Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - Anyone run low teeth combos to save weight?

This is for a singlespeed.

I'm thinking I could save some weight by running a low teeth combo of chainring & cog like a 34 x 12 which equals 74.5 gear inches.

Anyone do this? How much weight savings? Would it be worth it for a closet weight weenie?

I figure the chain would be shorter and the smaller chainring and cog would help shave off some weight. :innocent:

I know less teeth would mean faster wear, but I am not worried too much about that since chains are relatively cheap.

Do consider that when you run a rear cog with less than 14 teeth you decrease efficiency and will experience greater drive train wear than you would by running a larger combination.

what do you mean by efficiency?

Has anyone considered filling their innertubes with helium?

A drive train using a 52/18 will give you about 74 gear inches and with this the chain engages more teeth and with greater engagement stresses on the chain, chain ring, and drive cog are reduced.

OK. Would 39 x 14 be an acceptable balance then? or should I go for more teeth?

what do you mean by efficiency?
ef·fi·cien·cy

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/E00/E0054400) /ɪˈfɪʃhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngənhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsi/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[ih-fish-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn-see]
–noun, plural -cies. 1. the state or quality of being efficient; competency (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/competency) in performance.

2. accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry's efficiency.

3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.

4. efficiency apartment. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/efficiency+apartment)

I use 39x16 for my all around gear.

I think I'm going to go for 39 x 14 and see how long my drivetrain last. I've went to weight weenies.com and 34 x 12 and the 7 links that it would save me only 23 grams. Not worth it. Just another crack pipe dream of mine. Thanks for the input.

I think I'm going to go for 39 x 14 and see how long my drivetrain last. I've went to weight weenies.com and 34 x 12 and the 7 links that it would save me only 23 grams. Not worth it. Just another crack pipe dream of mine. Thanks for the input.

You do understand you could save 10 times more weight than that by drinking a cup less water dont you?

Mine came with 46/16. I think I'd only change it out if it became too easy to pedal and I felt like I was at a point where I could constantly ride it with a stronger GI. Riding with the wind, there have been occasions where I wished the gear was stronger, but riding into enough of a head wind the gear could probably be weaker. A couple of weeks back I rode about 12.5 miles into a 25 mph NE'er, 46/16 was slow going. The ride back was way to easy. That ride was strange, I figure I was matching the wind speed, it was like there was no wind at all coming home. But getting to the 1/2 point to turn around was more workout than I wanted.

As for fewer teeth to save weight, there isn't enough difference to matter really.

Yeah, it will work. But, you'd probably save more weight in a more effective way by switching to lighter tires and tubes.

Going the weight weenie route is a slippery slope. But, I won't say it's not worth it. Without trying hard, I got this 57cm bike to 16lbs (including the rear light and MTB pedals) and it climbed like a dream.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4546861518_1b421b1816_z.jpg

Has anyone considered filling their innertubes with helium?
But hydrogen is lighter!

OP, if you really want to be a weight weenie, focus on big things like frame material. The number of teeth in a cog is not going to make an appreciable difference, especially if you're not running the gear inches that are best for you . . .

Smaller sized ratio will stretch and snap chains much easier than a larger ratio.

I'd go with something larger like 45/16 or 47/17, both of which will give you a very similar ratio.

Cheap-ish ways to shave lbs from an "normal" FG bike. This is assuming you have a budget bike.

- Lightweight tires
- Lightweight tubes
- Lightweight chain
- Alloy (not steel) bars
- Lighter seatpost (take-off from a road bike)
- Road clipless pedals
- Lightweight saddle

Not-so-cheap ways:
- Cranks
- Wheels (Lots of weight savings possible here. Mavic Ellipse are my all-time super-light but strong wheelset)
- Frame (Aluminum and Carbon come in about the same. Anything but steel.)



Of course, none of this makes much sense if you are gonna ride around in blue jeans, tshirt, shirt, and a wool jacket with a XL messenger bag with random stuff in it. You could spend hundreds of dollars removing 5 lbs from your bike...or you could clean out your bag.

Yeah, it will work. But, you'd probably save more weight in a more effective way by switching to lighter tires and tubes.

Going the weight weenie route is a slippery slope. But, I won't say it's not worth it. Without trying hard, I got this 57cm bike to 16lbs (including the rear light and MTB pedals) and it climbed like a dream.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4546861518_1b421b1816_z.jpg
That's awesome. Would you mind posting the specs?

That's awesome. Would you mind posting the specs?

Thanks.

That bike was like 2005. This is from memory:

- Vittoria something "Pro" tires. $60 a pop. They were light and sticky. Not for skidding for fun.
- Continental Lite tubes
- Sugino 75 with 48t Sugino Zen ring
- TIME ATAC pedals
- Mavic Ellipse wheels (stickers removed)
- Profile Airwing bars with cloth tape
- Fizik Arione saddle with stock seatpost
- KMC K710 chain (stock for that bike)
- Euro Asia 18t cog
- Stock stem

I would guess that a lightweight chain (K710 is heavy) and Dura Ace pedals would have that bike in the 15lb area for sure.

