Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-18-06, 02:33 PM   #1
Philatio
we are 138
Thread Starter
 
Philatio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Bikes:
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Changing chain ring size, keep same gear inches

If you took two set ups, both with similar gear inches but dramatically different chain ring sizes, would there be any sort of noticable difference in mechanical advantage? Would it "feel" easier to spin with one or the other?

For sake of argument something like 39/14 and 52/19, both giving ~74 gear inches.
Philatio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 03:18 PM   #2
BostonFixed
Banned.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 4,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
52/19 should feel "smoother", but not really easier to pedal. This has to do with the way more teeth are engaged on the cog/chainring at any given time as opposed to 39/14. It's kinda hard to explain, but the more teeth engaged at any one time should make things feel smoother.

Obviously, 52/19 will also be heavier, and 19 teeth cogs may limit you to only a couple manufacturers.
BostonFixed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 03:26 PM   #3
gorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chi-troit
Bikes: [2004 Bianchi Eros] [1988 Colnago XL Fixed Gear Conversion]
Posts: 577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I use to run 39x15 and now run 49x19. They are basically both ~69 gear inches. The main difference I notice is that my new setup is quieter. Not necessarely because of the size difference, though. It's also 1/8", so different cog/chainring/chain. Who knows where the quietness came from.
gorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 04:00 PM   #4
ZachS
\||||||/
 
ZachS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: pdx
Bikes: highly modified specialized crossroads and GT hybrid (really a [formerly] 12-speed bmx cruiser, made before 'hybrid' took on its current meaning), as yet unmodified redline 925, couple of other projects
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
bigger chainrings and cogs also look cooler
ZachS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 04:05 PM   #5
barba
Senior Member
 
barba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Is there any difference in wear based on the gear and ring sizes? Logic would seem to imply that more teeth would distribute the load across more contact points.
barba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 04:17 PM   #6
highlyselassie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
With bigger cog/chainring for the same ratio:

Less drivetrain wear, as torque is spread over larger area
More efficient, less chain deflection=less heat

Why anyone would run small chainring/sprocket out of choice rather than necessity, who knows?
highlyselassie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 04:26 PM   #7
zip22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
With bigger cog/chainring for the same ratio:

Less drivetrain wear, as torque is spread over larger area
More efficient, less chain deflection=less heat

Why anyone would run small chainring/sprocket out of choice rather than necessity, who knows?
i understand why those would be true in theory, but in practice i doubt either of them have any effect.
zip22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 10:59 PM   #8
tempo
not the car.
 
tempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Bikes:
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
in my observations....

more teeth in contact = more *connected*, and easier to hold pace...think truckin'

less teeth in contact= starts quicker, and better in sprints but not for distance
tempo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 11:03 PM   #9
Old Breadbutt
"not enough rage"
 
Old Breadbutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oakland
Bikes: Old ****ed up Cannondale roadie, peice o **** Gitane as a beater, and I use my Nishiki for bike camping
Posts: 273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
Why anyone would run small chainring/sprocket out of choice rather than necessity, who knows?
weight would seem the obvious reason, but resistance probably has more impact.
Old Breadbutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 11:03 PM   #10
thurstonboise
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boise, Idyho
Bikes: '04 fisher 29er, NYC Bikes CityFixed
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
With a bigger ring, you get to roll that one pants leg up more.
Bigger looks better, but unless you are comparing the same brand of rings, chain, and cogs in the same condition at time of install, there are a lot of other variables to consider. You may have a more round or true chainring.
thurstonboise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-06, 11:04 PM   #11
Old Breadbutt
"not enough rage"
 
Old Breadbutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oakland
Bikes: Old ****ed up Cannondale roadie, peice o **** Gitane as a beater, and I use my Nishiki for bike camping
Posts: 273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
Why anyone would run small chainring/sprocket out of choice rather than necessity, who knows?
weight would seem the obvious reason, but resistance probably has more impact. I have some friends that ride SS mountain and BMX, one of them said that they keep it small so that it doesn't catch on logs and ****.
Old Breadbutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 02:55 AM   #12
highlyselassie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zip22
i understand why those would be true in theory, but in practice i doubt either of them have any effect.
They'd be true in practice too, it's just pure Vulcan logic.

It's our legs driving these things, so even small efficiency gains should be embraced with open arms. Of even more interest, the extra longevity of such a setup would far outweigh any *supposed* advantages by losing 100/150g, if that on chainring/sprocket.

Try it with two bikes if you like, same gear ratio, 14 tooth sprocket on one, big as you can go on the other(20/21?, obviously chainring clearance is going to be the determining factor). Since efficiency is such a grey area for those of us without access to a laboratory, just note the chain/chainring/sprocket wear over time.
highlyselassie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 02:59 AM   #13
highlyselassie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Something I'd love to see tried out is 80+ teeth chainrings with 22+ teeth sprockets in the rear on track bikes. I'd bet good money that even if these setups weighed 300/400g more than other bikes on the track, given similar riders/or the same rider on timed laps, the added efficiency would decrease times.

