The Derailleur Wars and CHANGE 812 gearing.
Adventure
July 11th 2019
It’s hard to say when the ‘derailleur wars’ started. The basic idea that more gears = better biking goes back to the turn of the century, when riders actually used a gloved hand to shift a moving chain from one rear cog to another cog with one-tooth difference–all on a moving bike, without crashing. That’s a huge commitment to a tiny change in gear ratio.
But the invention of two-chainring shifting with the Simplex Competition front derailleur in 1949 changed everything. Suddenly your total number of gears was double whatever you had on the back. The math competition went into overdrive.
Need twice as many gears in 1949? Just throw this seat tube lever. No leather glove needed.
(Credit bikeraceinfo.com)
And the race was on. A 5-speed rear derailleur was was impressive, until someone doubled it into the once ubiquitous 10-speed. And forget about 6-speeds or even 12-speeds; the newly developing mountain bike industry nearly instantly added a third chainring, and suddenly you needed 18 speeds just to be taken seriously off-road.
That’s how we got here. The CHANGE 612 folding mountain bike has 30 speeds of Shimano rapid-shifting, covering any gear combination you can imagine. While it’s technically possible to have more gear selection, we haven’t heard about it on anyone’s bike anywhere.
Why not?
When less is more.
As the gear ranges expanded on the rear cogs, the main story wasn’t just about jumping single gears anymore. ‘Long arm derailleurs’ made it possible to have a cog range of 25 teeth, 30 teeth or even more. With that range of options, do you even need a middle chain ring?
A 31-tooth range at the cog level, like on this CHANGE 812, means less need for front shifting.
More specifically, as you’re navigating a technical trail and come to a steep hill, do you need the extra gear-change time to pass through the middle chain ring on the way from high gear to low?
This is why a technical debate has been raging in recent years about triple cranks vs. double cranks. Double cranks represent the past, but when combined with the right cog range, they also represent the future.
Nerd moment: we get technical.
To illustrate the gearing point, we’re going to count gear teeth on the CHANGE 612 (triple crank) and CHANGE 812 (double crank) folding mountain bikes and geek out a bit.Both bikes have 10 cogs on the back, but what they do with those gears is critical.
In this chart for a CHANGE 612, green represents the extremes: 3.8 wheel turns per pedals revolution at highest speed, and 0.6 revolutions per pedal revolution during the steepest climb.
The 12 numbers in grey represent a gear combination that is doubled somewhere else–you can adjust both shifters, each to different gears and end up with exactly the same feel because it’s exactly the same gear, achieved in a different way.
Here is the same analysis done on the CHANGE 812 folding mountain bike:
This one has just nine doubled gear combinations, for a more efficient use of gearing. And the total range is pretty similar.
Do you lose anything? Not on steep hills, where you still get 0.6 wheel turns per pedal revolution. But the high end drops from 3.8 to 3.5.
So…in human terms, what does a gear ratio drop from 3.8 to 3.5 at the high end? Using the gear ratio calculator at BikeCalc.com, and a pedaling speed of 90 rpm, we see a drop in highest speed from 25.4 mph to 22.9 mph. When was the last time you pedaled at over 23 mph on a mountain bike?
At the highest speeds on a mountain bike, gear ratio is the least of your concerns.
Some folks also claim that the weight difference of a missing chain ring is a decision factor, to which we say, ‘Ththfffpppt!!!’ It’s less difference than a sip from your water bottle. But there might be a maintenance difference between adjusting the middle ring to work perfectly and not having to care.
So if a modern double crank is better, why is the CHANGE 811 still a triple?
A difference at the high end means one thing for a knobby-tired mountain bike and another for a road-ready all-terrain bike. A triple crank retains the ability to get that last couple of miles per hour in high gear speed, which can easily happen on a paved road. (The CHANGE 811 even gets up to a 4.0 ratio).
At the same time, the largest rear cog on the CHANGE 811 folding rugged hybrid has also jumped from a 34 to a 36, providing a bit more ability to get a loaded touring bike up a steep hill. An upgrade, even while retaining 3*9 triple-crank gearing.
Final thoughts.
The simple phone question that started this blog was, ‘Are the newer bike components better?’
Your drive train is arguably the most important component set, and both the CHANGE 811 and especially the CHANGE 812 drive trains have been upgraded. The brakes are the same, but you’ve got better pedals. So overall, I’d have to say that, even at the component level, the new bikes are a step up in a subtle way.
