After getting my Jamis serviced the other day it was discovered that my rear derailleur hanger had been bent. I for the last few weeks I have avoided using the small chain-ring very much because some of the gears would jump. Now that has been fixed I decided to try and use the small ring more. Somewhere I read that new riders used the big ring more than they should so I wanted to see what would happen if I used the small ring most of the time. For the last two club rides I haven’t used the big ring except on some very long slight down hill. To my amazement I have kept up better than ever. I have to spin faster than I thought I could but one advantage is I can accelerate to catch up after pulling out of the lead on a pull. My legs feel better for longer and I still have some juice left over for when we hit a hill or grade. I could see dropping into the small ring would make it easier but it didn’t make sense that it could also make me faster for part of the ride. But it seems to work.

It makes perfect sense to me. A fellow rider who used to dig graves (by hand no less) used to wonder the same thing. That is, until I asked him why he got cement in the 40 lb. bags instead of the 80 lb. bags. He said it was easier to unload them and carry them to the mixer. I pointed out that he had to make more trips that way, and he responded, "Yeah, but the trips are easier and I can do them quicker." Then his eyes lit up and he said, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense. When I'm in the big ring it's like carrying the bigger bags."

When I started on the road I had a triple. 52/42/30. I rarely used the big ring unless it was downhill. Granny came in on the hills but most of the riding was in the 42. I just could not use the 52 without cross chaining. Second bike had a compact fitted with 50/34 and I suddenly found I was using the big ring. Had to use the 34 on the hills but never found that I needed a lower gear than that.

Now I know that the bike was far better- but The Compact gearing was far better for my legs. That still does not give me a good enough reason for the fact that I could use the big ring more than I ever used to use the 52. Must be a mental thing because it is only two teeth- but speed went up and energy on the rides was higher. So perhaps that 2t difference was just more suitable for my legs as I was getting older. So just explain to me why I no longer need the 30t even up the steepest hills in my area.

Spinning is so much easier, especially if your knees are not young. The next change to my recumbent will be an MTB crankset. Something with a 44/46 big ring and 165 crank arms. I used to hit 22-23 mph on uprights with a 42 middle ring.

I guess I'm a trend-bucker. My V-Rex was fastest when it was equipped with a 144-inch high gear. My Baron does best with a 130-inch gear. Using the middle ring doesn't make you spin faster unless you're out of gears, which I avoid because of the loss in efficiency. In my case, that's exactly why I use the big ring: to stay off the 12T and 11T gears. I've found that unless I'm on a big climb or battling a strong headwind, I can spin the big ring just fine.

One reason I switched to compact cranks on my road bike is that I wasn't strong enough anymore to handle the 52 big ring I've been using for many years.

What I have found is that in the big ring, I have a compact, I would cruise in the middle gear or maybe in 50/15 at about 80 RPM. But if I fell off on a draft it just took too much effort to catch up. However in the small ring spinning 90 it was prety easy to catch on the the back of the pack after falling off the pull because I could increase RPMs a lot quicker.

Since my big ring has 48 teeth, I spend a lot of time there. But I do try to stay in a gear that I can spin at 80 - 90 rpm at whatever speed I'm going, especially when riding in a group or on rolling terrain. The 36 tooth middle ring gets used a lot when the rollers come quick and steep. It is much easier to accelerate when the feet are spinning fast than when mashing along in a big gear. I never feel the need for a bigger gear than my 108 g.i. 48/12 top gear affords.

What doesn't make sense is that riders may have the tendency to avoid using the big ring altogether, thinking that there's some judgment here about the small ring.

Anybody here want to comment on the argument for using the big ring?

New to road riding this year.
I am not a technical person.
Just riding to feel better and stronger.
I ride a 24-42-52, 9 speed 12-25
As I got stronger The Big Ring Feels better.
10,700 miles ytd on flat roads.
Been in the Big Ring for the last 8 weeks.

Saves wear and tear on the small ring?

I paid for all of them so I use them all when I need them.

Instead of talking of big rings and small rings, shouldn't we just be saying that using a higher cadence is better?

Choose hills or the 52t ring. only one is possible for me. I don't do 52t Rings.

I didn’t mean to indicate I have no use for the big ring. Only that I didn’t realize I could keep up on the flats in the small ring. There are obviously times when I need to use the big ring but I didn’t need to use it as much as I had been. From what I have read it is a common practice for new riders to substitute pushing a big gear for spinning. I have been guilty of that for a few months. What I was trying to relate to those that have been doing this longer than I have that a small euphony came to me when I realized that spinning my legs faster could be easier than pushing harder for the same speed. It just was hard to think of spinning faster as being easier on my legs. I think my mind equated it with running. A long easy stride seems a lot easier in the mile than a sprint for the 200. But that doesn’t translate directly to cycling. I guess it was my everyday experiences that made spinning seem counter intuitive.

Showing my age now- but in the 50's we had a runner- Gordon Pirie- over here in the UK. I used to watch him run at White city Stadium and he was one of the best runners in Europe- if not the world. He used to wait till about 4 laps from the end of the race and his pace would not go up- but the length of his stride would. He normally used to gain yards on the opposition in that one lap and the race was won after that one lap of effort. In an interview years later- he was asked what he did if it did not work for him on that one lap. His reply was to the effect that the one lap at a different stride pattern gave him a rest that enabled him to put more effort in again- if necessary.

Same on the longer rides for me. At some point I lower the cadence and keep the speed the same. Just rests the legs or lungs for a while.

When I ride with the fast guys, I use whatever gear will allow me to keep up and minimize effort, which means that I try to spin at a fairly high cadence. When I'm riding with a group that isn't moving nearly as fast, I generally use bigger gears to build leg strength. Kinda like the thread on climbing in your big chain ring. When I ride by myself, I vary cadence and effort, depending on what I'm trying to accomplish.

One of the guys I ride with is one of the top 55+ masters racers in the state, and he says that whatever I'm doing is working. I plan to start doing structured hill intervals with hopes of improving my climbing. No particular objective other than my own amusement.

After reading all the replies to the OP, it seems that we are missing some basic points. Go to https://home.i1.net/~dwolfe/gerz/index.html and you will find a gear chart that gives you the ratios for the combinations named above. You will find that the difference between 50-53 tooth chainrings is about one gear. The difference in 34-39 tooth rings, 2 gears. If you look closer, there is some overlap between the large and small chainrings meaning that some gears are duplicated on both. Depending upon terrain and your comfort zone for cadence, pick one. In all reality, this is a post about cadence, based upon gearing. It was discussed for years that Armstrong's high cadence was easier on accelerations uphill than JUllrich's mashing technique. Find what works for you. Each body and situation differs. Today I was mountain biking and for me that calls for low cadences, I ride in the highest gear I can get over the next hill in. I find that for me, this is fastest and least fatiguing.

On the road, I like 80-90 cadence unless I have a sustained climb or am fatigued. Then I will run to a gear with a cadence 90-100. I experimented for a year with cadence averaging 95, it just didin't work for me. I was slower and fatigued quicker. I ride my trainer and rollers at the higher cadences a good bit to train my legs, but I ride what works for me.

Another reason you like the smaller ring, the gears are closer together. Look at the ratios on the chart. That is why I run a compact setup. With a 12/23 setup, all my gears are only a single step except two, the gears are closer and I have enough spread to ride anywhere.

Not really. Stress, recover. It can be done on both a micro and macro basis.

The only time that I'm really concerned about close gearing is when I'm at my limit, pulling a group of fast guys, and I'm desperately trying to optimize power output and minimize muscle fatigue. Or more correctly, delay the eventual onset of getting my legs ripped off.