rotational kinetic energy.
Last edited:
Ok I have been away in Tassie with no farkin internet conection- so being known as bit of a *coughweightweeniecough* I figure I will add some points...liamo said:
Ride a heavy bike say 13kg's of dualie, and then a light bike say 11kg's of dualie- now tell me how much easier the light bike feels. In my opinion 500g (thats 0.5kgs or 1.1lbs) can be felt, I'm not saying that it will help you gain 38seconds over 2 hours but it will make a difference to the handling of said bicycle.
Also who says you need to train 20hrs a week to be fast? Hours is not everything- being efficient in training time wise and the way you go about it, will yeild great results with alot less time. There are NORBA Pro's that only do "15 to 18hrs of training per week", and do queit well for themselves.
To get me back on topic- giants weights will be claimed- somwhat over what they actually are, you wouldn't buy them otherwise
Edit: Bo, sorry I didn't see your latest post until after I typed this up. So forgive me for the delayed response.
Also- to get the thread back on topic...Cam99 said:
In my opinion the Anthem is a better bike, it has more time on the design, more R&D behind it also. Also looking at the Anthem 2's build it's more geared towards being a dual duty bike where as the Trance is more of a play bike.
Very similar spec with the bikes, from the pictres looks like the Anthem might have a sligthly better spec. It will be lighter- with lighter wheels and tyres. The Anthem will also have more of a down low XCish type position vurses the Trances bolt upright trail bike posie.
Idealy, I'd say try and test ride both, base your choice off that- both are good bikes for the price, but one my have better feel for you.
Hope that helps.
King Knobby
Likes Bikes
The Anthems do look schwing, and I'm don't want to talk about light wheels acellerating faster than heavy ones.
In the article on cyclingnews it talks about changing the granny ring and running a 29 in the middle to save weight but how do you do that with the XTR cranks, and wouldnt you have to run a narrower bb so the chain doesn't fall off, how do you do that with the new style bb?
I reckon if you had a bike like that (race bike) you should run 11 to 27 roadie cogs out the back too, smaller gaps and a big lighter too and like the guy said he hardly ever got to the easier gears.
In the article on cyclingnews it talks about changing the granny ring and running a 29 in the middle to save weight but how do you do that with the XTR cranks, and wouldnt you have to run a narrower bb so the chain doesn't fall off, how do you do that with the new style bb?
I reckon if you had a bike like that (race bike) you should run 11 to 27 roadie cogs out the back too, smaller gaps and a big lighter too and like the guy said he hardly ever got to the easier gears.
Grover
Likes Bikes and Dirt
yeah, whoever was doing the review on cyclingnews stuffed that up. to run a 29 tooth middle the cranks must be a 5 bolt compact BCD. The smallest you can run on standard BCD 4 bolt cranks is a 30 tooth and extralite are the only company that make them (that i'm aware of). On the new gen xtr the smallest you can run is a 32 as all the BCD's are different once again.
And yes, it is better to run a narrower bottom bracket but you can't do that with any of the external bearing cranksets. The only way is to do major tuning that gets very expensive and fiddly, especially in australia.
the answer, pull those cranks of, sell them for a mint now that most people want them and put a set of your stockpiled compact bcd raceface turbines and titanium bottom brackets on. oh, did i say that out loud.
you are on the right track though, with external bearing cranks the best option is to run a road cassette, you get a similar gearing spread to a 2x9 setup, you get even less weight. the only thing you don't get is the narrower q factor.
And yes, it is better to run a narrower bottom bracket but you can't do that with any of the external bearing cranksets. The only way is to do major tuning that gets very expensive and fiddly, especially in australia.
the answer, pull those cranks of, sell them for a mint now that most people want them and put a set of your stockpiled compact bcd raceface turbines and titanium bottom brackets on. oh, did i say that out loud.
you are on the right track though, with external bearing cranks the best option is to run a road cassette, you get a similar gearing spread to a 2x9 setup, you get even less weight. the only thing you don't get is the narrower q factor.
You'll be fine on 2 x 9
In an attempt of ultimate weight weeniness, I spent a fortune enlightening my ride. Yes, Extralite were the only company I could find with a 30T chainring. Expect to pay for the privilege. I assumed (bad idea) the XTR cranks were 104mmBCD. My mistake. Of course, Shimano being the monopoly that they are made certain you couldn't bastardise the XTR name and use other brands of chainrings on the XTR cranks by making the BCD a convenient 102.5mm! Pricks!! Anyhow I have a shiny new 30T that i am still itching to use, but i will be keeping her packaged until the new rig arrives.
