52x36 vs 50x34
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,922
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,882 Times
in
998 Posts
We can pretend we know better and act macho about it, or pay attention and enjoy life on the bike a little better.
Seriously though, around here by the math of cadence, speed, and gear selection.......I'd have to go from never having to change rings to being in and out of the big/small every 5 minutes for the next hill if I used a 53.
Seriously though, around here by the math of cadence, speed, and gear selection.......I'd have to go from never having to change rings to being in and out of the big/small every 5 minutes for the next hill if I used a 53.
this is why I run a 50/34 and 12-25. It gives me the tight gear selection I like for 95% of the riding I do, and low enough gears to climb anything in my area.
When I go ride Mt. Lemmon, I have a 14-28 cassette to give me a little help. I have a 12-32 cassette as well, but I never needed the 32t cog, and I missed the tighter spacing of the 14-28.
Last edited by noodle soup; 08-29-19 at 11:55 AM.
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,755
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3190 Post(s)
Liked 2,460 Times
in
1,489 Posts
I did this ride this past weekend. I was on a 52/42/30 12-28 7 speed. The gearing was just about perfect. I never got on the 30.(crappy climber) There were a few times I wished for some more on the top end. Law enforcement/volunteers waving you through every intersection. Hammerfest the whole way. Great weather. Pizza, adult beverages and ice cream post ride. It was the most fun I have had on a bike in a while. After the post ride meal, I would have liked to do the 8 mile family loop that started at 8pm, but it was an extra $30 for that. Every city needs a ride like this one. Maybe they have one. You have to check the elevation on the map my run map to see the elevation.
https://www.mapmyrun.com/routes/fullscreen/2452008769/
https://www.sportsbackers.org/events/moonlight-ride/
https://www.mapmyrun.com/routes/fullscreen/2452008769/
https://www.sportsbackers.org/events/moonlight-ride/
Last edited by seypat; 08-29-19 at 12:06 PM.
#53
Non omnino gravis
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle. For the sake of clarity, we'll (mostly) discard the hyperbolic nonsense associated with big chainrings, i.e what they can do above 35mph. Because I've tested this in practice-- coasting down a hill that is sufficiently steep to go 35mph requires zero watts. Accelerating up to say 37 or 38 miles an hour requires over 200 sustained watts just to combat air resistance. Unless there's a podium at the end of that descent, that's machismo gearing.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
Likes For DrIsotope:
#54
Chases Dogs for Sport
I can get both sides of the argument.
People can buy and run whatever the eff they want to without listening to internet armchair generals.
The racer argument? In local flat crits the average speeds are maybe around 27. Surges to 30mph. So yeah, you're using a 53t ring's capabilities.
B-group clubbie? When the eff is a B-group clubbie going to utilize the upper 1/2 of the cassette with a 53T big ring?
There's a really really good reason that even "race" and "aero" bikes are sold with compacts and mid compacts these days instead of 53/39's.
We can pretend we know better and act macho about it, or pay attention and enjoy life on the bike a little better.
Seriously though, around here by the math of cadence, speed, and gear selection.......I'd have to go from never having to change rings to being in and out of the big/small every 5 minutes for the next hill if I used a 53.
People can buy and run whatever the eff they want to without listening to internet armchair generals.
The racer argument? In local flat crits the average speeds are maybe around 27. Surges to 30mph. So yeah, you're using a 53t ring's capabilities.
B-group clubbie? When the eff is a B-group clubbie going to utilize the upper 1/2 of the cassette with a 53T big ring?
There's a really really good reason that even "race" and "aero" bikes are sold with compacts and mid compacts these days instead of 53/39's.
We can pretend we know better and act macho about it, or pay attention and enjoy life on the bike a little better.
Seriously though, around here by the math of cadence, speed, and gear selection.......I'd have to go from never having to change rings to being in and out of the big/small every 5 minutes for the next hill if I used a 53.
