Chainring recommendations?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Chainring recommendations?
Thinking about getting some new (smaller) chainrings for the Davidson to make the gearing more sensible for my terrain. The bike has a DA 8 speed group.
The bike is set up as I bought it, with 42/53 rings and a 12-21 cassette. I rarely ride in a gear larger than 80-85 inches, so for the large ring I am essentially relegated to cross-chaining to the inner cogs.
Of course I could change the cassette, but I like the small jumps, and being a flatlander, I don't need much range. So my tentative plan is to change the rings to 38/48, which will give me way more range than I need, while allowing me to keep the small jumps, and spend most of my time on the big ring with a decent chainline. Comments on this plan are welcome.
Assuming I decide to go ahead with this plan, I'm looking at 3 options at Ribble:
1. Stronglight Dural: these are 5083 alloy and the least expensive option; about $27 for the pair plus shipping. I've seen mixed reviews and wonder about their longevity. They are sold as 8/9/10 speed.
2. Stronglight Zicral: these are 7075 alloy and would be about $60/pr plus shipping. I gather from various reviews and from this comparison that they would last longer. I am also led to believe that they have a nicer finish than the Dural ones. These are listed as 9/10 speed. Would they even work with 8 speed? I don't have all that much experience with indexed anything.
3. TA: these are also 7075 alloy, and, at about $70/pr plus shipping, are the most expensive option. Are they better than Stronglight? They are listed as 8/9/10 compatible.
Are there other options I should consider?
The bike is set up as I bought it, with 42/53 rings and a 12-21 cassette. I rarely ride in a gear larger than 80-85 inches, so for the large ring I am essentially relegated to cross-chaining to the inner cogs.
Of course I could change the cassette, but I like the small jumps, and being a flatlander, I don't need much range. So my tentative plan is to change the rings to 38/48, which will give me way more range than I need, while allowing me to keep the small jumps, and spend most of my time on the big ring with a decent chainline. Comments on this plan are welcome.
Assuming I decide to go ahead with this plan, I'm looking at 3 options at Ribble:
1. Stronglight Dural: these are 5083 alloy and the least expensive option; about $27 for the pair plus shipping. I've seen mixed reviews and wonder about their longevity. They are sold as 8/9/10 speed.
2. Stronglight Zicral: these are 7075 alloy and would be about $60/pr plus shipping. I gather from various reviews and from this comparison that they would last longer. I am also led to believe that they have a nicer finish than the Dural ones. These are listed as 9/10 speed. Would they even work with 8 speed? I don't have all that much experience with indexed anything.
3. TA: these are also 7075 alloy, and, at about $70/pr plus shipping, are the most expensive option. Are they better than Stronglight? They are listed as 8/9/10 compatible.
Are there other options I should consider?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,643
Bikes: 1997 Rivendell Road Standard 650b conversion (tourer), 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10 (gravel/tour), 2013 Foundry Auger disc (CX/gravel), 2016 Cannondale Fat CAAD 2 (MTB/winter), 2011 Cannondale Flash 29er Lefty (trail MTB)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
If those ring sizes will give you the gearing you want, then it's a decent plan. The only possible hitch I see is if you can't lower your front derailer enough. But it's not a big change, and friction front shifting is more forgiving, so it should work out.
The 7075 rings should last longer than the softer alloy ones. I can't attest that the TA ones would be better than Stronglight, but historically TA seems to be the premium brand.
10 and 11 speed -compatible chain rings are thinner than 8 and 9 speed ones. They should work fine with the wider chain, but the opposite (wide 8 speed chainrings with narrow 11 speed chain) doesn't work. If you stick with an 8 speed cassette and chain, you shouldn't have problems with 10speed-compatible rings on your DA crank.
Those prices on Ribble are pretty great; nobody in the US seems to carry replacement rings for reasonable prices. I know where I'm going when I wear out another set of rings on my Campagnolo crank.
The 7075 rings should last longer than the softer alloy ones. I can't attest that the TA ones would be better than Stronglight, but historically TA seems to be the premium brand.
10 and 11 speed -compatible chain rings are thinner than 8 and 9 speed ones. They should work fine with the wider chain, but the opposite (wide 8 speed chainrings with narrow 11 speed chain) doesn't work. If you stick with an 8 speed cassette and chain, you shouldn't have problems with 10speed-compatible rings on your DA crank.
Those prices on Ribble are pretty great; nobody in the US seems to carry replacement rings for reasonable prices. I know where I'm going when I wear out another set of rings on my Campagnolo crank.
#3
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,627
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
I've had good results with plain ol' Sugino rings (48/38 shown here):
They were described as "5000" alloy, which is undoubtedly softer than 6061 or 7075, but I don't wear out chainrings very fast, especially ones this size. If you know that you're going to like that combo and put a lot of miles on it, then might as well spring for the expensive 7075 ones. Although I can't help but think the $/mile probably comes out to a wash in the end -- the Zicrals would need to last a little more than twice as long as the Durals to be worth the price.
