Do you make use of your 52 tooth chain-ring?
#51
Senior Member
I don't understand this fear of the 52. Nobody says anything about 11t rear cogs, and that's a lot more ridiculous. When 13t was the typical smallest cog, 52/53 was sensible.
Larger chainwheels last longer. There's also a small but non-zero advantage in mechanical efficiency.
Larger chainwheels last longer. There's also a small but non-zero advantage in mechanical efficiency.
#52
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 6,347
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1953 Post(s)
Liked 3,634 Times
in
1,671 Posts
I don't understand this fear of the 52. Nobody says anything about 11t rear cogs, and that's a lot more ridiculous. When 13t was the typical smallest cog, 52/53 was sensible.
Larger chainwheels last longer. There's also a small but non-zero advantage in mechanical efficiency.
Larger chainwheels last longer. There's also a small but non-zero advantage in mechanical efficiency.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washington County, Vermont, USA
Posts: 3,787
Bikes: 1966 Dawes Double Blue, 1976 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1975 Raleigh Sprite 27, 1980 Univega Viva Sport, 1971 Gitane Tour de France, 1984 Lotus Classique, 1976 Motobecane Grand Record
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 758 Post(s)
Liked 647 Times
in
343 Posts
I don't understand this fear of the 52. Nobody says anything about 11t rear cogs, and that's a lot more ridiculous. When 13t was the typical smallest cog, 52/53 was sensible.
Larger chainwheels last longer. There's also a small but non-zero advantage in mechanical efficiency.
Larger chainwheels last longer. There's also a small but non-zero advantage in mechanical efficiency.
__________________
www.redclovercomponents.com
"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."
--Ogden Nash
www.redclovercomponents.com
"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."
--Ogden Nash
#54
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 44,804
Bikes: everywhere
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12636 Post(s)
Liked 7,528 Times
in
3,989 Posts
13 is a good small cog tooth count.
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 2,870
Bikes: 2009 Handsome Devil, 1987 Trek 520 Cirrus, 1978 Motobecane Grand Touring, 1987 Nishiki Cresta GT, 1989 Specialized Allez Former bikes; 1986 Miyata Trail Runner, 1979 Miyata 912, 2011 VO Rando, 1999 Cannondale R800, 1986 Schwinn Passage
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 796 Post(s)
Liked 522 Times
in
367 Posts
I'm not slow... I'm glacial. And I am old and fat to boot so a hard no on the 52. That said I recently built up a touring bike with a 46t big ring and I am wondering if I should have gone with a 48t based on recent rides.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Berea, KY
Posts: 1,132
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 310 Times
in
183 Posts
I have a 48/38 set of rings on the way to replace a set of 52/42. I can use the bigger ones, but I would prefer to avoid it. I started riding in the early 90's on mountain bikes with 46 tooth big rings and a 12 in the back. Since I was broke, I could only ever afford one bike. I just got used to spinning those and since I am not fast, I tend to stick to them.
__________________
Andy
Andy
#57
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I wonder if the pros ride 11t cogs. That would tell you right away if the mechanical advantage outweighs the benefits of the smaller cogs(weight?). They put a Lot of money into figuring out the most efficient overall result.
I believe Sram came out with some seriously small cogs. A 9t maybe?
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times
in
3,338 Posts
I suppose I've never been a fast spinner, and was never happy with the 54/13 on my old bike.
I've now left that gearing behind, fully embracing cassettes with higher gearing, and have started riding both faster, and with slightly (but not considerably) higher cadence.
While I can spin up from the small ring to > 20 MPH, I find that if I'm cruising in the small ring, my cadence drops, and my overall speed plummets.
I don't really pay a lot of attention to what gear I'm using on the rear, but am happy to be on the big ring, and land somewhere mid-cassette, with a couple of shifts each way for changing conditions.
Plus, I think the overall wear is better to have big/medium rather than being stuck with small/small.
If unloaded, I'll ride small rolling hills in the large ring, perhaps 53/21 or so. That is, unless I'm really pounding it, and will be in a slightly higher gear.
Oh, and while I don't like the highly technical Strava descent segments, I have a couple of straight drops that I like to push with all I have, and would easily spin out if I didn't have a couple of higher gears.