I run 38x15 on my SS cyclocross bike with cyclocross tires during the 3 or 4 coldest months. I mostly use it for commuting, especially in bad weather. Works great in poor weather and having the small chainring gives me the option of gearing it even lower if needed, which I occasionally do. I use a Surly steel chainring to minimize wear and in the warmer months, I swap my chainring and cog out for a 48x17 and install road tires.

Cheap-ish ways to shave lbs from an "normal" FG bike. This is assuming you have a budget bike.

- Lightweight tires
- Lightweight tubes
- Lightweight chain
- Alloy (not steel) bars
- Lighter seatpost (take-off from a road bike)
- Road clipless pedals
- Lightweight saddle

Not-so-cheap ways:
- Cranks
- Wheels (Lots of weight savings possible here. Mavic Ellipse are my all-time super-light but strong wheelset)
- Frame (Aluminum and Carbon come in about the same. Anything but steel.)



Of course, none of this makes much sense if you are gonna ride around in blue jeans, tshirt, shirt, and a wool jacket with a XL messenger bag with random stuff in it. You could spend hundreds of dollars removing 5 lbs from your bike...or you could clean out your bag.

You forgot full carbon fork.


Thanks.

That bike was like 2005. This is from memory:

- Vittoria something "Pro" tires. $60 a pop. They were light and sticky. Not for skidding for fun.
- Continental Lite tubes
- Sugino 75 with 48t Sugino Zen ring
- TIME ATAC pedals
- Mavic Ellipse wheels (stickers removed)
- Profile Airwing bars with cloth tape
- Fizik Arione saddle with stock seatpost
- KMC K710 chain (stock for that bike)
- Euro Asia 18t cog
- Stock stem

I would guess that a lightweight chain (K710 is heavy) and Dura Ace pedals would have that bike in the 15lb area for sure.

How much did those stickers weigh?

This dood (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=656281)knows how to lose weight/money on a bike.

I don't think anyone goes with low teeth for the reason to save weight. That just sounds silly.

How much did those stickers weigh?

Not much. I took the stickers off for the look, not to save weight. But there were a lot of them and lots of glue. I mentioned the removal because people often ask me "What wheels are those?" because it's unusual to see them with no stickers.

This is for a singlespeed.

I'm thinking I could save some weight by running a low teeth combo of chainring & cog like a 34 x 12 which equals 74.5 gear inches.

Anyone do this? How much weight savings? Would it be worth it for a closet weight weenie?

I figure the chain would be shorter and the smaller chainring and cog would help shave off some weight. :innocent:

I know less teeth would mean faster wear, but I am not worried too much about that since chains are relatively cheap.

loving 531 seems to be weighing on you. steel is fail.

The reduced efficiency will make a much, much bigger difference than the couple grams of weight savings. T

Not much. I took the stickers off for the look, not to save weight. But there were a lot of them and lots of glue. I mentioned the removal because people often ask me "What wheels are those?" because it's unusual to see them with no stickers.

What was the weight of the bike when it was stock? I'm guessing in the 20s. but I could be wrong.

Also, if you really want to save weight, get out the drill press.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4742233037_2a73edb725_z.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dRWnjfB40FI/ShKLcPZ0d5I/AAAAAAAAAcg/ofu_Pxuw1aA/s1600-h/WitcbTkL.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z96/specialyblended/alfs3.jpg


Why not go skip-tooth as well if you are willing to sacrifice wear/efficiency! :)

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/m/mI3dW8zAFCN_hcWS0IvpAFA/140.jpg

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3561856/2007/11/8/chater_lea_25.jpg

The reduced efficiency will make a much, much bigger difference than the couple grams of weight savings. T

+1 This is probably the worst possible way to save weight.

In fact, I highly recommend doing the opposite: use the largest chainring and largest cog you can find in order to reduce drivetrain losses. It's one of the best weight investments you can make on your bike (worth throwing out your water bottle or drilling holes in your frame if you need to stay below a certain maximum weight).

The reduced efficiency will make a much, much bigger difference than the couple grams of weight savings. T


+1 This is probably the worst possible way to save weight.

In fact, I highly recommend doing the opposite: use the largest chainring and largest cog you can find in order to reduce drivetrain losses. It's one of the best weight investments you can make on your bike (worth throwing out your water bottle or drilling holes in your frame if you need to stay below a certain maximum weight).

its not that big of a difference.

its not that big of a difference.

Donno, I have two bikes (both less than 4 years old) with almost the exact same gearing, one has a 38t chainring and the other a 48t, both roughly the same quality. Maybe it is just me, but I can feel the difference between the two.

tires will have a much greater difference difference. though to a lesser extent, overall weight is also a bigger factor, and even its effect is quite small.

chain circle diameter is something to worry about once youve got aerodynamic carbon ceramic everything, and your sponsor is paying for your custom pulleys or what have you.

with that said, i use a 52t because it is better than the other, smaller chainring that came with my road cranks, and i had to buy a cog anyway.

Why stop at 14T? You can get BMX flip-flop hubs that will go down to 9T drivers... ;) with a 25T BMX chainring! LOL

(I'm a complete freak, that was just a joke... unless you like BMX stuff, in which case put whatever you want on your bike.)