Thread: Big Gears
View Single Post
Old 06-26-17, 06:56 PM
  #12  
radripperaj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Being a cyclocross racer who just recently started trying track, I had to consult a chart to see what 120" is. HOLY CRAP!!! 120" is around 49x11 that is me trying to start with almost my biggest gear on my road bike. Although, alot of track racers have legs wider than my shoulders, so I guess its not quite as big of a deal to them. right now im stuck with a 49 up front with a 14, 15, and 16 for the back. I have a 50 and 51 on order. When I was looking at cogs I was thinking, "who needs a 12?". Now I know. lol

Originally Posted by carleton View Post
True, but the concept is that even among individuals who have raced several years (decades), they are choosing larger gears than they did in year's past. We aren't talking going from a 96" gear to a 98". I'm talking about going from 96" to over 110". If you've ever pushed a 110" gear, you'd remember it

For example, instead of sprinting on a 96" gear last season, they are choosing 120" this season as their race gear.



Yeah, I've heard of that, too.

I firmly believe that the gains are small and are "lost in the wash" of other variables. Just like ceramic bearings are technically more efficient...but they only demonstrate performance gains over high quality steel bearings at several thousand RPMs as when used in machinery.

So, my question isn't about achieving the same gear ratio by using bigger chainrings and cogs. It's about achieving a higher gear ratio than before with all other things being equal (rider, strength, fitness, track, event, etc...).
radripperaj is offline