Anyhow those XTR cranks have since disappeared from my collection, much to my delight. I still haven't decided what cranks I will be putting on my anthem, but one thing is for sure, when it arrives the XTR's are gooone ~ To a more appreciative owner of course. Before all you SRAM lovers start pledging allegiance and try to convince me to buy an anthem 1, forget it. I am at home with a cockpit of dual controls, and a manitou man since the year dot.
I did, for a few races, use a duraace 11-27T combo and rear derailleur. It has all the gears you need for an XC race especially when keeping the granny up front. I figured if you can't climb a hill in 22-27t, get off and run. It is so much quicker that the wall climbing gear (34t)
The Duraace shifted like a dream also, especially being NON RAPID RISE.
However I feel for MTBing the gear ratios are far too close, and you change gears almost twice as much. When riding on undulating terrain or switchbacks it was impossible to change enough gears under braking to be in a good gear at all times.
A 30t chainring-34t cassette gear gives a similar ratio to 22-27 using 2x9 however. And you ditch the granny ring. I survived most of a season using 2x9 with the standard 32 on the front, 34t on the cassette. The soles of my shoes stayed clean all season too.
Many people think the chainline is a real issue using 2 x 9. Do you ever climb in middle and 1? I used to all the time (and still do on my other mtb), because i detest granny ring. It's not like you ride in that gear all day. Chains are better quality than a few years back, i reckon they handle it fine. No probs from my end to report. Either that or go with Grovers option (sell your shiny new cranks) which is also a good idea. Not only did he say that aloud but he has supporters now too. (cue dramatic music)
The big advantage is 2 x 9 = less shifting (especially front chainrings) so therefore more time spent with the hammer down. There's my advice after being there.
In an attempt of ultimate weight weeniness, I spent a fortune enlightening my ride. Yes, Extralite were the only company I could find with a 30T chainring. Expect to pay for the privilege. I assumed (bad idea) the XTR cranks were 104mmBCD. My mistake. Of course, Shimano being the monopoly that they are made certain you couldn't bastardise the XTR name and use other brands of chainrings on the XTR cranks by making the BCD a convenient 102.5mm! Pricks!! Anyhow I have a shiny new 30T that i am still itching to use, but i will be keeping her packaged until the new rig arrives.
Anyhow those XTR cranks have since disappeared from my collection, much to my delight. I still haven't decided what cranks I will be putting on my anthem, but one thing is for sure, when it arrives the XTR's are gooone ~ To a more appreciative owner of course. Before all you SRAM lovers start pledging allegiance and try to convince me to buy an anthem 1, forget it. I am at home with a cockpit of dual controls, and a manitou man since the year dot.
I did, for a few races, use a duraace 11-27T combo and rear derailleur. It has all the gears you need for an XC race especially when keeping the granny up front. I figured if you can't climb a hill in 22-27t, get off and run. It is so much quicker that the wall climbing gear (34t)
The Duraace shifted like a dream also, especially being NON RAPID RISE.
However I feel for MTBing the gear ratios are far too close, and you change gears almost twice as much. When riding on undulating terrain or switchbacks it was impossible to change enough gears under braking to be in a good gear at all times.
A 30t chainring-34t cassette gear gives a similar ratio to 22-27 using 2x9 however. And you ditch the granny ring. I survived most of a season using 2x9 with the standard 32 on the front, 34t on the cassette. The soles of my shoes stayed clean all season too.
Many people think the chainline is a real issue using 2 x 9. Do you ever climb in middle and 1? I used to all the time (and still do on my other mtb), because i detest granny ring. It's not like you ride in that gear all day. Chains are better quality than a few years back, i reckon they handle it fine. No probs from my end to report. Either that or go with Grovers option (sell your shiny new cranks) which is also a good idea. Not only did he say that aloud but he has supporters now too. (cue dramatic music)
The big advantage is 2 x 9 = less shifting (especially front chainrings) so therefore more time spent with the hammer down. There's my advice after being there.
Last edited:
DaGonz
Eats Squid
middleburn...
http://www.middleburn.co.uk/chainrings_duo.php
530gms for the crank set + BB
the also do XTR sized rings and silly spaced XT HT-II middle rings
http://www.middleburn.co.uk/chainrings_mtb.php
I think the distributor in aus is a kite shop which doesn't make alot of sense but you can get 'em through chainreaction cycles in the UK or similar.
dunno... *shrug*
Cheers
Gonz
middleburn do a 2 ring jobbieM@DM!KE said:
http://www.middleburn.co.uk/chainrings_duo.php
530gms for the crank set + BB
the also do XTR sized rings and silly spaced XT HT-II middle rings
http://www.middleburn.co.uk/chainrings_mtb.php
I think the distributor in aus is a kite shop which doesn't make alot of sense but you can get 'em through chainreaction cycles in the UK or similar.
