Bike Forums - Why 50-34 sucks for commuting

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)

- Commuting (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/)

- - Why 50-34 sucks for commuting (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/1059300-why-50-34-sucks-commuting.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Lefty (Post 18713686)

This is notionally a cyclocross setup and there is often one or two cranksets available but they are sometimes off-group. FC-RS500 (like Tiagra with 11-speed rings) comes in 46-36 and FC-6800 (Ultegra) comes in 48-36

Ah I see - I'd have to downgrade or upgrade my crankset just to make AndyK happy.

One advantage of being an inexperienced cyclist - I have very little idea how much my life will soon suck riding on a 50-34. I do know I'll probably never go up in chainring size as I don't race. It'll be interesting to see how much time I spend on the 50 vs. the 34 once I start commuting on the Jamis. The commute is spit roughly 50-50 between streets and MUPs. I don't trust our motorists here enough to try to blast away at 30+ mph except in limited sections of the commute. I saw a video in which a cyclist was cranking at high speed down a DC street and he suddenly collided with a car/truck whose driver decided to make a turn at exactly the wrong second. Got hurt really bad as I recall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GovernorSilver (Post 18713017)

Good to know. ;)

I've been accident-prone enough that you never know when a future mishap will result in the destruction of a chainring, necessitating a replacement crankset. Is there a Shimano 105 version of a 46-34? I just see alternatives with more teeth, not less.

The CX50 was marketed as a 105-level crankset, but it's a 5-bolt crank, so the rings won't work with the new 105 cranks. There is an Ultegra (6800) crank available as 46-36, so you could buy that big ring if you have a 5800 series crank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 18710019)

I can't see any "different set of advantages" that 1x and compact double cranks have for many outside of racing. If you know your course, a 1x system can be tuned to take the best advantage of it. But if you are just out riding and encountering very different terrains, the 1x systems fall flat on their face. Most of us don't ride a closed loop all the time and would do better with a multigear system with a wide range.

The customized system that I've presented aren't that difficult to put together nor are they that "ridiculous". They might require a little bit more work to put together then just using what comes out of the box but it's not that much effort and the results can be a lot better than the stock version. Do you always just take what is given to you? Never experiment to find out what is possible?

Frankly, when I see the shift pattern on compact doubles, I think it would take a continuing education course to figure out how to use them effectively. Most people would could grasp a cross-over system quite readily. Most people already shift their bikes that anyway.

I prefer 3x systems to 1x. Now I'm looking for a 8 speed shifter that can work in friction mode. That way I can use 8 or 7 speed cassettes without problems (just add under 5 mm of spacers and shift to friction mode when using 7 speed). That way I can get cheaper, more robust drive system, with still a very wide gear range (for both hills and descends) and decently tightly spaced gearing.

For road cycling, I like regular doubles - no big jumps up front. But for commuting, triple is practically a double, with an extra gear for loaded/exhausted situations.

Is it all melodrama, really?

Or some disguised humor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 18710019)

Not having to deal with managing a set of three chainrings in addition to the rear cluster is an advantage no matter what the context. Historically, it's been strongly offset by the limitation in gear range, but that's mostly going away. It turns out that there's a point at which additional gear range isn't a strong advantage, and very few people aside from road racers care about having their gears all that closely spaced. Even road racers have the luxury of not caring so much about gear spacing anymore - I have an 11-28 11-speed cassette on my road bike, low enough to race up hills in the big cogs, yet still closely spaced enough in the smaller cogs to not need to change cassettes for flat crits.

I know you're going to give a long explanation of how this simplicity isn't an advantage, but of course it is. It's just offset by disadvantages that you've noted already for a lot of situations. As these drivetrains get better, the proportion of situations for which they aren't adequate will continue to shrink. Most of the people arguing for triples already get it, I see so many of them saying that they leave the chain on the middle ring for the large majority of the time. Commuter and city bikes with single-chainring derailleur drivetrains have been around for many decades. The concept obviously has appeal.

The effort to customize a gearing system might not be large in the grand scheme, but it's still a friction point and lots of people don't bother with it. I would argue that less need for customization is a benefit for triples, rather than citing more customization as a positive. You've got to go to the bike shop, or order parts online, calculate gear ratios... it's a pain in the ass. I find that stuff more fun than most people, cause I'm a nerd, but even I'd rather just ride my bike and be done with it.