Some folks buy a 53-39 because they DON'T turn the cranks at 140 rpm. They like it because they can turn the cranks just a little more slowly -- a more relaxed cadence -- to go the same speed as they would have to with a 50-34. Lots of folks prefer 52 and 53T chainrings and they don't mean to offend you. They aren't being macho. They just like turning the pedals at 80 rpm (or slower) and a bigger big ring lets them go a couple mph faster at the same cadence.
Good grief, folks. They're just teeth on a ring. Don't take them as an affront to your masculinity!
Last edited by FlashBazbo; 08-29-19 at 12:26 PM.
#55
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,918
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 964 Post(s)
Liked 495 Times
in
342 Posts
A 52 chainring is 4% higher than a 50. That's about a half shift. (Each shift depends on the two tooth counts of the rear cog, ranging from around 5% up to 12+%)
Below: Charts of mph ranges for each shift at typical flat road cadences. I extended the cadence to 99 so that all the charts would extend to 40 mph, it otherwise scales the charts smaller.
Your 34/50 and 11-28:
A 36/52 and 11-28:
Each gear combination is shifted to a slightly faster speed, about 1/3 to 1/2 of a shift. Around 1 mph at 20 mph in the big ring.
It's a fairly subtle change.
~~~
Sram's 11-28 has different gearing than Shimano's 11-28.
Compare this chart to the top 50/34 chart. The Sram gearing has closer shifts above 20 mph, wider gaps in the 15-20 mph range. A lot of riders like having a 16 cog. It's a better choice for "A group" or racing riders.
34/50 and 11-28 Sram:
Below: Charts of mph ranges for each shift at typical flat road cadences. I extended the cadence to 99 so that all the charts would extend to 40 mph, it otherwise scales the charts smaller.
Your 34/50 and 11-28:
A 36/52 and 11-28:
Each gear combination is shifted to a slightly faster speed, about 1/3 to 1/2 of a shift. Around 1 mph at 20 mph in the big ring.
It's a fairly subtle change.
~~~
Sram's 11-28 has different gearing than Shimano's 11-28.
Compare this chart to the top 50/34 chart. The Sram gearing has closer shifts above 20 mph, wider gaps in the 15-20 mph range. A lot of riders like having a 16 cog. It's a better choice for "A group" or racing riders.
34/50 and 11-28 Sram:
Last edited by rm -rf; 08-29-19 at 12:35 PM.
#56
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,918
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 964 Post(s)
Liked 495 Times
in
342 Posts
11 tooth
I thought that 11 tooth sprockets were "marketing".
But they have a couple of uses:
Soft pedaling at a low pedal pressure on downhills. I like to keep my legs moving on a very long downhill.
Using the 34-12 cog without being completely cross chained. A rider can get close to 20 mph without needing to shift the front to the 50. Handy on rolling terrain.
I thought that 11 tooth sprockets were "marketing".
But they have a couple of uses:
Soft pedaling at a low pedal pressure on downhills. I like to keep my legs moving on a very long downhill.
Using the 34-12 cog without being completely cross chained. A rider can get close to 20 mph without needing to shift the front to the 50. Handy on rolling terrain.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,755
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3190 Post(s)
Liked 2,460 Times
in
1,489 Posts
A 52 chainring is 4% higher than a 50. That's about a half shift. (Each shift depends on the two tooth counts of the rear cog, ranging from around 5% up to 12+%)
Below: Charts of mph ranges for each shift at typical flat road cadences. I extended the cadence to 99 so that all the charts would extend to 40 mph, it otherwise scales the charts smaller.
Your 34/50 and 11-28:
A 36/52 and 11-28:
Each gear combination is shifted to a slightly faster speed, about 1/3 to 1/2 of a shift. Around 1 mph at 20 mph in the big ring.
It's a fairly subtle change.
~~~
Sram's 11-28 has different gearing than Shimano's 11-28.
