Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Singlespeed & Fixed Gear
Reload this Page >

16 tooth cog...bike setup question, need help!

Notices
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

16 tooth cog...bike setup question, need help!

Old 03-21-12, 07:42 PM
  #1  
mupp
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: detroit, michigan
Posts: 2

Bikes: schwinn world sport, schwinn continental ii, peugeot triathlon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
16 tooth cog...bike setup question, need help!

so, i was wondering if anyone could help me with my dilemma here..
i have a 16 tooth fixed gear on my rear wheel, and im trying to figure out which chainwheel upfront i should go with.
yeah, i know theres obviously ways to figure this out, but i dont know, so your help is greatly appreciated! its mostly going to be used in a city/suburb area.

thanks.
mupp is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 07:48 PM
  #2  
Dcv
Senior Member
 
Dcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 308

Bikes: Cinelli Mash, Scott CR1 Pro conversion, LeMond Zurich, Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
44:16 = 72.33 gear inches, or 43:16 = 70.68 gear inches. i think a 44t is easier to find.

Last edited by Dcv; 03-22-12 at 06:59 PM. Reason: does that make you feel better mihlbach?
Dcv is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 07:51 PM
  #3  
ddeadserious
Cat Enthusiast
 
ddeadserious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 2,227

Bikes: All City Nature Boy

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
44 or 46 should be good for your area. I'd go with a 46(will give you about 76 gear inches) if you're don't mind puffing a little bit up the hills. A 42 will give you 69GI and a 44 will give you 72GI, which is will be nicer for climbing hills but you'll be spinning on flat ground. I guess it really depends what suburbs you're riding in. Garden City/Westland, I'd gear higher(46 or 48T) because most of it is fairly flat. If you're trying to ride Hines park or something, go with a smaller chainring.
ddeadserious is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 08:05 PM
  #4  
mupp
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: detroit, michigan
Posts: 2

Bikes: schwinn world sport, schwinn continental ii, peugeot triathlon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
oh thank god, someone from my area..yeah i actually live right above the hill on hines, and i ride my world sport through it. im more in the dearborn heights/detroit area. so a 46?
mupp is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 08:17 PM
  #5  
ddeadserious
Cat Enthusiast
 
ddeadserious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 2,227

Bikes: All City Nature Boy

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
So you're riding your geared bike through Hines, and want to ride your fixed gear on mostly flat land? I'd go with a 46 then. I was really happy with my eighth inch chainring, and at $15, you can't go wrong(assuming it's the right BCD for your crankset).

edit: I shouldn't act like 46/16 is going to be impossible to ride Hines with, you certainly can. I run about that many gear inches and ride Hines from time to time, but I definitely enjoy less hilly routes more. It's a very reasonable all around gear ratio.
ddeadserious is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 08:36 PM
  #6  
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 6,523
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Dcv View Post
44 x 16 = 72.33 gear inches, or 43 x 16 = 70.68 gear inches. i think a 44t is easier to find.
Gear inches are calculated from the gear ratio (44/16). You don't multiply the numbers.
mihlbach is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 09:23 PM
  #7  
4rcticFlowers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
He didn't; 44x16 isn't 72.33. (number) x (number) is just a common way of expressing gear ratios.
4rcticFlowers is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 11:24 PM
  #8  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 19,270

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2412 Post(s)
Liked 318 Times in 236 Posts
Depending on how new you are to FG and how fast you need to go, you might want to start with a smaller chainring. A lower gear ratio makes it easier to get going from a stoplight. I commute on a 41x16 with 25.4" tires (65 GI), and it seems about right for me.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 11:28 PM
  #9  
FrenchFit 
The Left Coast, USA
 
FrenchFit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,759

Bikes: Bulls, Bianchi, Koga, Trek, Miyata

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 11 Posts
If you are light/strong go with the 46, if you are heavy or go loaded, 44 or less.
FrenchFit is offline  
Old 03-21-12, 11:57 PM
  #10  
swisscheese
Senior Member
 
swisscheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 83

Bikes: Specialized Tricross Singlecross, Fuji Tiara, Univega Alpina 5.3, Vitus 979

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I ride 48x16 on some decent hills so anything below that will be fine. Anything giving you 70-80 gear inches should be good on mostly flat stuff.
swisscheese is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 01:38 AM
  #11  
jimmytango
Hi, I'm Bryan.
 
jimmytango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,650

Bikes: 2010 Focus Mares

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
[I ride 44/16 around Chicago. Took it to the hills of Austin and was fine. 44/16 is a great ratio for me.

Last edited by jimmytango; 03-22-12 at 08:22 AM.
jimmytango is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 04:34 AM
  #12  
Dcv
Senior Member
 
Dcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 308

Bikes: Cinelli Mash, Scott CR1 Pro conversion, LeMond Zurich, Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Check this thread and view poll results:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...oll+gear+ratio
Dcv is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 04:47 AM
  #13  
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 6,523
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by 4rcticFlowers View Post
He didn't; 44x16 isn't 72.33. (number) x (number) is just a common way of expressing gear ratios.
No the common way to express a ratio is like this: 44/16. You people are illiterate.
mihlbach is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 06:38 AM
  #14  
Scrodzilla
See you in Hell.
 
Scrodzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 25,944

Bikes: EAI Bare Knuckle

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 573 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by 4rcticFlowers View Post
(number) x (number) is just a common way of expressing gear ratios.
Only for people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

edit: mihlbach beat me to the punch.
Scrodzilla is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 09:21 AM
  #15  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 20,716

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1844 Post(s)
Liked 166 Times in 121 Posts
Originally Posted by Dcv View Post
44 x 16 = 72.33 gear inches, or 43 x 16 = 70.68 gear inches. i think a 44t is easier to find.
44T would be easier to find, but 43T would give more skid patches, regardless of cog tooth count.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 10:44 AM
  #16  
4rcticFlowers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mihlbach View Post
No the common way to express a ratio is like this: 44/16. You people are illiterate.
I've seen it pretty frequently expressed with an "x." I thought it was a matter of preference, since gear inches are calculated neither by straight division (i.e., they're not precisely a ratio) nor multiplication.

Last edited by 4rcticFlowers; 03-22-12 at 02:09 PM.
4rcticFlowers is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 11:11 AM
  #17  
8bits
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
TBH you shouldn't base your decision primarily on the cog. I would find a crankset that fits your budget and needs and then buy a cog (I would buy at least 2) that would give you the G.I. that you were looking for.
I'm saying this because it's much cheaper and versatile to just buy a cog than to find a crankset with the tooth count you are looking for (that is if you don't have a crank yet...).
8bits is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 11:52 AM
  #18  
hamfoh
hamcycles.com
 
hamfoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mihlbach View Post
No the common way to express a ratio is like this: 44/16. You people are illiterate.
I would've thought 44x16 being nowhere near 72.33 would've been a tip off though
hamfoh is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 12:11 PM
  #19  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 19,270

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2412 Post(s)
Liked 318 Times in 236 Posts
Originally Posted by mihlbach View Post
No the common way to express a ratio is like this: 44/16. You people are illiterate.
Actually, I think the most common way to express the ratio would be 44:16.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 12:48 PM
  #20  
ianjk
:)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: duluth
Posts: 3,392

Bikes: '07 Pista, '09 Fantom Cross Uno, '8? Miyata, '67 Stingray, '0? Zoo mod trials, Tallbike, Chopper, '73 Schwinn Collegiate, '67 Triumph Chopper, '69 CB350, '58 BSA Spitfire, '73 CB450

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Common expression is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Where x = 1 tooth.
ianjk is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 02:06 PM
  #21  
hamfoh
hamcycles.com
 
hamfoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
^lol
hamfoh is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 04:37 PM
  #22  
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 6,523
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
Actually, I think the most common way to express the ratio would be 44:16.
Correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio


Gear inches, btw, is not a ratio. However it is calculated with the gear ratio, which is nothing more than a simple ratio with a numerator and a denominator. Writing like this (34 x 17) is simply incorrect and shows a lack of understanding what a gear ratio is. 34x17 does not equal 32x16. However the gear ratios 34/17 and 32/16 (or 34:17 and 32:16, if you prefer) are exactly the same and will yield the identical number of gear inches on a given bicycle.
mihlbach is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 06:08 PM
  #23  
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 6,523
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by 4rcticFlowers View Post
I've seen it pretty frequently expressed with an "x." I thought it was a matter of preference, since gear inches are calculated neither by straight division (i.e., they're not precisely a ratio) nor multiplication.
It dawned on me that it seems very few people here understand exactly what gear inches are since no one here seems to be able to explain it coherently. This strikes me as ironic since gearing is so important to SS/FG riders.

Gear inches are extremely simple and calculated as the gear ratio (chainring/cog) x wheel diameter in inches. The resulting number is equivalent to the wheel size you would need to achieve the same distance per pedal rotation on a penny farthing (or a bicycle with a 1:1 gear ratio). In other words a bicycle with 71 gear inches goes as far in 1 pedal rotation as one rotation of a 71" diameter wheel.

There is a similar method, know as metric development, that measures the distance traveled by the bike in one revolution of the pedals. You can convert gear inches to metric development, by converting inches to meters and multiplying by pi.

Gear inches and metric development are incomplete calculations of mechanical advantage because they ignore crank length. A newer method, "gain ratio", invented by Sheldon Brown, includes wheel size, gear ratio, and crank length and is more complete means of comparing mechanical advantage of different bicycle configurations. Gain ratio refers to the distance moved by the bicycle/the distance moved by the pedal. Since ratios are dimensionless, the unit of distance (miles, meters, inches) is irrelevant to the calculation of the gain ratio. You could calculate it in microns or light years and still get the same gain ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear_inches
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

Last edited by mihlbach; 03-22-12 at 06:24 PM.
mihlbach is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 07:24 PM
  #24  
4rcticFlowers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well said!
4rcticFlowers is offline  
Old 03-22-12, 08:12 PM
  #25  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 19,270

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2412 Post(s)
Liked 318 Times in 236 Posts
I could be wrong, but I doubt many people are trying to imply multiplication when they use the "x". It indicates that the two numbers are part of a pair. Just like you're not expecting to have 16 somethings on a 4x4 vehicle, or 8 somethings on a 2x4 board. Or at least I wouldn't.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.