As for compact doubles, I don't think I spent any time defending the typical 50-34 arrangement, which isn't great. It has its uses, but that big ring is still really big for a lot of people. Still, downsize the big ring a little bit to 48 or 46 and the whole thing starts to make a lot of sense. Shift pattern, whatever. I don't recognize the use of a shift pattern in my own riding, and I suspect very few people shift gears that way. The idea of a specific sequence of shifts to get acceptable spacing between gears made sense in the days of half-step gearing, when you had freewheels with a small number of cogs and low-capacity front derailleurs. These days, the wide range of modern cassettes means you just don't have to concern yourself with shifting in a particular order, and almost no one does. Use the big ring when you're going faster, the little ring when you're going slower, and make the fine adjustments on the cassette, done. That can be a little awkward when the gap between the chainrings is large, like on a 50-34, but that can be ameliorated a bit with the wide range cassettes modern drivetrains can handle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoKrpan (Post 18710134)

Racers don't use compact doubles. They are the nu-triple for the nu-freds.

Standard doubles are definitely more popular with racers, but this is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of racers out there with compacts. Or so I believe; I couldn't tell you for sure, cause here's the truth: racers, in general, just don't give a crap about what kind of crank you're running.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_K (Post 18711810)

You don't have to demand a triple. A 46-34 setup would be OK too. ;)

Thumbs up for the 46 big ring. My commuter and cross bikes are 46-36 and 46-38 respectively (130 BCD crank on the cross bike). That's a nice size for a big ring!

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolby (Post 18715456)

The kinds of gearing systems that I advocate aren't about closely spaced gears. If anything, I advocate exactly the opposite. I advocate that most people...i.e. the "average" rider...would benefit from having a much wider range of gearing that what is currently in vogue. 1x systems are all about closely spaced gears while sacrificing either the low end of the range or the high end of the range. Gears for the crank are chosen based on your anticipated needs in a 1x system and heaven help you if you happen to anticipate wrong.

For someone who doesn't race and/or may not be much more than a casual rider or even for commuters who may encounter hills while carrying more of a load than a racer does, triples and very wide gearing are the advantage

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolby (Post 18715456)

I know you're going to give a long explanation of how this simplicity isn't an advantage, but of course it is. It's just offset by disadvantages that you've noted already for a lot of situations. As these drivetrains get better, the proportion of situations for which they aren't adequate will continue to shrink. Most of the people arguing for triples already get it, I see so many of them saying that they leave the chain on the middle ring for the large majority of the time. Commuter and city bikes with single-chainring derailleur drivetrains have been around for many decades. The concept obviously has appeal.

Simplicity is only an advantage if it makes life easier. Complexity is also an advantage if it also makes like easier. 1x systems may be great for a race course but they aren't for the wide ranging cyclist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolby (Post 18715456)

The effort to customize a gearing system might not be large in the grand scheme, but it's still a friction point and lots of people don't bother with it. I would argue that less need for customization is a benefit for triples, rather than citing more customization as a positive. You've got to go to the bike shop, or order parts online, calculate gear ratios... it's a pain in the ass. I find that stuff more fun than most people, cause I'm a nerd, but even I'd rather just ride my bike and be done with it.

I agree that most people won't bother with customizing gearing but that is because most people don't understand gearing to begin with. Look at the way that bicycles were...and, to a certain extent, still are...market. People are impressed with more gears without understanding that "more gears" doesn't really mean what they think it means. Realistically, an increase in the number of cogs on the cassette doesn't really translate to the same number of gears times whatever the bike has in the front.

I wouldn't suggest customization if the manufacturers and component companies had any inkling of what gearing is to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolby (Post 18715456)

As for compact doubles, I don't think I spent any time defending the typical 50-34 arrangement, which isn't great. It has its uses, but that big ring is still really big for a lot of people. Still, downsize the big ring a little bit to 48 or 46 and the whole thing starts to make a lot of sense. Shift pattern, whatever. I don't recognize the use of a shift pattern in my own riding, and I suspect very few people shift gears that way. The idea of a specific sequence of shifts to get acceptable spacing between gears made sense in the days of half-step gearing, when you had freewheels with a small number of cogs and low-capacity front derailleurs. These days, the wide range of modern cassettes means you just don't have to concern yourself with shifting in a particular order, and almost no one does. Use the big ring when you're going faster, the little ring when you're going slower, and make the fine adjustments on the cassette, done. That can be a little awkward when the gap between the chainrings is large, like on a 50-34, but that can be ameliorated a bit with the wide range cassettes modern drivetrains can handle.

