Changing chain ring size, keep same gear inches
#1
we are 138
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
For sake of argument something like 39/14 and 52/19, both giving ~74 gear inches.
#2
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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.
Obviously, 52/19 will also be heavier, and 19 teeth cogs may limit you to only a couple manufacturers.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#4
\||||||/
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: pdx
Posts: 1,360
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
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
bigger chainrings and cogs also look cooler
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
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?
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?
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
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?
#8
not the car.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
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
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
#9
"not enough rage"
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oakland
Posts: 273
Bikes: Old ****ed up Cannondale roadie, peice o **** Gitane as a beater, and I use my Nishiki for bike camping
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
Why anyone would run small chainring/sprocket out of choice rather than necessity, who knows?
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boise, Idyho
Posts: 676
Bikes: '04 fisher 29er, NYC Bikes CityFixed
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
#11
"not enough rage"
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oakland
Posts: 273
Bikes: Old ****ed up Cannondale roadie, peice o **** Gitane as a beater, and I use my Nishiki for bike camping
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by highlyselassie
Why anyone would run small chainring/sprocket out of choice rather than necessity, who knows?
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by zip22
i understand why those would be true in theory, but in practice i doubt either of them have any effect.
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.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
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?
Anyone game?
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
its funny how miniscule advantages in wear and efficiency are embraced with open arms but *supposed* weight advantages are shrugged off.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
Anyone game?
#16
don't pedal backwards...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 754
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
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
(from here)
#17
\||||||/
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: pdx
Posts: 1,360
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
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
Anyone game?
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.
#18
Senior Member
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 https://www.sheldonbrown.com/chain-life.html
I wish I'd read that before settling on 46x17
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 https://www.sheldonbrown.com/chain-life.html
I wish I'd read that before settling on 46x17
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boise, Idyho
Posts: 676
Bikes: '04 fisher 29er, NYC Bikes CityFixed
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#20
i don't stop
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: basel, switzerland
Posts: 1,058
Bikes: soma rush, giro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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
velospace
#21
don't pedal backwards...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 754
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
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
i heard that it makes a difference, or is that just hearsay?