Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

52x36 vs 50x34

Old 08-29-19, 11:51 AM
  #51  
noodle soup
Senior Member
 
noodle soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,571
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3147 Post(s)
Liked 246 Times in 167 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
We can pretend we know better and act macho about it, or pay attention and enjoy life on the bike a little better.

Seriously though, around here by the math of cadence, speed, and gear selection.......I'd have to go from never having to change rings to being in and out of the big/small every 5 minutes for the next hill if I used a 53.
+1

this is why I run a 50/34 and 12-25. It gives me the tight gear selection I like for 95% of the riding I do, and low enough gears to climb anything in my area.

When I go ride Mt. Lemmon, I have a 14-28 cassette to give me a little help. I have a 12-32 cassette as well, but I never needed the 32t cog, and I missed the tighter spacing of the 14-28.

Last edited by noodle soup; 08-29-19 at 11:55 AM.
noodle soup is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 12:00 PM
  #52  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,312
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 167 Times in 125 Posts
I did this ride this past weekend. I was on a 52/42/30 12-28 7 speed. The gearing was just about perfect. I never got on the 30.(crappy climber) There were a few times I wished for some more on the top end. Law enforcement/volunteers waving you through every intersection. Hammerfest the whole way. Great weather. Pizza, adult beverages and ice cream post ride. It was the most fun I have had on a bike in a while. After the post ride meal, I would have liked to do the 8 mile family loop that started at 8pm, but it was an extra $30 for that. Every city needs a ride like this one. Maybe they have one. You have to check the elevation on the map my run map to see the elevation.

https://www.mapmyrun.com/routes/fullscreen/2452008769/

https://www.sportsbackers.org/events/moonlight-ride/

Last edited by seypat; 08-29-19 at 12:06 PM.
seypat is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 12:10 PM
  #53  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 7,183

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3920 Post(s)
Liked 411 Times in 261 Posts
Originally Posted by FlashBazbo View Post
Really? You're not serious . . . are you?
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle. For the sake of clarity, we'll (mostly) discard the hyperbolic nonsense associated with big chainrings, i.e what they can do above 35mph. Because I've tested this in practice-- coasting down a hill that is sufficiently steep to go 35mph requires zero watts. Accelerating up to say 37 or 38 miles an hour requires over 200 sustained watts just to combat air resistance. Unless there's a podium at the end of that descent, that's machismo gearing.

Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.

So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.

I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Likes For DrIsotope:
Old 08-29-19, 12:19 PM
  #54  
FlashBazbo
Chases Dogs for Sport
 
FlashBazbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 4,127

Bikes: BMC SLR01 TeamMachine Disk Di2; OPEN new U.P. Di2

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 870 Post(s)
Liked 51 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
I can get both sides of the argument.

People can buy and run whatever the eff they want to without listening to internet armchair generals.

The racer argument? In local flat crits the average speeds are maybe around 27. Surges to 30mph. So yeah, you're using a 53t ring's capabilities.

B-group clubbie? When the eff is a B-group clubbie going to utilize the upper 1/2 of the cassette with a 53T big ring?

There's a really really good reason that even "race" and "aero" bikes are sold with compacts and mid compacts these days instead of 53/39's.

We can pretend we know better and act macho about it, or pay attention and enjoy life on the bike a little better.

Seriously though, around here by the math of cadence, speed, and gear selection.......I'd have to go from never having to change rings to being in and out of the big/small every 5 minutes for the next hill if I used a 53.
Sorry if I offended (for the most part, we agree), but I've grown really tired of all the stereotypes, name calling, and (frankly) stupid conclusions spouted here based on . . . gearing? Really? Does the number of teeth on a chainring make somebody "macho," a racerboy pretender, or a poseur? Does a 52 or 53T chainring mean somebody claims to turn the cranks at 140 rpm (or even wants to)? No. The reason they make chainrings with different numbers of teeth on them is because not everybody rides the same roads or has the same objectives in riding a bike. Some live in flatlands and, for a lot of them -- whether macho, racerboy, poseur, or regular old recreational cyclist -- 53/39 makes sense. It's the best combination for them. (And if you don't think a recreational cyclist can make full use of a 52-11 in Kansas wind, you haven't spent enough time in Kansas!) Some live in the mountains and, for a lot of them, 53/39 would make life on the bike really difficult. If the size of a chainring determines what you think of yourself or somebody else, you've got bigger problems.