I've now left that gearing behind, fully embracing cassettes with higher gearing, and have started riding both faster, and with slightly (but not considerably) higher cadence.
While I can spin up from the small ring to > 20 MPH, I find that if I'm cruising in the small ring, my cadence drops, and my overall speed plummets.
I don't really pay a lot of attention to what gear I'm using on the rear, but am happy to be on the big ring, and land somewhere mid-cassette, with a couple of shifts each way for changing conditions.
Plus, I think the overall wear is better to have big/medium rather than being stuck with small/small.
If unloaded, I'll ride small rolling hills in the large ring, perhaps 53/21 or so. That is, unless I'm really pounding it, and will be in a slightly higher gear.
Oh, and while I don't like the highly technical Strava descent segments, I have a couple of straight drops that I like to push with all I have, and would easily spin out if I didn't have a couple of higher gears.
Last edited by CliffordK; 10-10-18 at 07:04 PM.
#59
Senior Member
Here in the flatlands, I don’t need much gear range. With a close range fw, in my normal range of 70-80 gear inches, I tend to be cross chained more than I would like in both the 42 and 53. So yes I use the large ring, but It works out better for my chainline if the big ring is more like 48.
#62
What??? Only 2 wheels?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston-ish, MA
Posts: 13,452
Bikes: 72 Peugeot UO-8, 82 Peugeot TH8, 87 Bianchi Brava, 76? Masi Grand Criterium, 74 Motobecane Champion Team, 86 & 77 Gazelle champion mondial, 81? Grandis, 82? Tommasini, 83 Peugeot PF10
Mentioned: 189 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1222 Post(s)
Liked 645 Times
in
232 Posts
Around here we have two ubiquitous native crops, hills and rocks. On a bike riding most roads one doesn't encounter too many rocks but hills, yes. So I asked myself, self, given that you can have only so many gears, which gears do you need and which can you do without? The hills answered that question. So there is no 52. Well, to be honest one bike has a 53 (I think) and I do use it, but not with one of those teeny tiny sprockets. Come to think of it, I rarely use the 14t sprockets at all. But in the rear, that's where all the action is.
__________________
Real cyclists use toe clips.
With great bikes comes great responsibility.
jimmuller
Real cyclists use toe clips.
With great bikes comes great responsibility.
jimmuller
#63
Zip tie Karen
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 7,006
Bikes: '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022, '21 Tsunami SNM-100
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Liked 1,542 Times
in
806 Posts
^this is my thinking exactly. I refuse to consider that manufacturers and those who spec the production bikes have any clue about how I ride or what I need. I simply change the gearing to what I want. Rarely do I keep a chainring that's above a 50T. I find that ranges between 40 - 95 gear inches work best for the type of riding that I do. Sometimes lower on a commuter or touring bike where I'll be carrying a load regularly.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Forksbent, MN
Posts: 3,271
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
15 Posts
52 gets used most of the time. 39 or 42 on climbs
Usually only need a 13 max cog with the 52 and that’s usually downhill or downwind.
Usually only need a 13 max cog with the 52 and that’s usually downhill or downwind.
#65
Señor Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hardy, VA
Posts: 17,935
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1491 Post(s)
Liked 1,072 Times
in
634 Posts
I have one with 53, a bunch with 52, a couple with 50, and somewhat fewer teeth on my IGH bikes. I do need lower gearing options than I did 40 years ago, but my legs haven't fallen off just yet.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
#66
Senior Member
The one thing big chain rings have going for them is they look great. Nothing compares to a Campy Nuovo Record or Super Record or a Stronglight 93 with a 52t big ring.
I love the appearance of a big ring so much I'm tempted to get a Compass Rene Herse triple crankset and set my front derailleur up so it can't shift up to the big ring so it will never get scratched or worn.
Now I need manufacturers to offer more cassettes that start at 14t. If 52 x 14 was good enough for Eddy Merckx I can't see me needing a taller gear.
I love the appearance of a big ring so much I'm tempted to get a Compass Rene Herse triple crankset and set my front derailleur up so it can't shift up to the big ring so it will never get scratched or worn.
Now I need manufacturers to offer more cassettes that start at 14t. If 52 x 14 was good enough for Eddy Merckx I can't see me needing a taller gear.
