48/16 to 46/16
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 187
Likes: 1
From: Denver
Bikes: Super Pisa, Vigorelli, Scrambler
48/16 to 46/16
I know I know.
USE THE SEARCH.
To be honest, there is just SO much on this forum, it's a bit overwhelming.
So I'm making a thread about my specific question.
I'm new to riding fixed, and currently riding a 48/16 setup with 170mm crank.
I'm thinking of getting a 160mm crank with 46 teeth.
I live in central IL, and have slight hills, but nothing too drastic.
Was wondering how much of a difference I will notice.
Thanks for the help.
USE THE SEARCH.
To be honest, there is just SO much on this forum, it's a bit overwhelming.
So I'm making a thread about my specific question.
I'm new to riding fixed, and currently riding a 48/16 setup with 170mm crank.
I'm thinking of getting a 160mm crank with 46 teeth.
I live in central IL, and have slight hills, but nothing too drastic.
Was wondering how much of a difference I will notice.
Thanks for the help.
#2
Comanche Racing
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,820
Likes: 0
From: Deep in the heart of Texas
Bikes: Presto NJS build, Specialized Allez Pro w/ full Dura Ace and Ksyrium SLs, 1990something Specialized Sirrus
i donno, the change in teeth might be counteracted by the shorter crankarms. It might end up being no difference, I'm not sure. Use a gear inch calculator to get a specific answer. you can google it.
#4
Oh, you know...
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
From: DC
Bikes: '74 Schwinn Sports Tourer (Polo), S-Works E5 Team Festina (Chorus 11), Trek 2200 Bonded Carbon (Fixed), Trek 920 (7 speed IGH), Chesini Olimpiade SL (1x7)
Go for it. Don't forget to readjust your seatpost height after you get the shorter cranks.
#5
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
#6
King of the Hipsters
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,128
Likes: 2
From: Bend, Oregon
Bikes: Realm Cycles Custom
With all respect to Sheldon, try this online singlespeed and fixed-gear cycling calculator:
https://software.bareknucklebrigade.c...it.applet.html
The calculator above will define all the terms, such as "Gain Ratio," "Gear Inches" and "Development" in very understandable and usable language.
The calculator above also allows the user to see the impact of gear changes on all parameters, in real time, as well as showing mph at various rpm.
For the OP, try prime numbers, such as 47/17.
https://software.bareknucklebrigade.c...it.applet.html
The calculator above will define all the terms, such as "Gain Ratio," "Gear Inches" and "Development" in very understandable and usable language.
The calculator above also allows the user to see the impact of gear changes on all parameters, in real time, as well as showing mph at various rpm.
For the OP, try prime numbers, such as 47/17.
#7
Oh, you know...
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
From: DC
Bikes: '74 Schwinn Sports Tourer (Polo), S-Works E5 Team Festina (Chorus 11), Trek 2200 Bonded Carbon (Fixed), Trek 920 (7 speed IGH), Chesini Olimpiade SL (1x7)
To the OP:
Prime numbers are good if you intend to do any skidding. If you do not intend to skid, prime numbers make absolutely no difference.
Prime numbers are good if you intend to do any skidding. If you do not intend to skid, prime numbers make absolutely no difference.
#9
King of the Hipsters
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,128
Likes: 2
From: Bend, Oregon
Bikes: Realm Cycles Custom
Originally Posted by dsh
Prime numbers are good if you intend to do any skidding. If you do not intend to skid, prime numbers make absolutely no difference.
I don't skid (expensive tires), but, nonetheless, I like prime numbers for aesthetic and emotional reasons.
And, I wonder if riding with prime numbers doesn't spread the workload and stress more evenly throughout the drive train.
#10
Fixed-gear roadie
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 0
From: Wilmington, NC
Bikes: 2008 Masi Speciale Fixed
Crank arm length has no effect on gearing, only on the radius of your pedaling arc and the perceived effort of pedaling. In that sense you're right, the 160mm cranks will give him a little less leverage but the slightly lowered ratio will make pedaling easier, so it might even out in terms of perceived pedaling effort.
#11
Oh, you know...
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
From: DC
Bikes: '74 Schwinn Sports Tourer (Polo), S-Works E5 Team Festina (Chorus 11), Trek 2200 Bonded Carbon (Fixed), Trek 920 (7 speed IGH), Chesini Olimpiade SL (1x7)
#12
click. click click.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Bikes: Leader 725TR https://velospace.org/node/23532
That's a big change..From 79.1 Gear Inches to 75.8 Gear inches.
Gain ratio from 48/16 with 170mm crank arms = 5.91
Gain ratio from 46/16 with 165mm crank arms = 5.84
Gear ratio 48/16 = 3.0
Gear ratio 46/16 = 2.88
I'd be much more comfortable with 46/16 to save your knees. If you're strong enough, stick with your 48/16. But, obviously it's a problem since you're starting a thread over it..
Gain ratio from 48/16 with 170mm crank arms = 5.91
Gain ratio from 46/16 with 165mm crank arms = 5.84
Gear ratio 48/16 = 3.0
Gear ratio 46/16 = 2.88
I'd be much more comfortable with 46/16 to save your knees. If you're strong enough, stick with your 48/16. But, obviously it's a problem since you're starting a thread over it..