Some folks buy a 53-39 because they DON'T turn the cranks at 140 rpm. They like it because they can turn the cranks just a little more slowly -- a more relaxed cadence -- to go the same speed as they would have to with a 50-34. Lots of folks prefer 52 and 53T chainrings and they don't mean to offend you. They aren't being macho. They just like turning the pedals at 80 rpm (or slower) and a bigger big ring lets them go a couple mph faster at the same cadence.

Good grief, folks. They're just teeth on a ring. Don't take them as an affront to your masculinity!

Last edited by FlashBazbo; 08-29-19 at 12:26 PM.
FlashBazbo is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 12:28 PM
  #55  
rm -rf
don't try this at home.
 
rm -rf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,117
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
A 52 chainring is 4% higher than a 50. That's about a half shift. (Each shift depends on the two tooth counts of the rear cog, ranging from around 5% up to 12+%)

Below: Charts of mph ranges for each shift at typical flat road cadences. I extended the cadence to 99 so that all the charts would extend to 40 mph, it otherwise scales the charts smaller.



Your 34/50 and 11-28:



A 36/52 and 11-28:
Each gear combination is shifted to a slightly faster speed, about 1/3 to 1/2 of a shift. Around 1 mph at 20 mph in the big ring.
It's a fairly subtle change.



~~~

Sram's 11-28 has different gearing than Shimano's 11-28.

Compare this chart to the top 50/34 chart. The Sram gearing has closer shifts above 20 mph, wider gaps in the 15-20 mph range. A lot of riders like having a 16 cog. It's a better choice for "A group" or racing riders.

34/50 and 11-28 Sram:

Last edited by rm -rf; 08-29-19 at 12:35 PM.
rm -rf is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 12:32 PM
  #56  
rm -rf
don't try this at home.
 
rm -rf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,117
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
11 tooth
I thought that 11 tooth sprockets were "marketing".

But they have a couple of uses:

Soft pedaling at a low pedal pressure on downhills. I like to keep my legs moving on a very long downhill.

Using the 34-12 cog without being completely cross chained. A rider can get close to 20 mph without needing to shift the front to the 50. Handy on rolling terrain.
rm -rf is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 01:27 PM
  #57  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,312
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 167 Times in 125 Posts
Originally Posted by rm -rf View Post
A 52 chainring is 4% higher than a 50. That's about a half shift. (Each shift depends on the two tooth counts of the rear cog, ranging from around 5% up to 12+%)

Below: Charts of mph ranges for each shift at typical flat road cadences. I extended the cadence to 99 so that all the charts would extend to 40 mph, it otherwise scales the charts smaller.



Your 34/50 and 11-28:



A 36/52 and 11-28:
Each gear combination is shifted to a slightly faster speed, about 1/3 to 1/2 of a shift. Around 1 mph at 20 mph in the big ring.
It's a fairly subtle change.



~~~

Sram's 11-28 has different gearing than Shimano's 11-28.

Compare this chart to the top 50/34 chart. The Sram gearing has closer shifts above 20 mph, wider gaps in the 15-20 mph range. A lot of riders like having a 16 cog. It's a better choice for "A group" or racing riders.

34/50 and 11-28 Sram:
How do you link only the graph? I'm trying to put up my 30/42/52 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28. I'll have to link the whole thing.

Mike Sherman's Bicycle Gear Calculator
seypat is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 03:41 PM
  #58  
rm -rf
don't try this at home.
 
rm -rf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,117
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by seypat View Post
How do you link only the graph? I'm trying to put up my 30/42/52 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28. I'll have to link the whole thing.