The 50-34 crank is a prime example of what I'm talking about. I've talked to a lot of people who don't feel that their bike is working properly because of the huge gap between the chainrings. They usually end up just staying in one ring and shifting until they hit the bottom of the cassette and avoid shifting on the front. Effectively, they have a 1x system but they really don't have to. I agree that dropping the large ring 2 to 4 teeth would make their lives easier...as would learning about how gearing works.

I disagree, however, that you don't have to worry about shifting in a particular order. Cadence and gearing are related. A wider cassette doesn't change the large gap between the two rings on the 50-34 compact. The step between the two rings is still large enough that it makes shifts awkward.

But the 50-34, like the 10, 11, 12 or flavor du jour of cassette and the "xx speed" bike, is about marketing, not good engineering. The bike companies tell you that the compact double offers the same range as a triple...which is almost does. But what they don't tell you is that it almost impossible to use it effectively. They trust that most people don't know diddly about gearing and will buy the "latest and greatest" because that what won the Tour...and if you ain't riding what "won the Tour" you aren't a real cyclist.

A 1x system that allows you to comfortably ride between 5 and 30 mph is just about right for most commuters (and most others). I'd be very surprised if 1x drivetrains don't take off in the next couple years and become standard. The MTBer who needs even lower gearing and the roadie who needs even higher gearing will become the outliers. Think about it. If the marketers can sell a 1x system over a 2x or 3x, and still charge the customer the same, they'll do it in a heartbeat. I can see chainrings in the 38 range and 12-speed cassettes with 10-50 becoming standard for road setups. That's a 500% gear range. FDs and multi-chainring cranks will quickly fall by the wayside.

I am perfectly satisfied with my old-school 53-39. It's flat here, and I don't carry much, but I can't see ever needing anything lower than 39x27.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 18716810)

They trust that most people don't know diddly about gearing and will buy the "latest and greatest" because that what won the Tour...and if you ain't riding what "won the Tour" you aren't a real cyclist.

Is my '84 Pinarello close enough? I can put oval chainrings on it if necessary. I can probably even find someone to make a Dogma decal for me (assuming the '88 win is expired for purposes of making me a real cyclist). :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloso (Post 18717113)

I am perfectly satisfied with my old-school 53-39. It's flat here, and I don't carry much, but I can't see ever needing anything lower than 39x27.

When I'm riding in Florida on my road bike, 53-39, 12-21 is perfect. I do that about one week a year. The rest of the time, I prefer a wider gear range due to the hillier terrain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan s (Post 18717056)

I've got an 11-36 cassette and a clutch-type MTB derailleur on a shelf in the garage (both of which I bought just because I found them cheap and thought I might have a use for them some day). This discussion has inspired me to build something up to see how I like it. I think it will be pretty good for commuting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_K (Post 18717132)

Sounds good. Start a 1x pics thread when you get it built up and I'll add mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan s (Post 18717130)

When I'm riding in Florida on my road bike, 53-39, 12-21 is perfect. I do that about one week a year. The rest of the time, I prefer a wider gear range due to the hillier terrain.

Do you ride near the Mall? I was surprised how steep Capitol Hill is. (Independence near the Rayburn)

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloso (Post 18717173)

Do you ride near the Mall? I was surprised how steep Capitol Hill is. (Independence near the Rayburn)

I have, but not not very often. So much security around there now, but they don't stop bikes, which is kind of cool. Most of my riding, at least commuting, is along the Potomac River valley, which is fairly flat, but there are some decent hills in Northern VA and Maryland as you ride away from the river.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloso (Post 18717173)

Do you ride near the Mall? I was surprised how steep Capitol Hill is. (Independence near the Rayburn)

My regular commute route includes a climb up Louisiana from the Mall towards Union Station - this street goes past the US Capitol. I don't think the climb is that bad, but I do get a workout. I'm usually spinning on my 6th speed (out of 8 on my Nexus 8 IGH) - 7th when I'm feeling strong, 5th when I'm feeling weaker (usually the days with the worst combination of heat and humidity). The Uptown 8 has a 38T chainring.

The most challenging climb I've attempted in DC so far is 15th St. northbound, after crossing Florida Ave, but that was while I was test riding a road bike (Felt V85). I've no doubt the climb would have been more difficult on the Uptown 8.

I have yet to commute on my Renegade. Hope to do so within 2 weeks.

