View Single Post
Old 07-15-21, 03:32 PM
  #18  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,880

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times in 506 Posts
Originally Posted by steelbikeguy
well, the comment was made without regard to the cassette. I just don't think that using 46T-48T rings would be useful. My current 46T-49T is roughly a 3% change, which is plenty small for me.

Steve in Peoria
Yeah, essentially I was obliquely trying to say the jumps are going to get smaller than would be useful.

You did not intend to involve the cassette, but if you change the 2 tooth chainring separation to 1 tooth, the front increment will be smaller. The cogset increment is the square of the chainset increment and it will be smaller. To have 14 separated and hence useful gear ratios (the key benefit of the ½), you 'd have to stay within the ½ step math model. The rear increment is the square of the front increment, and that front increment decreased from what it was. Your rear spread will inevitably be narrow because a ½ step tightly couples the sprocket or chainring specification (tooth count) at the back to the design choices made at the rear. That may be too obvious a point, but that's all I was trying to say.

Sorry.
Road Fan is offline