Big Ring power vs. small ring power?
#1
Curmudgeon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Triangle NC
Posts: 336
Bikes: Specialized Diverge Comp
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times
in
28 Posts
Big Ring power vs. small ring power?
How does human physiology and performance compare when pedaling in the big ring versus pedaling in the small ring, when cog selection on the cassette makes the outputs similar?
Example
Big Ring 48T + cassette in 32T cog produces
Gear Ratio 1.50
Gain Ratio 2.99
Gear Inches 40.04
Development 3.19 meters
Speed 10.1 MPH
Small Ring 32T + cassette in 21T cog produces
Gear Ratio 1.52
Gain Ratio 3.04
Gear Inches 40.67
Development 3.25 meters
Speed 10.3 MPH,
Nearly identical.
But what is the physiological effect on fatigue, endurance, power and overall performance generally? If I climb a few miles in one versus the other, will I just plain be more worn out in one versus the other?
Is there a difference in the “power” (I don’t have a power meter!)
Example
Big Ring 48T + cassette in 32T cog produces
Gear Ratio 1.50
Gain Ratio 2.99
Gear Inches 40.04
Development 3.19 meters
Speed 10.1 MPH
Small Ring 32T + cassette in 21T cog produces
Gear Ratio 1.52
Gain Ratio 3.04
Gear Inches 40.67
Development 3.25 meters
Speed 10.3 MPH,
Nearly identical.
But what is the physiological effect on fatigue, endurance, power and overall performance generally? If I climb a few miles in one versus the other, will I just plain be more worn out in one versus the other?
Is there a difference in the “power” (I don’t have a power meter!)
#2
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,046
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22592 Post(s)
Liked 8,925 Times
in
4,158 Posts
Likes For datlas:
#3
Senior Member
The 48/32 would be cross chained and not the best selection. The 32/21 is the better choice.
Every gearing setup has a transition speed where below that speed, the little ring is the better choice.
Every gearing setup has a transition speed where below that speed, the little ring is the better choice.
Likes For DaveSSS:
#4
Senior Member
“But what is the physiological effect on fatigue, endurance, power and overall performance generally? If I climb a few miles in one versus the other, will I just plain be more worn out in one versus the other?”
I don’t know. You will have to try these scenarios and see what the results are. Only you know your physical abilities and limits. I use both chain rings. Have 22 gears, might as well use them based on the current situation.
I don’t know. You will have to try these scenarios and see what the results are. Only you know your physical abilities and limits. I use both chain rings. Have 22 gears, might as well use them based on the current situation.
Likes For Ilbiker:
#5
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,417
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked 1,148 Times
in
490 Posts
If the gear ratios are the same and the cadence is the same then your speed will be the same and your power will be the same.
(There are small differences in drive train efficiency so it's not *exactly* the same -- you lose a bit of efficiency with the smaller chainring -- but they're very close.)
(There are small differences in drive train efficiency so it's not *exactly* the same -- you lose a bit of efficiency with the smaller chainring -- but they're very close.)
Likes For RChung:
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 755
Bikes: 2019 CAAD12, 2015 Specialized Sirrus Comp
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 562 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 64 Times
in
46 Posts
Physiology should be exactly the same since your foot experiences the same gear ratio. But the question I'm curious about is whether there's a difference in drivetrain efficiency. My assumption is that the big ring is more efficient because the chain doesn't have to "bend" as much. But I'm curious what others think.
Likes For Robert A:
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
If the gear ratios are the same and the cadence is the same then your speed will be the same and your power will be the same.
(There are small differences in drive train efficiency so it's not *exactly* the same -- you lose a bit of efficiency with the smaller chainring -- but they're very close.)
(There are small differences in drive train efficiency so it's not *exactly* the same -- you lose a bit of efficiency with the smaller chainring -- but they're very close.)
Likes For Dean V:
#8
Senior Member
It’s not a matter of opinion or something where majority rules. The physics says larger cogs will be more efficient. The question is how large is that effect and will it be negated by differences in chain line (which would not be a factor on a fixed gear).
Likes For asgelle:
#9
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,046
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22592 Post(s)
Liked 8,925 Times
in
4,158 Posts
Physiology should be exactly the same since your foot experiences the same gear ratio. But the question I'm curious about is whether there's a difference in drivetrain efficiency. My assumption is that the big ring is more efficient because the chain doesn't have to "bend" as much. But I'm curious what others think.
Likes For datlas:
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 755
Bikes: 2019 CAAD12, 2015 Specialized Sirrus Comp
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 562 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 64 Times
in
46 Posts
Why are larger cogs more efficient -- because the chain bends less, or another reason?
Likes For Robert A:
#11
Senior Member
Likes For asgelle:
#12
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,417
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked 1,148 Times
in
490 Posts
For the same gear ratio and same cadence, the small chainring-small cog combo chain travels slower than a big chainring-big cog chain. For example, a 39-13 and a 54-18 are the same gear ratio, so if you're pedaling at 60 rpm you're going at the same speed and producing the same power at the crank. However, in the 54-18 the chain travels 54 teeth per revolution, so 54 teeth per second, while in the 39-13 the chain travels 39 teeth/sec. You're traveling at the same speed, so the same power is going through the drivetrain. But the chain is traveling 38% faster in 54-18 than in 39-13 so the chain tension must be 38% lower. So in the small-small combo, not only does the chain bend more, it's also under more tension. That's why the old microdrive MTB drivetrains wore out faster.
Likes For RChung:
#13
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,417
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked 1,148 Times
in
490 Posts
We've measured differences in drive train losses. We know it wasn't chain angle because we jury-rigged a frankencassette with small cogs inboard of large cogs so the small-small combo had the same chain line as the big-big combo.
Likes For RChung:
Likes For colnago62:
#15
Senior Member
Drivetrain efficiency is noticeably better when on a big / big combination than on a small / small one. Personally, I can notice it by feel. It can vary if you're crosschaining a lot though, as crosschaining means a loss of efficiency.
If I'm in a point where both options are acceptable, I always ride the big ring unless I know I'll need to downshift to the small ring again in a few seconds.
If I'm in a point where both options are acceptable, I always ride the big ring unless I know I'll need to downshift to the small ring again in a few seconds.
Likes For Amt0571: