View Single Post
01-10-12, 01:00 PM
#6
AndreyT
Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't understand why bicycles have big front chainrings and smaller cogs in the rear.(typically)
Chainrings and cogs serve the same purpose the car gearbox serves: the allow you to redistribute the balance between torque and speed. When you need more torque, you can get it at the expense of less speed. When you need more speed you can get it at the expense of less torque. Typically, the "averagely optimal" everyday balance between torque and speed in a bicycle calls for a bigger chainring and smaller cog (for the traditional crank length and wheel diameter).

If you build some sort of unorthodox bike, like a bike with unusually large wheels (like 2x the diameter of normal wheels), then the balance will shift sufficiently to call for a larger cog.

It seems to me that if you are in a gear in which you're in a 39 front chainring and a 20 rear cog, then it should be essentially the same gear as being in a 42 front chainring and a 23 rear cog, is that not correct?
Er.. No. 39/20=1.95, 42/23=1.82. These ratios are sufficiently different.

Although I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with these examples. In both of your examples the chainring is still almost 2 times larger than the cog.

If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog.
Because for the given crank length and wheel diameter this chainring and this cog provide the "optimal" balance between torque and speed.

When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
That would result in a bike that is biased heavily towards torque. It will be able to slowly climb steep hills with relative ease, yet it will provide no speed. I.e. in order to make that bike ride at 10mph you'd have to frantically crank your pedals at crazy and unrealistic cadence. That would be extremely inefficient and impractical. More precisely, it would have practical value when you need to climb a steep hill. But in everyday riding on a horizontal road surface you'd end up spinning the pedals like a bat out of hell and yet only get to 5 mph or so. People generally don't want to ride at 5 mph on horizontal surfaces. People want to be able to achieve 20 mph, 30 mph and more. For that you need gearing that is more biased towards speed. And that requires large chainring and small cog.

Again, if you build some unusual bike with wheels that are 2 times larger in diameter than "normal" wheels, then the optimal ratio between chainring and cog diameter might get them very close to each other. If you build a bike with wheels that are 3 times larger in diameter than "normal" wheels, you might end up needing a cog that is larger than the chainring.