If there were widely available and cheap cassettes starting with 14t, I'd be happy with a 53-39. However, with cassettes starting at 11, or 12, I have no use of big ring being over 50t. Also, I find that on flats, around 46 is the sweet spot - gives me minimal cross chaining and is good when riding both fast and slow. When I come to a stop, just make one shift up front, to the middle ring. So a triple is an ideal crankset for my riding - which includes both fast riding, and slow, loaded tired up hills. 46-36-24 would be perfect for my taste for 28" wheels, while on 26" MTB I prefer 48-38-28 (mostly urban, paved riding).

An extreme example from another subforum. 53-34 on a tandem:

http://www.bikeforums.net/tandem-cyc...m-luddite.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaninar (Post 18717399)

When you mentioned 14t cassettes it reminded me of setting up my son's race bike. Juniors are limited to a maximum gear development of 7.9m or 26". With 23mm tires on 700c (622) wheels, you can do this with a 52x14 or 45x12. Since 12-25 cassettes are so much cheaper and easier to find than 14-25, it just made sense to go with a 45t big ring. (It also makes it possible for us to swap wheels, which is a nice benefit.)

I found this TA chainring on Wiggle and it's worked flawlessly with a Tiagra FD.

Sauce for the goose: someone posting about weight loss in the MTB subforum today made me do the math. You can save about 11 oz with the XT single vs the XT triple... depending on your choices. But the range is definitely reduced. Do you need that bottom or that top?

[TABLE="width: 513"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]triple[/TD]
[TD]single[/TD]
[TD]note[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]left shifter weight[/TD]
[TD]115[/TD]
[TD]n/a[/TD]
[TD]listed "230g/pair"[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]right shifter weight[/TD]
[TD]115[/TD]
[TD]115[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]FD weight[/TD]
[TD]151[/TD]
[TD]n/a[/TD]
[TD]high clamp band[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]FD cable weight[/TD]
[TD]neglected[/TD]
[TD]n/a[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]crankset weight[/TD]
[TD]774[/TD]
[TD]694[/TD]
[TD]32 for single, 30 and 34 available[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]RD weight[/TD]
[TD]275[/TD]
[TD]271[/TD]
[TD]sgs for triple, gs for single[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]cassette weight[/TD]
[TD]411[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD]11-40 for triple, 11-46 for single[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]weight difference[/TD]
[TD]1841[/TD]
[TD]1530[/TD]
[TD]311 difference - 11 oz[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]top ring teeth[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]top cog teeth[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]bottom ring teeth[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]bottom cog teeth[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]46[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]top ratio[/TD]
[TD]3.64[/TD]
[TD]2.91[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]bottom ratio[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]total range[/TD]
[TD]6.61[/TD]
[TD]4.18[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]top gear inches 29er[/TD]
[TD]105.45[/TD]
[TD]84.36[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]bottom gear inches 29er[/TD]
[TD]15.95[/TD]
[TD]20.17[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRT2 (Post 18705826)

Some ask about giving up top end speed, but realistically, how many people can really use a big gear of 121 gear inches on a commuter?

Lots of guys don't want to admit they can never use 120 inch, or even 111 inch gear. You are talking about their manhood now.... be careful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Lefty (Post 18720838)

While those numbers may be correct, not sure why the front shifter cable and full length housing is not counted. Also, the chain would probably be 6-8 links shorter. Hard to believe the difference between a triple and single crank would be so small, but I guess someone weighed the stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan s (Post 18721042)

While those numbers may be correct, not sure why the front shifter cable and full length housing is not counted.

Got the numbers from Shimano site, couldn't find a weight for the cable. The single has a NW ring that's going to be pretty beefy.

I use a compact double and 10sp 11-28 on my commuter road bike, just because that's what it came with. Gearing seems fine for me. In my hilly area I make use of the entire gear range from 34-28 all the way up to 50-11.

Mostly, though, I stay in the 3rd-7th cogs most of the time. I usually start from a stop in the small ring and 5th cog from lowest. I usually switch between the small and big rings while on the 5th or 6th cog. Sometimes if the large ring and 5th cog gets too hard, I'll switch to the little ring and 6th cog, and can usually maintain about the same speed as before, but at a higher cadence.

I'm sure I don't have the best shifting and cadence technique, but it seems to work for me. My other 2 bikes are both 3x8, and honestly I prefer having only 2 rings up front. I'd probably like 1x if I could go to a 11sp cassette and just eliminate front shifting altogether.