home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
- Path: sparky!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!NewsWatcher!user
- From: P.Etheridge@massey.ac.nz (Phil Etheridge)
- Subject: Re: Mathematics of gears and why 24-36-46 is bad
- Message-ID: <P.Etheridge-290193162106@130.123.3.69>
- Followup-To: rec.bicycles.tech
- Sender: news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System)
- Organization: SMIS, Massey University
- References: <93019.193822ASLXG@ASUACAD.BITNET> <C15M40.Loz@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> <C1HJ1o.L1u@acsu.buffalo.edu>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 03:24:02 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- v206gb6c@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PauL M SchwartZ) wrote:
-
- > haverl@cats.ucsc.edu (Carl A Haverl) writes...
-
- [...]
-
- > >The solution? Going back to 26-36-46 solved my problems. Since
- > >gcd(26,36)=2, I have 26/2=13 different shift positions off the small
- > >ring so one of them is bound to line up well. Also, gcd(36,46)=2
- > >so there are 36/2=18 different shift positions off the middle ring to
- > >the larger ring.
- >
- > I can't support this logic. I've been riding 24-36-46 for more that 3
- > years on multiple bikes and have never had this problem. Are you sure your
- > chain is not streched out? I just tried 20 24->36 shifts on the 2 bikes I
- > have with this combo (one XT-RFP and one top-mount DX) and neither failed
- > to shift onto one of the first 3 teeth to come by.
-
- Similarly, while the theory seems plausible, I've had no trouble with
- 24-36-46 in practice either. I was having trouble with my STI front
- shifter (I HATE it, but am neutral wrt STI rear shifters) on the
- granny-middle change until I adjusted the low limit screw and cable slack.
- With those correct, the shifts are flawless (in as far as STI can be.)
-
- --
- Phil Etheridge P.Etheridge@massey.ac.nz
- Macintosh Consultant Phone: +64+6-356-9099 x8689
- SMIS, Massey University Fax: +64+6-350-5611
- Palmerston North, NZ 40*23'S 175*37'E, GMT+13
-