PeterCNX

Any suggestions please .....

When I bought my road bike it came with 50-34 chain rings and an 11-32 cassette. That was fine for a while but then I found it very easy to ride and difficult to get any speed. So I changed to 52-36 with an 11-34 cassette. That helped. But now ... I feel that I am getting a relaxed ride again and rarely use the small chain ring.

I have recently moved house and there are things called mountains just up the road and they are certainly challenging.

I was thinking to put the 34 back on and replace the 52 with a 53 chain ring. The idea being some help going up hills with the smaller gear and a bit more grunt on the level and down hill.

What is wrong with that?

cuevélo

What is the brand/part number of the chainrings? Nicer ones will not shift as well with mismatched pairs, because the shifting aids on the ring are designed to work with the other.

PeterCNX

Thank you for the response and I had not even thought of this, I sort of assumed that the number of teeth was the key...

I do not recall any part number, the brand of the 52 and 36 is Stronglight. I will have to wait for daylight to look at the others. In any event I do not think they will be expensive.....

So apart from that you do not seem to say there is a problem with a 53-34 combination?

cuevélo

What cranks are they on?

urbanknight

You should be able to pedal a 52/11 comfortably to about 40mph. It sounds like you use way too slow of a cadence, which is not only bad for sustainability (edited as per Asgelle's and WhyFi's comments), but also bad for your knees. Instead of messing with the chainrings any more, I suggest you work on increasing your pedal cadence. A typical optimum cadence is somewhere around 80-100 RPM.

mstateglfr 

That will make a 19 tooth difference between chainrings. I have seen setups where people say it works fine, but the larger the tooth difference, the more difficult it is to shift properly. Shimano says 16t difference max for their road cranks, for example.
At some point, just tuck and let gravity pull you down the hill.
Also, if you are pedaling at a good cadence and still genuinely need 53/11, then you should look into a pro contract.

asgelle

Lower cadences have been shown to be more efficient than higher ones. Perhaps it's another word you're looking for.

urbanknight

Too fast OR too slow of a cadence is inefficient. If the OP is feeling too "relaxed" with a 52/11, they're almost definitely on the too slow side. Even at 60 RPM, a 52/11 would be comfortably cruising around at 23 mph.

Efficiency depends on a lot of factors (speed, wattage, resistance, etc.) but I'm quite confident based on the OP's description that they would benefit from a higher cadence.

https://www.roadbikerider.com/whats-...cling-cadence/

https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/wha...ke-you-faster/

WhyFi

He's talking about efficiency in the strict sense - how much work is being done for the amount of energy being expended. You're talking more about sustainability - balancing cadence and torque in a manner that's fast and can be maintained.

HTupolev

Wickwerks makes a matched 53-34 pair.

asgelle

It's the only sense that has any meaning. In urbanknight's usage I have no idea what it means. It could be efficiency (though wrong), but it could also be speed, endurance, comfort, fatigue resistance, etc. In other words, no meaning at all.

Eric F 

Make sure your derailleurs can handle the increased range.

urbanknight

Fair enough, I suppose "optimum" or "sustainable" would have been a better term. Still, I think we can all agree that the OP should be able to make good use of a 52/36, 11-32 gear set unless they're about to contest a stage in le Tour.

WhyFi

Well, it's the sense in which it has the most specific meaning. I mean, I hear you and you're right, but language means what people decide it means. In this context, enough people have decided that it has to do with perceived effort and a middle ground between grinding and frying your legs and spinning too lightly and too quickly.

colnago62

Whats chain wrap like in the 34? You must lose the use of at least on cog.

HTupolev

I haven't used those rings, but there's no inherent reason that it would cause wrap to be an issue. That would depend on the cassette and RD.

Bigbus

When I asked about stepping up to taller gears a while back on this forum I was also lectured on increasing my cadence. Since leaving the MTB behind and moving up to the lighter road bikes my cadence has increased all of its own accord. Where I used to maintain low 60's, I am now in the 80's. Yet when I get back on the MTB I have a hard time pushing more than 70 RPM. Go figure. I say if the OP wants taller gearing, go for it. I'm 71 and have always been a pedal masher and never have I had knee problems. I'd give that Wickworks a try that HTupolev mentioned. I have a 52T large on both of my road bikes mated to a 14T on the old Giant and an 11T on the Fuji. I go as fast as I want on the Fuji and don't feel a need to go taller. I would like taller gears on the Giant too, but unless I want to do major upgrades on the old beast, it is what it is. Good luck

urbanknight

If the OP wants to mash, they can go ahead and mash, but going from a 52/11 to a 53/11 is going to make a difference of about 1.5 RPM (less than 2%). I honestly don't think I would even notice the difference of adding one single tooth on the big ring. Just seems like a waste of money to get almost no change, but if it matters to the OP nobody can stop them.
They do make 56t chainrings with 110 BCD (assuming the chain wrap is ok and the FD can handle the tooth difference).

PeterCNX

hmmm ... nothing like opening a can of worms.

To answer questions ....

The crankset is Shimano Claris.

The 50 and 34 chainrings are Shimano. (this appears to be stamped on the gear but very difficult to read).

The 52 and 36 chainrings are Stronglight. (52T 10/9 speed Comapact concept 110mm; 36T 10/9 speed 7075 CNC)

urbanknight ... you say "You should be able to pedal a 52/11 comfortably to about 40mph." That is about 64 khm and to be able to ride at that speed would encourage me to spend more time on my road bike and less on my mountain bikes. Actually that is really fast. I have no idea how to accomplish that with the existing legs / gears ... if I ride down a slight slope I cannot catchup with the chain no matter how fast I try to rotate the crank. On the level I am always wanting to push more but again as soon as I get moving I cannot catch up with the chain.

Thank you mstateglfr for that observation, I did not know about the tooth difference being critical since it is the same front derailleur but I do take the point. A pro contract at my age is not a reality but thanks for the suggestion.

urbanknight

Riding downhill is exactly what I was referring to, but yes the pros can reach those speeds in a sprint on flat ground. That comes out to a little over 100 RPM, which is not a very fast cadence, especially for short stretches like descents. But if you want a 53 (or even bigger), they are available. Consider the specs of your equipment, but know that those are conservative numbers. For what it's worth, your front derailleur claims there shouldn't be more than a 16t difference between chainrings. Going beyond that risks the chain rubbing it in the small chainring, but there's only one way to find out.

https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/produ...D-R2000-F.html