Puy de Dome
Comments
-
Its gone forever now, due to new rail construction work. I believe it is still possible to ride up what is now a pedestrian pathway but only on certain days and you have be finished by 9am.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0
-
A great pity..........scene of one of the most iconic cycling photos ever
0 -
As my Dad said when he saw the kierin last night, "That guy on the motorbike seems to have an unfair advantage"...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Is it my eye site or are their small chainrings huge compared to modern bikes (either that or the big ring is smaller)?0
-
I think 42s or 43s were standard "back in the day"
I got my first road bike in about 1994 and it had 42x23 as bottom gear. Nearly killed me when I tried to take it up the steep bit of Cheddar Gorge.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
42 is standard on my own bike together with a 52. Until 6 months ago I'd never had a gear smaller than 42 x 21 (Cheddar was easy compared to some around my parts
) but those chainrings look bigger still :shock: 0 -
You were looky, granny gear to us were 82X14 on bikes with tubes made from Forth rail bridge leftovers and wooden tyres...Pross wrote:42 is standard on my own bike together with a 52. Until 6 months ago I'd never had a gear smaller than 42 x 21 (Cheddar was easy compared to some around my parts ) but those chainrings look bigger still :shock:
Actually 52/42 with 12/23 is what I had on the Rusty Raleigh (early 90s) for the first few months I had it, am I right in thinking that was basically about the norm until recently when the lower gears / faster cadence style has taken over? I really can't remember quite how I managed to get up hills that still feel tough in 39X28, and I am fitter now.0 -
bompington wrote:
You were looky, granny gear to us were 82X14 on bikes with tubes made from Forth rail bridge leftovers and wooden tyres...Pross wrote:42 is standard on my own bike together with a 52. Until 6 months ago I'd never had a gear smaller than 42 x 21 (Cheddar was easy compared to some around my parts ) but those chainrings look bigger still :shock:
Actually 52/42 with 12/23 is what I had on the Rusty Raleigh (early 90s) for the first few months I had it, am I right in thinking that was basically about the norm until recently when the lower gears / faster cadence style has taken over? I really can't remember quite how I managed to get up hills that still feel tough in 39X28, and I am fitter now.
Are you sure you're not all from Yorkshire? "In my day, t'wheels on me biiike were square, we coul'n't afard none of this 'ere circle tyres..."0 -
Sorry for going OT (although my original point was in reference to the pic so on topic to be fair)!
Mid 90's I remember people going more to 53 / 39 chainsets (wimps as they were known
), I guess the introduction of 9/10/11 speeds has since allowed an increase in the rear sprocket without the big jumps that were required in the past. An old guy in my club produced a titanium chainset in the mid 90's (he was in some engineering industry - submarines I think - when titanium started to make its way into cycling). He produced it as what we now know as a compact, I'm sure others had produced one before but this was the first time I'd seen one. One of my club mates was supplied with this drivetrain to ride in Premier Calendar events and got laughed at when he first turned up with it so yes, small chainrings certainly seem to be a relatively modern thing.
But, to get back on topic, the photo looks more like a 44 or something similar. Could just be as I am now used to seeing chainrings with that 14 tooth gap rather than a 10 tooth.
I'm not even old (or a Yorkshireman) sorry :oops: 0 -
Pross wrote:But, to get back on topic, the photo looks more like a 44 or something similar. Could just be as I am now used to seeing chainrings with that 14 tooth gap rather than a 10 tooth.
Your on the right lines with 10 tooth.
We had 10 gears to chose from (that is a 5 sprocket) and in an attempt to keep the racing gears without big differentials and to spread the range.
It was normal to have a 50/48 or some such small difference on the chainwheel.
If you look at the picture you will find the gear levers are on the downtube and when under pressure with only one hand on the bars while you changed gear, is a possible reason they are shoulder touching in the picture. It often happened.
