Big rings vs compact
#1
SoCal Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Agua Dulce, CA
Posts: 592
Bikes: Surly Crosscheck single/9 speed convertible, Novara Buzz beater
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Big rings vs compact
I've got a 42/16 that's about 70 inches, and a 48/18 that's about 71. Given they produce nearly the same gear inches, is there any advantage to running one vs the other? I'm running single speed, not fixed. I'd like to pick up some freewheel cogs with one and two less teeth to get in the neighborhood of 75 and 80 inches respectively, but don't know which chain ring I should stick with. Thanks.
DanO
DanO
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 795
Bikes: De Rosa Corum, custom Kalavinka, Bianchi RC Pista, Cannondale MT Track, Workcycles Gr8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you skip or skid, refer to the skid patch table before you switch to 48x16. It's in many threads. Edit--Ignore me. I missed the SS part.
#4
Slower than you
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 1,800
Bikes: IRO Mark V & Don Walker Custom
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The 48 will give you more of a range for changing your gearing up in the future since the smallest track cog available is a 12t from suntour. As for freewheels, I'm not sure what the smallest is, but I'm guessing it's probably pretty hard to make anything smaller than a 14t...
#5
say, by the way...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: VE, Italy
Posts: 319
Bikes: 2 wheels...
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
the smallest freewheel is 13t but it only threads onto the small side of a bmx flip-flop hub. the smallest conventially threaded one is 14t.
i know that when running really compact gears, like 25-9 on a bmx the chain is under a great deal of stress and will break more often.
go for the bigger chainring.
i know that when running really compact gears, like 25-9 on a bmx the chain is under a great deal of stress and will break more often.
go for the bigger chainring.
#6
SoCal Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Agua Dulce, CA
Posts: 592
Bikes: Surly Crosscheck single/9 speed convertible, Novara Buzz beater
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by monkey
Sounds like you're good to go at 48/16.
DanO
#7
King of the Hipsters
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 2,128
Bikes: Realm Cycles Custom
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I presently ride 52X17 for 81".
Some time back, after an injury, I went to 47X18, which, if I recall correctly, gave me 70".
I like the big ring and cogs for intuitive reasons; meaning, I can't prove what I suspect intuitively.
It seems to me big rings and cogs, with their larger radius and all-around largeness in general, work more efficiently and with lower stresses than do tiny rings and cogs.
A few extra teeth and an extra inch or two of chain adds a little weight to the bike.
I can only say that the same inch ratio with big rings and cogs seems more efficient to me than the same inch ratio with small rings and cogs, and I have a sense of less wear and tear.
The difference could exist only in my mind.
Anyway, I can go up any hill with 81" that I could go up with 70".
The big difference happens on the downhill side.
With 70" I have much, much more control than I do with 81".
With 81" I can go faster with less monkey-motion, and in some ways I feel safer at speed with 81", except for the braking thing.
I actually thought about going back to about 72" for the all around control and acceleration, but now having lived at 81" for awhile I have picked up some downhill braking skills I didn't have before and I might just stay here.
Anyway, I worked up from 70" to 81" in small steps by using a 47t, 48t and 52t ring in different combinations with 16t, 17t and 18t cogs.
I had a lot of fun experimenting and I might still go back to 72".
Some time back, after an injury, I went to 47X18, which, if I recall correctly, gave me 70".
I like the big ring and cogs for intuitive reasons; meaning, I can't prove what I suspect intuitively.
It seems to me big rings and cogs, with their larger radius and all-around largeness in general, work more efficiently and with lower stresses than do tiny rings and cogs.
A few extra teeth and an extra inch or two of chain adds a little weight to the bike.
I can only say that the same inch ratio with big rings and cogs seems more efficient to me than the same inch ratio with small rings and cogs, and I have a sense of less wear and tear.
The difference could exist only in my mind.
Anyway, I can go up any hill with 81" that I could go up with 70".
The big difference happens on the downhill side.
With 70" I have much, much more control than I do with 81".
With 81" I can go faster with less monkey-motion, and in some ways I feel safer at speed with 81", except for the braking thing.
I actually thought about going back to about 72" for the all around control and acceleration, but now having lived at 81" for awhile I have picked up some downhill braking skills I didn't have before and I might just stay here.
