Marcus_Ti

Can't even trust the fast-easy-lazy HTML gear inch calculators online anymore

Maelochs

Go ahead, complicate things even more...

Okay ... decide if you really want to race some day, and if you really want to win.

If that would be a small part of your life's dream, or if you would be content just to compete at Cat 4 forever ...

Then you might be in the position of bucking a trend successfully and starting a new trend.

Seriously (and plenty here seem to agree) the current 11-tooth cog choice is a carryover from the idea that people want to buy bikes like the TdF riders ride. Except on downhills, few if any riders really Use the 11-cog to its capacity. not a lot of people can spin that fast and push that much air (30 mph+ on the flats is ...a bit of an effort, shall we say?)

The only reason I ever use mine is to avoid an upshift up front (modern drive trains are quite happy with cross-chaining and purists be damned,) and to maintain speed when I want to push a lower cadence because my heart is weaker than my legs are--and very rarely at that.

Most people would suggest going to 12-25 (not Me of course well, not again ) but honestly, there is no reason I can see Not to go to a 46-tooth big ring.

As I noted, I rarely spin out a 48x14 on my touring bike even unloaded ... it is my low-rev cruising gear when I feel strong, at 90 inches. Your 46x11 combo would yield 110 inches.

I'd bet you could make the swap and never miss the highest ratios. Unless you really are a racer or a Very serious rider (the one with set training schedules, specific workouts, who track power, cadence, calculate VO2 and all that) then you could be the first rider to say "Look, this suits what I ride and I use all of it, so it is the best choice," and in a couple years it might be the new industry standard (or standard option.)

But ... I really don't know. I am glad you are going to be the one making the experiment.

Drew Eckhardt 

I'd use 46-36 with those cogs, although I'd ride 12-25 instead.

46x11 is still bigger than the 52x13 Eddy Merckx used to dominate the grand tours.
36x28 is a very low gear.

46x12 is like 52x14 many people rode when we had 5 or 6 cog freewheels, and still good enough
36x25 is still plenty to get fit riders over anything in the Colorado Rockies.

The 46 will also give you a quieter chainline when riding on your big ring.

gsindela

OP here. Noob question: some people have suggested a 12-25, but the Sram website only lists 11 speed cassettes starting with an 11 tooth gear:

Gear ratio:
11-25: 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25
11-26: 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26
11-28: 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,22,25,28
WiFLi™ 11-32 cassette option:
11-32: 11,12,13,14,15,17,19,22,25,28,32
11-36: 11,12,13,15,17,19,22,25,28,32,36

So are these people talking about a custom cassette? What am I missing here?

Maelochs

I believe Shimano makes a 105 (https://www.bike-discount.de/en/buy/...0-12-25-212991) and an Ultegra cassette in 12-25 (https://www.excelsports.com/main.asp...jor=1&minor=10)

Those might not be good prices, I just grabbed the first two links I saw.

Oh I forgot to add that Shimano and Sram cassettes are completely interchangeable.

gsindela

Gotcha. Great info. Thanks.

Succhia Ruota

noodle soup

Now that I'm about to be 50, should I look into getting a triple?

DrIsotope

Not for the OP, who I think, if interested in any sort of racing, should stick with the 50/34. A pack on the flats can spin a 46/11 out. To anyone else,

Wanna get your money's worth out of that 11T? Go 1X. I use my 11T every day, and often. But I have a 42T in the front, so there's that.

noodle soup

I concur

there's another thread for that.

Maelochs

I just swapped my 52-42 for a 52-39 this weekend ... now I find I do use my 11 cog.

lsberrios1 

46t ring won't get you far in racing. I have 52-36/28-11 and I would rather have a 53-39. That being said most of my racing is at 50ft per mile elevation gains and I barely touch the small ring given that even hills at 6%ish are 20mph rollers, so 52/28 is good enough. If I was doing a crit, 53/39 with 11-25 should be enough.

For mountains with sustained climbs of more than 20 min, 36-28 or even 34-28 is nice, but there are no races in Georgia with 100ft. per mile elevation so I don't need that. It's easier to sprint with a 50t ring than a 46 when the sprint is 30mph+. There is a sprint near my LBS that is about .7 miles and I've caught myself spinning out (for my taste in sprint cadence) on my 52-11. This means close to 40mph and standing. 50/34-11/28 is good gearing for someone starting out.

Succhia Ruota

46/36...?

Weird.

Racing Dan

One thing you, and every body, could do, is make a (free) Strava account and log your rides to see how fast (and slow) you are really going. Then of course it will be too late to swap the crank free of charge but it should give some insights into appropriate garing for your particular riding, rather than relying on guessing and other ppls advice that may, or may not, be of benefit to you.

gsindela

OP here: I'm leaning towards keeping the 50/34.

kbarch

You should. Seriously, it sounds like you want a broad range of road riding experiences - something more than expanding squares on the prairie anyhow. 50/34 is MUCH more versatile, and if there's anything unsuitable about your current setup I think, as you've gathered, it can be better corrected by changing your cassette instead. But again, what you have back there now is very versatile. I'd keep it until you are SURE you want something more focused.

gsindela

Thanks kbarch! Wise.

By the way, I emailed CC and said that I will take a merchandise credit in lieu of swapping out the cranks. They said they are willing to do so but did not specify amount thereof. I'm thinking $100 is fair.

zymphad

I understand the math involved, your 46/36 seem fine, but it's a road bike, get the 50/34. If you don't do it for all the other reasons posted here, do it for aesthetics. While at it, get a sexy 4 arm crank, even FSA's new Gossamer is decent looking. Though I think Shimano/Campagnolo four arm are the best looking cranks.

99Klein 

Cross bike gearing. Never understood that because I would think a 34 would be better off road than a 36. But I don't race cross so?

kbarch

Cross bike cassettes can have enormous mtb-type cogs, so a small, small chain ring isn't necessary. Stock, mine came with just a single 40t cog in front and an 11-42 cassette. Yes, FORTY-two. Not sure why they'd want the chain rings so close in size, though (I'm quite new to it )

Racing Dan

Because having the chain rings closer reduces the associated rear shifting. On the 50/34 shifting the chain ring is usually accompanied with 3 or even 4 shift in the back if you only want to come up (or down) one gear. The closer spaced cassette, the worse it gets. 50/34 + 12-25 is especially bad in this respect.

HTML5 Gear Calculator

vinuneuro

That's because it's a 1x. 46/36 bikes come with 11-28.

I wish high quality triple's made a come back in road bikes. I'm in Chicago as well and my next bike component change will be swapping the stock 11-32 for a 12-25, paired with the stock 50/34.

DaveLeeNC

I ride a 50-34 & 11-27. I had been riding 12-25. The 11 is occasionally useful but not a game changer. In my rolling terrain the 34-27 is occasionally useful as well. But the 27 is nice in that I can ride 50-25 without cross-chaining and I ride that a whole bunch.

Dave

noodle soup

While you offered some great information, it isn't relevant to a true flatland rider.

There's no need for 34x27 for a flatland rider. A true flatland rider has no use for a 34t small ring either, but we'll get to that someday.

kbarch

That kind of begs the question; why a close pair of chain rings (and all the overlap/redundancy) rather than a single one and wider ranging cassette? I don't know much about CX, but it doesn't seem that finessing ones cadence is much of a concern. If it's an effort to make it more road-worthy, 46 doesn't seem worth it, but maybe for others it is? Or am I missing something else?