You may scoff at that 50 or maybe 52 but I cannot put my hand on the gearing used when they rode the Hour records and the big jumps in the gearing used by Anquetil thro Moser, Indurain,Rominger and Boardman to establish the "Then & Now" scene.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
-
deejay wrote:You may scoff at that 50 or maybe 52 but I cannot put my hand on the gearing used when they rode the Hour records and the big jumps in the gearing used by Anquetil thro Moser, Indurain,Rominger and Boardman to establish the "Then & Now" scene.
Surely, they all rode fixed for the hour attempts...0 -
This one got me thinking--- When I was a young rider many years ago I can remember riding with 52/42 and a 6 block behind. My easiest gear was a 42 x 24, which I would struggle up st. patricks hill in Cork on.... These days I have a 39 x 25... but havent been back to St Patricks hill in a while to try it out...
So here is a comparison of gear ratios found at http://veloroutes.org/tools/
42 x 24 = 47 gear inches which is the equivalent in today's money of 39 x 22
42 x 21 = todays 39 x 20
as for big rings
52 x 12 = 53 x13
So todays bigger big rings and smaller small rings dont necessarily always mean that we are pushing bigger or smaller gears... ... em .... I think....**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
When I got into cycling about 8 years ago I bought an old Mercian with a bottom gear of 42*19 - I thought that was everyone had - did me for riding round Derbyshire - maybe I should go back I'm sure I climbed better then than now.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I'm sure I recently read a quote by Paul Kimmage that said that it was normal to ride on a lowest gear of 42x210
-
No, a lot of pros used a 39T ring on the mountain stages. But no more than 39X23, although some had their peculiarities, for example a 41T etc.
Today many rides use 39x25 as the default for a mountain stage, but that's because it's only in recent years that you've had more gears on the bike. Before 1990, 7 speed cassettes/freewheels were the norm, you couldn't put a 25 sprocket without losing something in the middle of the range.0 -
Yep, I was racing 89 to 96 and the norm then was 6 or 7 speed cassettes (8 latterly) with 13-21 or 15-21 (3/J). I also had a straight through 12-18 for TTs and these were paired with 52-42 at the front. I think the 53-39 was the standard European setup which eventually filtered over here. It may well be based on DeeJay's post that they are using a 50 and 42 in that pic. It's just that the 2 rings look remarkably similar in size.0
-
For anywhere without steep climbs a 42 ring is much nicer than a 39.
Hard to tell from the picture above but they maybe riding a 48,44 or something similar.0 -
Doh. of course they did but that example (of the "Then & Now") is the best I could come up with for you doe doe's to even grasp what the gear ratio's were like when that picture was taken. (that's what the thread is about)Garry H wrote:deejay wrote:You may scoff at that 50 or maybe 52 but I cannot put my hand on the gearing used when they rode the Hour records and the big jumps in the gearing used by Anquetil thro Moser, Indurain,Rominger and Boardman to establish the "Then & Now" scene.
Surely, they all rode fixed for the hour attempts...
Tourists used 40-44 chainrings maybe but I never came up against that size in competition in the South of England.
OK this will date me even further as I started bunch racing with a 4 block and a Simplex Double Clanger which you can tell from that slang, you would have trouble changing a 50 to a 44 (or rather the other way) and so you kept them as close as possible.
How ever on our fortnight holiday to the Alps we took off our 49/48/47's inner ring and replaced it with the 41/42/44 sizes. This meant that to get back to the outer ring it was easier to stop and put it there yourself, even with the new campag 5 blocks.(well we had the heavy saddlebags to cope with as well)
Life is so much easier these days with shorter working hours, longer holidays and the modern transport available plus not having to use your arms to change gear but whatever gear you select, it still needs the effort to be turned to get somewhere. !
That remains the same, so keep the wheels turning. Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Coppi and co used 45s. 42s came in the 60s. 39s in the eighties.
On ridiculous climbs like the Angliru and Zoncolan, compacts are typical. Contador won in 2008 in 34x28 and in the 2007 Giro, many used 34x29 including Di Luca.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:
On ridiculous climbs like the Angliru and Zoncolan, compacts are typical. Contador won in 2008 in 34x28 and in the 2007 Giro, many used 34x29 including Di Luca.
Is 34x29 a brand of EPO? Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