Thin chainring spacers can be used if the 10/11 speed rings end up too close together.
They were described as "5000" alloy, which is undoubtedly softer than 6061 or 7075, but I don't wear out chainrings very fast, especially ones this size. If you know that you're going to like that combo and put a lot of miles on it, then might as well spring for the expensive 7075 ones. Although I can't help but think the $/mile probably comes out to a wash in the end -- the Zicrals would need to last a little more than twice as long as the Durals to be worth the price.
Thin chainring spacers can be used if the 10/11 speed rings end up too close together.
__________________
RUSA #7498
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
Last edited by ThermionicScott; 10-13-15 at 10:18 AM.
#4
Freewheel Medic
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: An Island on the Coast of GA!
Posts: 12,881
Bikes: Snazzy* Schwinns, Classy Cannondales & a Super Pro Aero Lotus (* Ed.)
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1452 Post(s)
Liked 2,186 Times
in
961 Posts
What about just changing the chainrings? You don't mention the model crankset you are currently using, but if it is Dura Ace or another Shimano road crankset, the BCD should be 130. 38T and 48T 130BCD chainrings are available in a range of prices from many different manufacturers. Just another route to possibly travel.
__________________
Bob
Enjoying the GA coast all year long!
Thanks for visiting my website: www.freewheelspa.com
Bob
Enjoying the GA coast all year long!
Thanks for visiting my website: www.freewheelspa.com
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The bike has STI levers, so no, it's not friction.
Pastorbob, changing the rings is in fact what I am proposing, although, having played around some more with a gear calculator, I'm thinking maybe just the big ring.
#6
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,627
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,643
Bikes: 1997 Rivendell Road Standard 650b conversion (tourer), 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10 (gravel/tour), 2013 Foundry Auger disc (CX/gravel), 2016 Cannondale Fat CAAD 2 (MTB/winter), 2011 Cannondale Flash 29er Lefty (trail MTB)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
That said, yours still should work fine with the 48T big ring if you can lower the FD a mm or two.
I bet you could find a used 39T inner ring for $5 or less, if you want a little lower range for cheap. They're extremely common in 130 BCD; 52/39 was (and still is) a popular double road crankset.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
#9
Senior Member
I'm also a flat lander and I've put my 7400 12-21T into the parts bin in favor of a 13-23T, low 70 GI to upper 80 Gi has me roughly in the middle of the cassette when using the 53T chain ring.
Brad
#10
Nigel
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,991
Bikes: 1980s and 1990s steel: CyclePro, Nishiki, Schwinn, SR, Trek........
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
6 Posts
Consider a 13-26T 13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26 (very even jumps) cassette instead.
48/12 = 4 ~ 53/13 = 4.1 ; a 52/13 would be exactly the same as a 48/12
38/21 = 1.8 42/26 = 1.6
I would not go with the Shimano 12-25 because of the 12-13-15-17-19-21-23-25 <> that 13 - 15 jump is not nice.
48/12 = 4 ~ 53/13 = 4.1 ; a 52/13 would be exactly the same as a 48/12
38/21 = 1.8 42/26 = 1.6
I would not go with the Shimano 12-25 because of the 12-13-15-17-19-21-23-25 <> that 13 - 15 jump is not nice.
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I would use this set to determine if a 38/48T chain set delivers what you're looking for. They won't last as long as the other two options, but they will last for many, many miles.
I'm also a flat lander and I've put my 7400 12-21T into the parts bin in favor of a 13-23T, low 70 GI to upper 80 Gi has me roughly in the middle of the cassette when using the 53T chain ring.
Brad
I'm also a flat lander and I've put my 7400 12-21T into the parts bin in favor of a 13-23T, low 70 GI to upper 80 Gi has me roughly in the middle of the cassette when using the 53T chain ring.
Brad
I also looked at the 13-23 cassette option. It mostly looks good, but there winds up being a rather large gap between the 19 and 17 cog, where I'd like to have another gear. This gets smoothed out with the 48t ring.
That said, I would still think about changing to a 13-23 when it comes time for a new cassette.
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Consider a 13-26T 13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26 (very even jumps) cassette instead.
48/12 = 4 ~ 53/13 = 4.1 ; a 52/13 would be exactly the same as a 48/12
38/21 = 1.8 42/26 = 1.6
I would not go with the Shimano 12-25 because of the 12-13-15-17-19-21-23-25 <> that 13 - 15 jump is not nice.
48/12 = 4 ~ 53/13 = 4.1 ; a 52/13 would be exactly the same as a 48/12
38/21 = 1.8 42/26 = 1.6
I would not go with the Shimano 12-25 because of the 12-13-15-17-19-21-23-25 <> that 13 - 15 jump is not nice.
So for your example, if I was on the small ring, I would use the 14 - 17 cogs. On the big ring, I would use the 19 - 15 cogs. In both cases, in terms of an ideal chainline, I would be at the wrong side of the cogset for the ring (granted, not as bad for the big ring), and in both cases I would miss having a 16t cog.
I am starting to realize why I like the 1 x 6 drivetrain on my Raleigh so much.