Mike Sherman's Bicycle Gear Calculator
I use the Windows Snipping Tool to save a jpg of the chart. Save it to imgur.com
rm -rf is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 04:29 PM
  #59  
Sy Reene
Advocatus Diaboli
 
Sy Reene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 4,925

Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2351 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by rm -rf View Post
11 tooth
I thought that 11 tooth sprockets were "marketing".

But they have a couple of uses:

Soft pedaling at a low pedal pressure on downhills. I like to keep my legs moving on a very long downhill.
Using the 34-12 cog without being completely cross chained. A rider can get close to 20 mph without needing to shift the front to the 50. Handy on rolling terrain.
Exactly... and thank you. Whichever number cog from the smallest your rig 'cross-chains'.. going from a 12-XX to an 11-XX doesn't only buy you faster absolute top end speed, but also more top end speed available staying in the small ring. Stepped climbs (ie. incline-flat-incline-flat, etc) can be a big benefit to a smaller cogged rear-cassette by avoiding lots of big/small FD shifts.
Sy Reene is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 05:58 PM
  #60  
Dean V
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,470
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 858 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 59 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by bruce19 View Post
By top gear I mean the 52x11 on the CAAD 12 or 50x11 on the Guru. Why wouldn't I be using it? And, yes, it is reasonably flat at about 250 ft of elevation for 6.5 mi.
52/11 or 50/11 is a huge gear to be pushing on a flat or close to flat road.
You are either very fast or like a slow cadence.
Dean V is offline  
Old 08-29-19, 06:07 PM
  #61  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 6,543

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Liked 163 Times in 104 Posts
Originally Posted by Dean V View Post
52/11 or 50/11 is a huge gear to be pushing on a flat or close to flat road.
You are either very fast or like a slow cadence.
If I had to guess I'd say around 90 rpm works for me. Fast? For .8 mi. my PB is 24.6 mph. At age 73 I don't know if that equates to fast but I feel pretty good on the bike. At this point in my life, feeling good trumps the numbers.
bruce19 is offline  
Likes For bruce19:
Old 08-30-19, 06:49 AM
  #62  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,167

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 523 Post(s)
Liked 181 Times in 122 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle. For the sake of clarity, we'll (mostly) discard the hyperbolic nonsense associated with big chainrings, i.e what they can do above 35mph. Because I've tested this in practice-- coasting down a hill that is sufficiently steep to go 35mph requires zero watts. Accelerating up to say 37 or 38 miles an hour requires over 200 sustained watts just to combat air resistance. Unless there's a podium at the end of that descent, that's machismo gearing.

Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.

So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.

I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
Somebody gets it.

I've also out of curiosity downloaded the .gxp file a few times and thrown it into Excel. I then dragged a formula down the rows to calculate the estimated gear for each data point for a ride from the cadence/speed. GPS is a bit crap to do that instead of a wheel sensor, but whatever. It'll tell you that for most anyone anytime that the 11t and 12t get used maybe a total of 30 seconds per ride. More often than not it was in the 15/17 and above. Even for a compact.

I don't get why people like to argue this one between each other on the web when manufacturers are meeting consumer demand with how they kit their bikes they sell. If people want to try to call people out about the "hating on 53 and 52's" then they should head down to the LBS or call up Trek or Giant. They're the ones fitting compacts on most of what they sell these days.

The argument for compact is always regarding "the average user". Then the argument against always revolves around Kansas winds and blasting along at 40mph at 80rpm or descending some mythical local perfectly straight mountain.

This is why manufacturers are fitting compacts then leaving it up to owners to swap it out for a mid or a full. Because the compact serves more owners to start with.

Here you go: endurance models......compact
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes-defy-advanced

Race models.......mid:
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bi...anced-pro-disc
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bi...vanced-sl-disc

Some Treks.......
All...............wait for it.........compacts..........including some $10k Madone bikes and Emondas. Race bikes, compacts.