Compare this chart to the top 50/34 chart. The Sram gearing has closer shifts above 20 mph, wider gaps in the 15-20 mph range. A lot of riders like having a 16 cog. It's a better choice for "A group" or racing riders.
34/50 and 11-28 Sram:
Below: Charts of mph ranges for each shift at typical flat road cadences. I extended the cadence to 99 so that all the charts would extend to 40 mph, it otherwise scales the charts smaller.
Your 34/50 and 11-28:
A 36/52 and 11-28:
Each gear combination is shifted to a slightly faster speed, about 1/3 to 1/2 of a shift. Around 1 mph at 20 mph in the big ring.
It's a fairly subtle change.
~~~
Sram's 11-28 has different gearing than Shimano's 11-28.
Compare this chart to the top 50/34 chart. The Sram gearing has closer shifts above 20 mph, wider gaps in the 15-20 mph range. A lot of riders like having a 16 cog. It's a better choice for "A group" or racing riders.
34/50 and 11-28 Sram:
Mike Sherman's Bicycle Gear Calculator
#58
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,918
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 964 Post(s)
Liked 495 Times
in
342 Posts
How do you link only the graph? I'm trying to put up my 30/42/52 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28. I'll have to link the whole thing.
Mike Sherman's Bicycle Gear Calculator
Mike Sherman's Bicycle Gear Calculator
#59
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,611
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,526 Times
in
997 Posts
11 tooth
I thought that 11 tooth sprockets were "marketing".
But they have a couple of uses:
Soft pedaling at a low pedal pressure on downhills. I like to keep my legs moving on a very long downhill.
Using the 34-12 cog without being completely cross chained. A rider can get close to 20 mph without needing to shift the front to the 50. Handy on rolling terrain.
I thought that 11 tooth sprockets were "marketing".
But they have a couple of uses:
Soft pedaling at a low pedal pressure on downhills. I like to keep my legs moving on a very long downhill.
Using the 34-12 cog without being completely cross chained. A rider can get close to 20 mph without needing to shift the front to the 50. Handy on rolling terrain.
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,456
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1722 Post(s)
Liked 1,272 Times
in
734 Posts
If I had to guess I'd say around 90 rpm works for me. Fast? For .8 mi. my PB is 24.6 mph. At age 73 I don't know if that equates to fast but I feel pretty good on the bike. At this point in my life, feeling good trumps the numbers.
Likes For bruce19:
#62
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,568 Times
in
973 Posts
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle. For the sake of clarity, we'll (mostly) discard the hyperbolic nonsense associated with big chainrings, i.e what they can do above 35mph. Because I've tested this in practice-- coasting down a hill that is sufficiently steep to go 35mph requires zero watts. Accelerating up to say 37 or 38 miles an hour requires over 200 sustained watts just to combat air resistance. Unless there's a podium at the end of that descent, that's machismo gearing.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
I've also out of curiosity downloaded the .gxp file a few times and thrown it into Excel. I then dragged a formula down the rows to calculate the estimated gear for each data point for a ride from the cadence/speed. GPS is a bit crap to do that instead of a wheel sensor, but whatever. It'll tell you that for most anyone anytime that the 11t and 12t get used maybe a total of 30 seconds per ride. More often than not it was in the 15/17 and above. Even for a compact.
I don't get why people like to argue this one between each other on the web when manufacturers are meeting consumer demand with how they kit their bikes they sell. If people want to try to call people out about the "hating on 53 and 52's" then they should head down to the LBS or call up Trek or Giant. They're the ones fitting compacts on most of what they sell these days.
The argument for compact is always regarding "the average user". Then the argument against always revolves around Kansas winds and blasting along at 40mph at 80rpm or descending some mythical local perfectly straight mountain.
This is why manufacturers are fitting compacts then leaving it up to owners to swap it out for a mid or a full. Because the compact serves more owners to start with.
