Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was told by a big box dealer, that being able to climb hills is mostly dependent on the number of gears in the front sprocket because the front sprocket if for hills and the back sprocket is for speed.

Is this accurate?

So if I looked at a bike that had only 2 front gears and another that had 3 front gears and the weight is the bikes were approximately the same, I should look at the one with the 3 front gears if climbing hills are a concern?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Is that accurate? No.

In general, you'll have a spread of gear ratios no matter if you have two chainrings up front, or three, with whatever commensurate number of cogs in the rear cassette (front and rear "gears")

In other words, you can replicate the spread of ratios of a bike with three chainrings up front on a bike with two chainrings up front, as long as you vary the rear cassette to match.

It will also depend on what you consider "hills," and your fitness level. Different people will take the same "hill" in different gears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,083 Posts
prchoudh said:
I was told by a big box dealer, that being able to climb hills is mostly dependent on the number of gears in the front sprocket because the front sprocket if for hills and the back sprocket is for speed.

Is this accurate?

So if I looked at a bike that had only 2 front gears and another that had 3 front gears and the weight is the bikes were approximately the same, I should look at the one with the 3 front gears if climbing hills are a concern?
Generally yes a three ring crankset will have a lower granny gear for climbing up steep hills than a two ring crankset.

So yeah a 3 ring is probably better for climbing.

A two ring crankset is usually seen on road bikes, so yeah they will be set-up to go faster.

For an MTB with a triple front

In the end a low granny gear for climbing has a 22 front / 34 rear for a gear ratio of 0.65

The high gear might be 44/11 for a gear ratio of 4.0

For a road bike with a doouble front

Low gear might be 32/26 gear ratio of 1.23, high gear might be 52/11 or 4.7

Also road stuff has larger diameter wheels so that makes the gear feel taller....by the diameter ratio. So it can feel about 10% harder....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,670 Posts
prchoudh said:
I was told by a big box dealer, that being able to climb hills is mostly dependent on the number of gears in the front sprocket because the front sprocket if for hills and the back sprocket is for speed.

Is this accurate?

So if I looked at a bike that had only 2 front gears and another that had 3 front gears and the weight is the bikes were approximately the same, I should look at the one with the 3 front gears if climbing hills are a concern?
Is this accurate? Not only inaccurate, it totally clueless.

Both the front rings and the rear cogs work together with the chain to provide propulsion. The ratio of the number of ring teeth (front) to the number cog teeth (rear) determines how much (if any) of a mechanical advantage you gain; i.e, how easy it is to pedal. The smallest ring in front combined with the largest cog in back will give you the easiest pedaling. It's easier because the bike doesn't move as far with each pedal spin, so you're actually doing less work, making it easier to pedal.

I'd answer your second question with a "yes". The smallest ring on a 3 ring crank set will be smaller than the small ring on a two ring crank set, giving you lower gearing options.
 

·
R.I.P. DogFriend
Joined
·
6,891 Posts
There are several two ring cranks that have just as low or lower tooth count small chainrings. Too many different chainring combos available to generalize these days. You can get two ring cranks with 22/36 chainrings and you can get three ring cranks with 24t and 26t small chainrings.

The salesman at the big box store the OP visited sounds as though he may indeed be clueless. If you really want to know how the gearing compares, you'll have to know the actual tooth counts on the chainrings and the cassette being used.

Reminds me of the dork working at Best Buy that tried to convince me that the 'power conditioner' I supposedly needed actually converted the 120v ac to dc power and that my home stereo amp and DLP television would work perfectly on that dc power :skep: Said he went to a two day seminar in AZ where he learned all about it :madman:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
jeffj said:
Reminds me of the dork working at Best Buy that tried to convince me that the 'power conditioner' I supposedly needed actually converted the 120v ac to dc power and that my home stereo amp and DLP television would work perfectly on that dc power :skep: Said he went to a two day seminar in AZ where he learned all about it :madman:
Typically the first thing your tv, stero or whatever does is turn ac power to DC via a power supply. The power conditioner would work. Sorry for the slight highjack.
 

·
R.I.P. DogFriend
Joined
·
6,891 Posts
Jeff in Bend said:
Typically the first thing your tv, stero or whatever does is turn ac power to DC via a power supply. The power conditioner would work. Sorry for the slight highjack.
Yes, the power conditioner would work, but it didn't output DC power to those outlets on the back of the unit.

From the 'power conditioner' website:

"10 AC outlets for AC surge and spike protection."

Regardless of what happens on the inside of your stereo or TV, you can't plug your TV or stereo into DC power and expect it to work. You need to plug it (the stereo or TV) into AC power (unless it was designed for both AC or DC input, like those made for use in an RV).

Apologies for the threadjack.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top