#13
Nigel
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,991
Bikes: 1980s and 1990s steel: CyclePro, Nishiki, Schwinn, SR, Trek........
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
6 Posts
Keep in mind that you can build up any combination you want for less than the price of three cassettes.....Miche has first position cogs up to 15T, and middle/last position up to 29T.
Gear Inches are practically meaningless without knowing what size tires you have.
16T with a 53T ring is the same as 14½T with a 48T ring.
Actually a 13-23 would probably make you very happy at much lower cost than new chain rings.
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23 - giving you almost the same ratios as a 48T ring with a 12-21.
Gear Inches are practically meaningless without knowing what size tires you have.
16T with a 53T ring is the same as 14½T with a 48T ring.
Actually a 13-23 would probably make you very happy at much lower cost than new chain rings.
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23 - giving you almost the same ratios as a 48T ring with a 12-21.
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Keep in mind that you can build up any combination you want for less than the price of three cassettes.....Miche has first position cogs up to 15T, and middle/last position up to 29T.
Gear Inches are practically meaningless without knowing what size tires you have.
16T with a 53T ring is the same as 14½T with a 48T ring.
Actually a 13-23 would probably make you very happy at much lower cost than new chain rings.
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23 - giving you almost the same ratios as a 48T ring with a 12-21.
Gear Inches are practically meaningless without knowing what size tires you have.
16T with a 53T ring is the same as 14½T with a 48T ring.
Actually a 13-23 would probably make you very happy at much lower cost than new chain rings.
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23 - giving you almost the same ratios as a 48T ring with a 12-21.
Gear Inches One of the three comprehensive systems for numbering the gear values for bicycle gears. It is the equivalent diameter of the drive wheel on a high-wheel bicycle. When chain-drive "safety" bikes came in, the same system was used, multiplying the drive wheel diameter by the sprocket ratio. It is very easy to calculate: the diameter of the drive wheel, times the size of the front sprocket divided by the size of the rear sprocket. This gives a convenient two- or three-digit number. The lowest gear on most mountain bikes is around 22-26 inches. The highest gear on road racing bikes is usually around 108-110 inches. Unfortunately, the handwriting is on the wall for all inch-based measurement systems.
Since the wheel diameter is part of the gear inch calculation, I don't see how GI can be meaningless. Sheldon's gear calculator (which is the one I typically use) calls for both the wheel diameter and tire size.
I addressed the 13-23 cassette option below at post #11 . I will probably switch to that when I need a new cassette, but I went ahead and ordered a 48t ring. It seems like the best option for what I'm seeking.
Thanks for the replies.
#15
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,793
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
835 Posts
Even though, as a scientist, engineer, and academic, I generally prefer the Metric system, I really like Gear Inches, because the system is nicely calibrated to percentages of what used to be the default top gear of 52/14 = 100 gear-inches. Thus, a 50-inch gear requires half the pedal torque of a 100-incher. It's easy and very intuitive. It is also easy to relate to the old English wide-range 3-speed bikes, which were typically geared something like 50-66-88.
As for your questions regarding chainring and cog sizes, all of my road bikes have top gears in the mid-90s. For this I use a top gear cog of 13 or 14T and outer chainring of 45 to 50T. 45-42T works fine on the Peugeot with an old Shimano Titlist front derailleur.
As for your questions regarding chainring and cog sizes, all of my road bikes have top gears in the mid-90s. For this I use a top gear cog of 13 or 14T and outer chainring of 45 to 50T. 45-42T works fine on the Peugeot with an old Shimano Titlist front derailleur.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
Last edited by John E; 10-14-15 at 09:14 AM.
#16
What??? Only 2 wheels?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston-ish, MA
Posts: 13,434
Bikes: 72 Peugeot UO-8, 82 Peugeot TH8, 87 Bianchi Brava, 76? Masi Grand Criterium, 74 Motobecane Champion Team, 86 & 77 Gazelle champion mondial, 81? Grandis, 82? Tommasini, 83 Peugeot PF10
Mentioned: 189 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1222 Post(s)
Liked 645 Times
in
232 Posts
There is another, more subtle value in the use gear inches over tooth ratio, or any ratio whether corrected for wheel and crank size or not. It's a matter of how much comprehensible information is carried in the number. Most of us can visualize the difference between, say, 32" and 50" and 90". In fact, the first digit tells us most of what matters. However the corresponding approximate ratios 1.185 and 1.851 and 3.333 are gibberish.
I are a injuneer (and rather too highly educated in science to be useful to man or beast) so I'm quite at home with metrics of all sorts. But for sheer intuitive understanding, I stand by gear inches.
Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of chainrings.
__________________
Real cyclists use toe clips.
With great bikes comes great responsibility.
jimmuller
Real cyclists use toe clips.
With great bikes comes great responsibility.
jimmuller
#17
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,627
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
I suspect that what Nigel meant to type was "gear ratios are meaningless without knowing the tire size" since that is the usual objection to discussing gear ratios in isolation.