Anyone game?
highlyselassie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 05:05 AM   #14
zip22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
its funny how miniscule advantages in wear and efficiency are embraced with open arms but *supposed* weight advantages are shrugged off.
zip22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 05:54 AM   #15
barba
Senior Member
 
barba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
Something I'd love to see tried out is 80+ teeth chainrings with 22+ teeth sprockets in the rear on track bikes. I'd bet good money that even if these setups weighed 300/400g more than other bikes on the track, given similar riders/or the same rider on timed laps, the added efficiency would decrease times.

Anyone game?
I have an old Campy 57t ring and it looks huge. I can't even imagine what 80 mould look like.
barba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 07:15 AM   #16
MacG
don't pedal backwards...
 
MacG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Trucker set up for commuting and loaded touring, old Sekine road frame converted to fixed-gear, various beaters and weird bikes, waiting on the frame for my Surly Big Dummy build
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barba
I have an old Campy 57t ring and it looks huge. I can't even imagine what 80 mould look like.
Maybe like this?



(from here)
MacG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 08:18 AM   #17
ZachS
\||||||/
 
ZachS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: pdx
Bikes: highly modified specialized crossroads and GT hybrid (really a [formerly] 12-speed bmx cruiser, made before 'hybrid' took on its current meaning), as yet unmodified redline 925, couple of other projects
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
Something I'd love to see tried out is 80+ teeth chainrings with 22+ teeth sprockets in the rear on track bikes. I'd bet good money that even if these setups weighed 300/400g more than other bikes on the track, given similar riders/or the same rider on timed laps, the added efficiency would decrease times.

Anyone game?
if it did, racers would already be doing it.

and if you want to bet your good money against mine, you'd be more than welcome. any possible advantage the "added efficiency" would add (i.e. not much, if any) would be more than offset by reduced aerodynamics.
ZachS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 08:37 AM   #18
mattface
Senior Member
 
mattface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montpeculiar, VT
Bikes: Soma Rush, Fuji Cross, Raleigh Technium Mtn Bike, Ross 10 speed with Shimano 600.
Posts: 3,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know about any perceivable difference in mechanical advantage, but the increased wear especially on smaller cogs is significant. Even though the chain may wrap around more than half the cog, I believe I read somewhere that the leading 1/4 of the cog bears the force. So when you have a 12 tooth cog, that's 3 teeth dividing whatever torque you are applying. That WILL wear cogs significantly faster than it would on a larger cog, and that's why on super lightweight aluminum cassettes the small cogs are made from Steel or titanium.

I would think larger rings and cogs would have more friction which would balance out any mechanical advantage, and the that improved wear characteristics would reach a point of diminishing returns LONG before you got to 80 tooth chainrings. For instance the difference between a 12 tooth and 16 tooth is one more tooth engaged, but when you only had 3, that one more means 1/3 less force per tooth. now jump from 16-20, and the one more tooth is only 1/4 less force. To get another full tooth engaged on the rear, you'd next need to jump to a 24 tooth cog, and you'd only reduce wear by 1/5. At least that's how I see it. I tend to think 16 teeth is probably the sweet spot for weight/wear characteristics, but there's no high end engineering going on here just my mind working through the mechanics. Force ÷ teeth.


For a more significant way to reduce chain and cog wear, always use even numbers of teeth as explained here by Sheldon Brown http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chain-life.html

I wish I'd read that before settling on 46x17
mattface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 08:59 AM   #19
thurstonboise
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boise, Idyho
Bikes: '04 fisher 29er, NYC Bikes CityFixed
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would really like to see some numbers on how much difference that even/even actually makes. It still sounds theoretical at best to me.
thurstonboise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 09:19 AM   #20
travsi
i don't stop
 
travsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: basel, switzerland
Bikes: soma rush, giro
Posts: 1,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zip22
its funny how miniscule advantages in wear and efficiency are embraced with open arms but *supposed* weight advantages are shrugged off.
that's because on the track weight doesn't
play as much of a roll as efficiency.

and as far as the efficiency goes the smaller ratios
do give an advantage in sprint situations.

does anyone know why the 10 pitch never caught on?
i heard that it makes a difference, or is that just hearsay?
__________________
velospace
travsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-06, 05:33 PM   #21
MacG
don't pedal backwards...
 
MacG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Trucker set up for commuting and loaded touring, old Sekine road frame converted to fixed-gear, various beaters and weird bikes, waiting on the frame for my Surly Big Dummy build
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by travsi
does anyone know why the 10 pitch never caught on?
i heard that it makes a difference, or is that just hearsay?
Is that the metric oddball chain that whoever tried to push a while back? If so, then the theoretical advantage is that it allows you to have more teeth engaged without having such physically large parts, so there would also be a little less weight. Other than that, I see no manner in which a smaller pitch chain could offer an advantage.
MacG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:50 PM.