I've been thinking about it for that reason. If I ever setup a race specific rig it would probably be 2x9. I find in most races I rarely get out of middle. Occasionally you just want something a little lower than 1:1, maybe if I ran a 34t cassette instead of 32t I'd not use granny at all on some courses...
dunno... *shrug*
Cheers
Gonz
Grover
Likes Bikes and Dirt
SHHH Mike, don't let all the secrets out. Then we'll suddenly be paying more on ebay for those old 5 bolt cranks that no-one likes. I've got three sets of compact raceface turbines and a set of m952 xtr cranks with a compact spider. I figure that should do me.
I agree that 2x9 is better with the jumps in the cassette in the rear for mtbing. If there is a course that the small jumps are better it is probably pretty flat and you can probably still only need the middle ring anyway.
And yes, Middleburn are a good option. I just don't like using special chainrings mounting designs. It just causes problems later on. My Raceface Turbines with some Boone or Specialities TA rings would be about 530, and that is the real weight - not a claimed weight.
I agree that 2x9 is better with the jumps in the cassette in the rear for mtbing. If there is a course that the small jumps are better it is probably pretty flat and you can probably still only need the middle ring anyway.
And yes, Middleburn are a good option. I just don't like using special chainrings mounting designs. It just causes problems later on. My Raceface Turbines with some Boone or Specialities TA rings would be about 530, and that is the real weight - not a claimed weight.
2 x 9 + 1 x granny = NO TICKER!
I think the so called 'secret' has been out of the bag for a while now. Only those that already run 2 x 9 really appreciate the difference though, don't we? What is apparent is that "granny ringers" have NO HEARTS and obviously a genetic deficiency as far as leg muscles go. It's not their fault, they were born that way. (Deploy sarcastic grin here)
Just about every MBA issue that has a XC pro's bike feature (prob every 2nd edition) doesn't have a granny ring. Why? They don't need it, especially on lightweight duallies which climb so well. It seems even the females are leaving their grannies in the nursing home where they belong. Sorry Nan.
Everyone else can live in their sissy 27 speed bubble as long as they like for all i care.
I think the so called 'secret' has been out of the bag for a while now. Only those that already run 2 x 9 really appreciate the difference though, don't we? What is apparent is that "granny ringers" have NO HEARTS and obviously a genetic deficiency as far as leg muscles go. It's not their fault, they were born that way.
(Deploy sarcastic grin here)Just about every MBA issue that has a XC pro's bike feature (prob every 2nd edition) doesn't have a granny ring. Why? They don't need it, especially on lightweight duallies which climb so well. It seems even the females are leaving their grannies in the nursing home where they belong. Sorry Nan.
Everyone else can live in their sissy 27 speed bubble as long as they like for all i care.
M@DM!KE said:I think the so called 'secret' has been out of the bag for a while now. Only those that already run 2 x 9 really appreciate the difference though, don't we? What is apparent is that "granny ringers" have NO HEARTS and obviously a genetic deficiency as far as leg muscles go. It's not their fault, they were born that way.
Just about every MBA issue that has a XC pro's bike feature (prob every 2nd edition) doesn't have a granny ring. Why? They don't need it, especially on lightweight duallies which climb so well. It seems even the females are leaving their grannies in the nursing home where they belong. Sorry Nan.
Everyone else can live in their sissy 27 speed bubble as long as they like for all i care.
2x9 is all well and good... On a hardtail- but often it just doesn't pedal all that well on a dualie. Personally I like the 3x9 w/ roadie cassette option it's something that worked great for me on the hardtail... OF course- I am a bit of a "flatlander", so hills aren't my favorite aspect, although I had a good time in Launie with the change of terrain profile.
Isn't all the gearing discussion really a cadence one.
As long as your cadence is between 80-95 thats fine
If you go much lower than 75 for long then you should probably change down a gear.
If your in your lowest Granny gear and you can't push a cadence of 60 - then get off the bike and walk you'll probably walk a lot faster ....
As long as your cadence is between 80-95 thats fine
If you go much lower than 75 for long then you should probably change down a gear.
If your in your lowest Granny gear and you can't push a cadence of 60 - then get off the bike and walk you'll probably walk a lot faster ....
Grover
Likes Bikes and Dirt
well yes and no, the argument is that if you're in the granny ring and using the 28,32,34 cog in the rear then even if you can spin at a good cadence it'll be quicker to walk.
plus running 2x9 gets you much more reliable front shifting and a narrower q-factor (which is a biggy if you've got crap knees like me).
On another note: who was the genius that changed the thread title.
plus running 2x9 gets you much more reliable front shifting and a narrower q-factor (which is a biggy if you've got crap knees like me).
On another note: who was the genius that changed the thread title.