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...olorCode=black

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...reenvisibility

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...Code=greendark
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 07:57 AM
  #63  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 29 Times in 22 Posts
Ultimately, ride what you want, don’t worry about what the guy in front of you is riding and really don’t worry about what a guy on a forum is riding. You will live longer.
colnago62 is offline  
Likes For colnago62:
Old 08-30-19, 08:10 AM
  #64  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 6,543

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Liked 163 Times in 104 Posts
Originally Posted by Dean V View Post
52/11 or 50/11 is a huge gear to be pushing on a flat or close to flat road.
You are either very fast or like a slow cadence.
I had to come back to this quote because, based on the graphs/charts I've been seeing here and elsewhere, I'm thinking my cadence may be a lot lower than I thought. And, my theory that the 52x11 is actually slowing me down is looking pretty good. At 73 I don't have the power to push that gear. Certainly spinning in 50x11 feels better than 52x11.
bruce19 is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 09:23 AM
  #65  
noodle soup
Senior Member
 
noodle soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,571
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3147 Post(s)
Liked 246 Times in 167 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle.

Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.

So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
For me, 85-95 is my ideal cadence (riding solo on flat ground). Pace varies due to wind speed and direction, but is generally 18-22mph. In these conditions, a 50t big ring and a 12-25 cassette is perfect because it gives 1 tooth increases from 12t to 19t

Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
I don't have the luxury of that much elevation change. It's practically pancake flat for 25 miles in any direction from my home, but just past that gets me into the foothills. If I do go to ride an actual mountain, a 14-28 cassette gives me a little help with a 34x28 low. The 50x14 high spins out quickly, but on Mt Lemmon reaching 45mph or higher is no problem by just coasting. Controlling that speed is a bigger challenge.
noodle soup is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 09:35 AM
  #66  
eduskator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 242

Bikes: TCR Advanced Pro 0

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle. For the sake of clarity, we'll (mostly) discard the hyperbolic nonsense associated with big chainrings, i.e what they can do above 35mph. Because I've tested this in practice-- coasting down a hill that is sufficiently steep to go 35mph requires zero watts. Accelerating up to say 37 or 38 miles an hour requires over 200 sustained watts just to combat air resistance. Unless there's a podium at the end of that descent, that's machismo gearing.

Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.

So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.

I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
An average 5'9'' male weighting 198lbs? That person's either on steroids or very fat...

The average 5'9'' cyclist should be more around 170lbs...

Last edited by eduskator; 08-30-19 at 09:39 AM.
eduskator is online now  
Old 08-30-19, 09:38 AM
  #67  
CarloM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 336

Bikes: 2019 TCR Advanced SL1 Disc; 2018 Cervelo S3 SRAM eTap HRD

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 74 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by eduskator View Post
An average 5'9'' male weighting 198lbs? That person's either on steroids or a fat a**...

The average 5'9'' cyclist should be more around 160-170lbs...
I was thinking the same thing. I'm 2" shorter but 50 lbs lighter than that, of "average" build and I am sure that I have a few lbs to lose...
CarloM is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 11:24 AM
  #68  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 7,183

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3920 Post(s)
Liked 411 Times in 261 Posts
What should be and what is are two very different things. That's based on data directly from the CDC for the "average American adult male."

And in all honesty, the typical guy I see out on a bike trends much more toward the CDC average than he does toward the build of a professional cyclist.

It's hair-splitting to focus on the height/weight anyway. To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 11:28 AM
  #69  
noodle soup
Senior Member
 
noodle soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,571
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3147 Post(s)
Liked 246 Times in 167 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
Where did you get these figures? I'm not questioning the accuracy, but I'd like to play around with the calculator.
noodle soup is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 11:34 AM
  #70  
CarloM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 336

Bikes: 2019 TCR Advanced SL1 Disc; 2018 Cervelo S3 SRAM eTap HRD

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 74 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
What should be and what is are two very different things. That's based on data directly from the CDC for the "average American adult male."

And in all honesty, the typical guy I see out on a bike trends much more toward the CDC average than he does toward the build of a professional cyclist.

It's hair-splitting to focus on the height/weight anyway. To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
I see now what you're referencing. You're talking about the CDC's average for American males as it stands today, where obesity is an epidemic.
https://www.phillyvoice.com/cdc-repo...igger-heavier/

I had interpreted initially your comment as the CDC's measurement for what an ideal average male should be. Interesting that the average American male BMI is 29.1 which is in the upper range of overweight and just 0.9 away from obesity classification.