Here you go: endurance models......compact
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes-defy-advanced
Race models.......mid:
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bi...anced-pro-disc
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bi...vanced-sl-disc
Some Treks.......
All...............wait for it.........compacts..........including some $10k Madone bikes and Emondas. Race bikes, compacts.
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...olorCode=black
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...reenvisibility
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...Code=greendark
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
Ultimately, ride what you want, dont worry about what the guy in front of you is riding and really dont worry about what a guy on a forum is riding. You will live longer.
Likes For colnago62:
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,456
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1722 Post(s)
Liked 1,272 Times
in
734 Posts
I had to come back to this quote because, based on the graphs/charts I've been seeing here and elsewhere, I'm thinking my cadence may be a lot lower than I thought. And, my theory that the 52x11 is actually slowing me down is looking pretty good. At 73 I don't have the power to push that gear. Certainly spinning in 50x11 feels better than 52x11.
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,922
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,882 Times
in
998 Posts
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Quιbec, Canada
Posts: 2,064
Bikes: SL8 Pro, TCR beater
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 957 Post(s)
Liked 562 Times
in
423 Posts
Let's talk for minute about actually riding a bicycle. For the sake of clarity, we'll (mostly) discard the hyperbolic nonsense associated with big chainrings, i.e what they can do above 35mph. Because I've tested this in practice-- coasting down a hill that is sufficiently steep to go 35mph requires zero watts. Accelerating up to say 37 or 38 miles an hour requires over 200 sustained watts just to combat air resistance. Unless there's a podium at the end of that descent, that's machismo gearing.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
Instead I'll focus on "normal" riding. Let's take for example a CDC average male on a bicycle-- 5'9". 198lbs, on a 20lb bike. We will assume he has a reasonable degree of fitness, and can sustain 20mph on a level surface for a decent amount of time. This would be a 52/16 @ 80rpm or 52/18 @ 90rpm. This is roughly a 200 watt effort. The issue arises in that with any typical 11-25 or 11-28 cassette, he's already riding past the halfway point. He has 5 or 6 gears to allow him to go faster, but maybe 3 that allow him to go slower. To pace at say 17.5mph, he would have to be in 52/21, or shift to the small ring.
So outside of downhills, group sprints, or bursts of youthful exuberance, the 11, 12, 13, 14, and possibly 15 tooth cogs are just rotating mass for most of the ride. I'm always amused when people pooh-pooh the notion of 1X, then throw a 52 on the front which renders the bottom quarter of their cassette "downhill only." Let's not forget all of the two-wheeled titans that have to bolt on that 52 because they were spinning out their compacts-- I'm pretty much useless past 110rpm, which would be 41mph with a 52/11. That is a thing I've no desire to do. I don't even want to do it with a 50. I can't do it on the flats, and if the hill is steep enough, gravity can produce a whole lot more force than I can.
I of course speak only from my experience. I ride almost exclusively solo. I'm virtually always either going uphill or downhill. I do not actively seek out hills on most days, but have nevertheless recorded at least 400,000 feet of vertical every year I've ridden. I choose gears to go up the hill, and cash in on that effort by allowing gravity to do most of the work on the way down. I felt perpetually "between gears" with the 52.
The average 5'9'' cyclist should be more around 170lbs...
Last edited by eduskator; 08-30-19 at 09:39 AM.
#67
Senior Member
I was thinking the same thing. I'm 2" shorter but 50 lbs lighter than that, of "average" build and I am sure that I have a few lbs to lose...
#68
Non omnino gravis
What should be and what is are two very different things. That's based on data directly from the CDC for the "average American adult male."
And in all honesty, the typical guy I see out on a bike trends much more toward the CDC average than he does toward the build of a professional cyclist.
It's hair-splitting to focus on the height/weight anyway. To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
And in all honesty, the typical guy I see out on a bike trends much more toward the CDC average than he does toward the build of a professional cyclist.