Anyway, I worked up from 70" to 81" in small steps by using a 47t, 48t and 52t ring in different combinations with 16t, 17t and 18t cogs.
I had a lot of fun experimenting and I might still go back to 72".
#8
jack of one or two trades
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Suburbia, CT
Posts: 5,640
Bikes: Old-ass gearie hardtail MTB, fix-converted Centurion LeMans commuter, SS hardtail monster MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The guys who are doing the Furnace Creek 508 (see this thread ) basically said the same thing as Ken. More engagement, happier roll.
Add in the freewheel factor, and you are pretty much forced to stay with the 48t. 17t freewheels are available too, so you can step up in increments, if you must.
Add in the freewheel factor, and you are pretty much forced to stay with the 48t. 17t freewheels are available too, so you can step up in increments, if you must.
#9
eibwen
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Of course all of this is pretty minute to begin with, but wouldn't a smaller ring/cog combo, while yeilding less engagement, be more efficient because of the smaller amount of friction from that smaller engagement? If you're only pulling on two teeth instead of four, you'd have half the surface friction.
#10
Get the stick.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 1,543
Bikes: 12 Y.O. Litespeed MTB, IRO Jamie Roy fixie, Custom Habanero Ti 'Cross, No name SS MTB, Old school lugged steel track bike (soon)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Bigger is better. Less backlash, lower chain tension for a given pedal force, longer chain and sproket life. Plus it makes you look like an animal with that big a$$ed front ring.
#11
spin
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 1,170
Bikes: raleigh m-60, azonic steelhead, schwinn world sport fixed gear
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucky-Charms
Of course all of this is pretty minute to begin with, but wouldn't a smaller ring/cog combo, while yeilding less engagement, be more efficient because of the smaller amount of friction from that smaller engagement? If you're only pulling on two teeth instead of four, you'd have half the surface friction.
#13
Cornucopia of Awesomeness
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: not where i used to be
Posts: 4,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by beatifik
the smallest freewheel is 13t but it only threads onto the small side of a bmx flip-flop hub. the smallest conventially threaded one is 14t.
i know that when running really compact gears, like 25-9 on a bmx the chain is under a great deal of stress and will break more often.
go for the bigger chainring.
i know that when running really compact gears, like 25-9 on a bmx the chain is under a great deal of stress and will break more often.
go for the bigger chainring.
the smallest one I know of is a 15T
#14
Tri Fixed Road
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 507
Bikes: Litespeed, Kestrel, KHS, Pinarello, GT, Mustang, Giant
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Is there a chart or formula to figure out gear ratios, etc...I feel like I'm in trig...or was it calc??? - where's my abacus?
#15
say, by the way...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: VE, Italy
Posts: 319
Bikes: 2 wheels...
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by baxtefer
Who makes the 14T? just curious....
the smallest one I know of is a 15T
the smallest one I know of is a 15T
#16
R900Campagnolo
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 884
Bikes: track and road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DanO220
I've got a 42/16 that's about 70 inches, and a 48/18 that's about 71. Given they produce nearly the same gear inches, is there any advantage to running one vs the other? I'm running single speed, not fixed. I'd like to pick up some freewheel cogs with one and two less teeth to get in the neighborhood of 75 and 80 inches respectively, but don't know which chain ring I should stick with. Thanks.
DanO
DanO
#17
SoCal Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Agua Dulce, CA
Posts: 592
Bikes: Surly Crosscheck single/9 speed convertible, Novara Buzz beater
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eMwolB
Is there a chart or formula to figure out gear ratios, etc...I feel like I'm in trig...or was it calc??? - where's my abacus?
DanO
#18
jack of one or two trades
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Suburbia, CT
Posts: 5,640
Bikes: Old-ass gearie hardtail MTB, fix-converted Centurion LeMans commuter, SS hardtail monster MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eMwolB
Is there a chart or formula to figure out gear ratios, etc...I feel like I'm in trig...or was it calc??? - where's my abacus?
ratio = ring teeth / cog teeth
gear inches = ratio * wheel diameter = ring teeth * wheel diameter / cog teeth
gain ratio (some statistic that SB made up) = gear inches / crank length = ring teeth * wheel diameter *.5/ cog teeth / crank length
development = gear inches * pi = ring teeth* wheel diameter * pi / cog teeth
There's your formulas... FOREVER!