#67
Keener splendor
Yes. And I do use the 52/11 combination on my road bike.
#68
Senior Member
No, not quite. A gear ratio is a gear ratio, and 48x12 is the same leverage as 52x13. They are both 4:1.
The difference in efficiency comes from the chain having to bend around a smaller curve. More chain friction. It is however a very small difference. There are studies of this somewhere online. It's part of the reason larger derailleur pulleys are starting to show up. The old Cambio Corsa guys were not entirely wrong.
I wonder if the pros ride 11t cogs. That would tell you right away if the mechanical advantage outweighs the benefits of the smaller cogs(weight?). They put a Lot of money into figuring out the most efficient overall result.
#69
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,765
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked 1,294 Times
in
819 Posts
The one thing big chain rings have going for them is they look great. Nothing compares to a Campy Nuovo Record or Super Record or a Stronglight 93 with a 52t big ring.
I love the appearance of a big ring so much I'm tempted to get a Compass Rene Herse triple crankset and set my front derailleur up so it can't shift up to the big ring so it will never get scratched or worn.
Now I need manufacturers to offer more cassettes that start at 14t. If 52 x 14 was good enough for Eddy Merckx I can't see me needing a taller gear.
I love the appearance of a big ring so much I'm tempted to get a Compass Rene Herse triple crankset and set my front derailleur up so it can't shift up to the big ring so it will never get scratched or worn.
Now I need manufacturers to offer more cassettes that start at 14t. If 52 x 14 was good enough for Eddy Merckx I can't see me needing a taller gear.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
#70
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,365 Times
in
1,382 Posts
The question is flawed, because the effective wheel size is created by the rear wheel and the ratio between chainring and rear cog. Stating which size chainring you are using is meaningless without also stating the cog size. The wheel size is implied as 700c or thereabouts. Cog size is not implied at all. Suppose I said I ride a 52t chainring all the time. Maybe you would be amazed or impressed or even skeptical, but maybe my cassette is a 20-34 for all you know.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washington County, Vermont, USA
Posts: 3,787
Bikes: 1966 Dawes Double Blue, 1976 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1975 Raleigh Sprite 27, 1980 Univega Viva Sport, 1971 Gitane Tour de France, 1984 Lotus Classique, 1976 Motobecane Grand Record
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 758 Post(s)
Liked 647 Times
in
343 Posts
The question is flawed, because the effective wheel size is created by the rear wheel and the ratio between chainring and rear cog. Stating which size chainring you are using is meaningless without also stating the cog size. The wheel size is implied as 700c or thereabouts. Cog size is not implied at all. Suppose I said I ride a 52t chainring all the time. Maybe you would be amazed or impressed or even skeptical, but maybe my cassette is a 20-34 for all you know.
__________________
www.redclovercomponents.com
"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."
--Ogden Nash
www.redclovercomponents.com
"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."
--Ogden Nash
#72
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times
in
1,574 Posts
Judging from what I've seen at swap meets, many riders found the 40T or 42T inner ring far more useful than the 52T. There's no shortage of vintage 52T rings, from any standard, in perfect shape. So, yes, big rings can last virtually forever.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,674
Bikes: 82 Medici, 2011 Richard Sachs, 2011 Milwaukee Road
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1924 Post(s)
Liked 1,954 Times
in
1,086 Posts
On solo rides with a 42-52 when I'm not doing something stupid like intervals, the 52 is rarely used. But on group rides and above threshold efforts, the 52 gets used a lot. I just recently put a 53-39 on my Ironman and the 53 gets more action than the 52 it replaced because the 39 leads to cross chaining more often than the 42. 11 tooth cogs are noisy and I'm glad they are easy to avoid on my C&V rides.
#75
Master Parts Rearranger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,680
Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present
Mentioned: 221 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1553 Post(s)
Liked 2,006 Times
in
984 Posts
I'm sure I could get by practically, with a 1x system comprised of a 39T front and an 11-28T rear. For the flats. And general boring commuting. I have improved my cadencing and can spin faster for longer and happily enough. Any time that road aims even slightly downhill, it's to the big ring we go. And on decent downhills and sprints, I'm either in or knocking on the door of that 11T rear cog. 13T max cogs are not enough by a long shot, per my riding environment and speed proclivities.