Ultimately, the ‘derailleur wars’ are over. The old standby of counting gears and aiming for the highest number has given way to an era of nuance, in which the best number of gears is the right range and selection for what you are doing.
- Mountain bikes? Simplify, with lots of choice at the low end.
- Touring/gravel bikes? Maximize range, for the many ways you’re going to use them.
- Racing bikes? Simplify, with lots of choice at the high end (and a couple of large cogs in case of hills).
Ride on…and use those shifters!
Bob Forgrave is president of Flatbike, an
ecommerce company offering full-size folding bikes
and kits to make any bike take up half the space.
425-985-6219
8 responses to “The Derailleur Wars and CHANGE 812 gearing.”
What is the proper way to downshift the 611 while going uphill from front gear 2 and rear gear 1? When you shift the front to gear 1 the pedals are spinning like crazy. What rear gear would be the next go to? Conversely how do you shift from front gear 2 and rear gear 9 to front gear 3 and then rear gear what? What is the proper technique? Thanks…
Great comments, Ron. It’s actually best not to obsess about the numbers. Generally, you’ll find yourself “living” in one of the chain rings–small for uphills, medium for rolling hills, large for flat or downhill–and shifting mostly at the back. Then, when a major change in terrain occurs, such as a major hill, one shift at the front end gets you in position to address that new challenge or opportunity.
With my 611, I typically ride in the largest chain ring, then switch to the middle ring when I have a large hill. Once I hit that big hill, since I’m not the smallest chain ring, I drop my gears in the back until I’m at the absolute lowest gear there. And If my hill were longer, or it were a particularly tough day at work, I’ve still got 1/3 of my gearing to drop down into if I run out of energy.
Yes quite correct it’s also a feel memory thing too based on experience which comes quickly but the main point being Do Not Be Anal, just be gentle. If you have to hit it with a hammer or extend the leavers you are doing something wrong. Take it steady change in plenty time and back off on pedal pressure whilst changing . I prefer IGH my self, take a look at them too.
Totally agree. There’s plenty of time to put the hammer down after the 5 seconds it takes to gently change your gear!
Wow Mountain bicycles did not invent triple chainrings in the front. I have a 1975 Atalat with a T.A triple
crankset . I used a Schwinn Sierra triple crank \ 3 cog freewheel conversion for a 3 speed Sturmey Archer Hub . Yielding 27 speeds. Hi gear was 220 inches per crank revolution . Low gear gave a wheelie with hands on the drops and butt on saddle pushing down on pedal 1\4 turn. On a 45 pound Schwinn 26 ” steel bike. Never ran out of hi gear downhill in N.J. Watchung Mtns.
3X3X3=27
You are completely correct, Terry. Schwinn changed the term Alpine Gearing in the 1970’s from describing a large gear ratio change (usually as a “granny gear” sprocket) to a marketing term for their line of triple chainring cranks.
And before that, in the 60’s racers were using Campagnolo triple cranks, bolting on a smaller chainring. This article even has an example of a bolted-on quadruple crank from that era!
Putting it all together, triple cranks started with racers in the 60’s, got commercialized with Schwinn in the 70’s, then became an industry phenomenon with mountain bikes of all brands.
I have been researching this 3-ring vs. 2-ring topic since all 3 of my geared mountain bikes have 3…
I prefer 3 because it allows me to keep the chain more straight and in-line… I use granny ring when in 1-3 in the rear, middle ring when in 3-7 in the rear, and big ring when in 7-10 in the rear. This keeps my chain from getting too skewed horizontally… and it seems like if the more skewed the chain gets horizontally, the more strain its going to be under, and ultimately itt will stretch more quickly. Any comments on this?
Great comments, Mike. You definitely get the largest range with a triple crank. And for folks who are aware of chain lines (like you!) a triple will still continue to be a valuable option. (That’s how our CHANGE 811 full-size folding hybrid can range from the lowest gear of any of our bikes to near the highest also.)
With regards to maintenance, there’s more than chainline at play. If you’re a average 150-lb rider with a typical 170mm crank who stands on the pedals to climb tough hills, that’s the equivalent force of a bag and a half of cement repeatedly bouncing at the end of a bike chain make up of 116 separate links. Pulling at an angle with a non-recommended gear selection isn’t greater than that, but it’s not helping either. On the other hand, if you’re riding in a relaxed manner with a non-recommended gear selection . . . at least you’re not putting all your body weight on each pedal.
Overall, it’s best to think of a chain as a slow-burn consumable. Depending upon how much and how hard you ride, it makes sense to replace it every 1-5 years.