It's hair-splitting to focus on the height/weight anyway. To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
#70
Senior Member
What should be and what is are two very different things. That's based on data directly from the CDC for the "average American adult male."
And in all honesty, the typical guy I see out on a bike trends much more toward the CDC average than he does toward the build of a professional cyclist.
It's hair-splitting to focus on the height/weight anyway. To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
And in all honesty, the typical guy I see out on a bike trends much more toward the CDC average than he does toward the build of a professional cyclist.
It's hair-splitting to focus on the height/weight anyway. To maintain 20mph on flat ground, the difference in wattage required for a 5'9" 198lb rider and a 5'9" 148lb rider is about 10%, 193 vs. 172.
https://www.phillyvoice.com/cdc-repo...igger-heavier/
I had interpreted initially your comment as the CDC's measurement for what an ideal average male should be. Interesting that the average American male BMI is 29.1 which is in the upper range of overweight and just 0.9 away from obesity classification.
While I too have seen my fair share of overweight riders, in my area the "average" cyclist who would be concerned about compact vs. larger cranksets (they're the guys and gals riding on bikes costing north of $1500 and have at least some cycling kit) are considerably less than the average American BMI and much closer to ideal BMI (with some obviously in the extremely healthy/fit range).
Personally I disagree that 10% wattage difference is splitting hairs. If someone could prove to me that a bike would save me 10% in wattage (i.e. same speed at 10% wattage, or 10% faster at same wattage) I'd be readying the credit card...
#71
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,611
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,526 Times
in
997 Posts
And I guess this is only a weight-difference effect. I imagine, for the same height, a rider who's 50lbs heavier than another, is also taking on a good amount more wind resistance.
#72
Non omnino gravis
We are a chunky land.
I see now what you're referencing. You're talking about the CDC's average for American males as it stands today, where obesity is an epidemic.
https://www.phillyvoice.com/cdc-repo...igger-heavier/
I had interpreted initially your comment as the CDC's measurement for what an ideal average male should be. Interesting that the average American male BMI is 29.1 which is in the upper range of overweight and just 0.9 away from obesity classification.
While I too have seen my fair share of overweight riders, in my area the "average" cyclist who would be concerned about compact vs. larger cranksets (they're the guys and gals riding on bikes costing north of $1500 and have at least some cycling kit) are considerably less than the average American BMI and much closer to ideal BMI (with some obviously in the extremely healthy/fit range).
Personally I disagree that 10% wattage difference is splitting hairs. If someone could prove to me that a bike would save me 10% in wattage (i.e. same speed at 10% wattage, or 10% faster at same wattage) I'd be readying the credit card...
https://www.phillyvoice.com/cdc-repo...igger-heavier/
I had interpreted initially your comment as the CDC's measurement for what an ideal average male should be. Interesting that the average American male BMI is 29.1 which is in the upper range of overweight and just 0.9 away from obesity classification.
While I too have seen my fair share of overweight riders, in my area the "average" cyclist who would be concerned about compact vs. larger cranksets (they're the guys and gals riding on bikes costing north of $1500 and have at least some cycling kit) are considerably less than the average American BMI and much closer to ideal BMI (with some obviously in the extremely healthy/fit range).
Personally I disagree that 10% wattage difference is splitting hairs. If someone could prove to me that a bike would save me 10% in wattage (i.e. same speed at 10% wattage, or 10% faster at same wattage) I'd be readying the credit card...
On topic, I don't like the 52T at any weight. That 4% difference is apparently a dealbreaker, because as I mentioned before, I always felt "between gears".
#74
Non omnino gravis
Oh, that's just from the tried and true Bicycle Speed and Power Calculator, which is so accurate I've put in known segment data (with a PM) and the calculator is always within a few percent.
Likes For DrIsotope:
#75
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,611
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,526 Times
in
997 Posts
Oh, that's just from the tried and true Bicycle Speed and Power Calculator, which is so accurate I've put in known segment data (with a PM) and the calculator is always within a few percent.