While I too have seen my fair share of overweight riders, in my area the "average" cyclist who would be concerned about compact vs. larger cranksets (they're the guys and gals riding on bikes costing north of $1500 and have at least some cycling kit) are considerably less than the average American BMI and much closer to ideal BMI (with some obviously in the extremely healthy/fit range).

Personally I disagree that 10% wattage difference is splitting hairs. If someone could prove to me that a bike would save me 10% in wattage (i.e. same speed at 10% wattage, or 10% faster at same wattage) I'd be readying the credit card...
CarloM is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 11:44 AM
  #71  
Sy Reene
Advocatus Diaboli
 
Sy Reene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 4,925

Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2351 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by CarloM View Post
Personally I disagree that 10% wattage difference is splitting hairs. If someone could prove to me that a bike would save me 10% in wattage (i.e. same speed at 10% wattage, or 10% faster at same wattage) I'd be readying the credit card...
And I guess this is only a weight-difference effect. I imagine, for the same height, a rider who's 50lbs heavier than another, is also taking on a good amount more wind resistance.
Sy Reene is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 11:51 AM
  #72  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 7,183

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3920 Post(s)
Liked 411 Times in 261 Posts
Originally Posted by noodle soup View Post
Where did you get these figures? I'm not questioning the accuracy, but I'd like to play around with the calculator.
National Health Statistics Report, December 20, 2018: Mean Body Weight, Height, Waist Circumference, and Body Mass Index Among Adults: United States, 1999–2000 Through 2015–2016

We are a chunky land.

Originally Posted by CarloM View Post
I see now what you're referencing. You're talking about the CDC's average for American males as it stands today, where obesity is an epidemic.
https://www.phillyvoice.com/cdc-repo...igger-heavier/

I had interpreted initially your comment as the CDC's measurement for what an ideal average male should be. Interesting that the average American male BMI is 29.1 which is in the upper range of overweight and just 0.9 away from obesity classification.

While I too have seen my fair share of overweight riders, in my area the "average" cyclist who would be concerned about compact vs. larger cranksets (they're the guys and gals riding on bikes costing north of $1500 and have at least some cycling kit) are considerably less than the average American BMI and much closer to ideal BMI (with some obviously in the extremely healthy/fit range).

Personally I disagree that 10% wattage difference is splitting hairs. If someone could prove to me that a bike would save me 10% in wattage (i.e. same speed at 10% wattage, or 10% faster at same wattage) I'd be readying the credit card...
Yeah, I've no idea what the ideal would be, they just report on what is. I routinely see folks on bikes that are $10K+ and could stand to lose 30 or more pounds. My bikes are nowhere near that price point, but I'd be doing amazing if I dropped 20. Though in defense of my relative fatness, two doctors have basically said my current weight is a "non issue," despite a BMI of 26.7. I think they're concerned much more with what's going on in the blood.

On topic, I don't like the 52T at any weight. That 4% difference is apparently a dealbreaker, because as I mentioned before, I always felt "between gears".
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 11:55 AM
  #73  
noodle soup
Senior Member
 
noodle soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,571
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3147 Post(s)
Liked 246 Times in 167 Posts
Not this, but the one that gave you the required wattage figures.
noodle soup is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 12:04 PM
  #74  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 7,183

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3920 Post(s)
Liked 411 Times in 261 Posts
Oh, that's just from the tried and true Bicycle Speed and Power Calculator, which is so accurate I've put in known segment data (with a PM) and the calculator is always within a few percent.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Likes For DrIsotope:
Old 08-30-19, 12:16 PM
  #75  
Sy Reene
Advocatus Diaboli
 
Sy Reene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 4,925

Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2351 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Oh, that's just from the tried and true Bicycle Speed and Power Calculator, which is so accurate I've put in known segment data (with a PM) and the calculator is always within a few percent.
cool calculator.. I'm especially intrigued by how pedaling cadence at a given wattage, affects speed.
Sy Reene is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.