Which Gear Ratio is Better?
#26
don't try this at home.
I really like my 52-39-30 and 11-34 in 11-speed.
That 30 front - 34 rear low is so nice on steep climbs. I can stay seated at 12% pretty easily, where I have to stand on my other bike's 34 front-32 rear low gear.
The 11-34 is good in the 39 chainring. I rarely use the 52.
(I did swap out the 11-34 for my old 11-28 on a recent long, low elevation gain ride. I wanted lots of close shifts and didn't have any steep climbs on the ride.)
But now, comparing the 11-32 vs the 11-34: the 11-34 is designed for it's lowest gears. The small cog higher gears aren't as evenly spaced as the 11-32 is. The 11-32 makes a better all-around gearing, for lots of flats and shallower grades. It's 6% harder on the steepest grades, though. That's almost one whole shift harder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At typical flat road cadences. Blue is 52, black is 39, red is 30
The 52-39-30 and 11-34:
~~~
compare to the 11-32: Much better spacing between shifts in the 15-22 mph range on the middle 39 chainring.
That 30 front - 34 rear low is so nice on steep climbs. I can stay seated at 12% pretty easily, where I have to stand on my other bike's 34 front-32 rear low gear.
The 11-34 is good in the 39 chainring. I rarely use the 52.
(I did swap out the 11-34 for my old 11-28 on a recent long, low elevation gain ride. I wanted lots of close shifts and didn't have any steep climbs on the ride.)
But now, comparing the 11-32 vs the 11-34: the 11-34 is designed for it's lowest gears. The small cog higher gears aren't as evenly spaced as the 11-32 is. The 11-32 makes a better all-around gearing, for lots of flats and shallower grades. It's 6% harder on the steepest grades, though. That's almost one whole shift harder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At typical flat road cadences. Blue is 52, black is 39, red is 30
The 52-39-30 and 11-34:
~~~
compare to the 11-32: Much better spacing between shifts in the 15-22 mph range on the middle 39 chainring.
Likes For rm -rf:
#27
don't try this at home.
#28
I only use 50:11 (406) on mild downgrades or with a tailwind, or really stoking on the aerobars on the flats; Very high cadence is more difficult for me when in the tuck on the aeros. It's important for me to have, but like I said, I can't see the need for anything taller, despite having much taller gearing on my old road bike, but that was lighter and a lot more aerodynamic than a folder with 4 panniers. Given the limitations on my folder, 21-85 gear inches is not bad, without an IGH. If I expand that, it'll be on the low end.
#30
Newbie
Thread Starter
Thanks for all the insightful input, I'm starting to understand how uninformed my question was.
Looking over the charts, the new ratio will make climbing steeper hills easier but my flats wouldn't change much or the differences are negligible.
I seem to use 14-15-16-17 the most out of the 10 cogs.
Looking over the charts, the new ratio will make climbing steeper hills easier but my flats wouldn't change much or the differences are negligible.
I seem to use 14-15-16-17 the most out of the 10 cogs.
Likes For M.Roshi:
#31
Newbie
Thread Starter
#32
Newbie
Thread Starter
This LeMond road bike is the easiest bike to climb out of the 3 I ride, the dry weight is under 20lbs, I don't have to get out of the saddle unlike the other 2 I have to.
#33
Commuter
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: SE Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 742
Bikes: Main Bikes: 2023 Trek Domane AL3, 2022 Aventon Level.2 eBike, 1972 Schwinn Varsity, 2024 Priority Apollo 11
Liked 519 Times
in
278 Posts
I just went through this process on an old bike. I ended up just buying a full Tiagra 10-speed groupset with 50-34 double cranks, and an 11-34 cassette. Gear ratios from 1:1 to 4.5:1.
Aliexpress has full Tiagra sets for sale.
Edit: Triple chainrings are the work of the devil, made somewhat necessary when wide range cassettes were not common. But today I say "be gone devil!"
Aliexpress has full Tiagra sets for sale.
Edit: Triple chainrings are the work of the devil, made somewhat necessary when wide range cassettes were not common. But today I say "be gone devil!"
"What you don't have in your legs should be in your gears." as the saying goes.
I did my first gravel "race" a few weekends ago. 50 miles in, I had to walk up the last third of a couple 10% hills.
I want my low gear to be so low that I can barely balance. 1:1 is completely inadequate, IMO.
Besides, what's wrong with a triple chainring? As long as the front derailleur is there anyway, it may as well have three, so the cassette doesn't need such a huge sprocket, which also brings the lowest part of the derailleur hazardously close to the ground...
#34
OM boy
and x-28, vs x-25, will give noticeably easier pedaling, especially on upgrades
I very, very rarely use an x-12, I have no use for an x-11 (700c) Anything above x-12 at 110 rpm is a tuck.
Ride On
Yuri
Last edited by cyclezen; 05-21-24 at 09:30 AM.
#35
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,510
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,059 Times
in
1,999 Posts
#37
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,203
Bikes: Columbine, Paramount Track Bike, Colnago Super, Santana Tandems (1995 & 2007), Gary Fisher Piranha, Trek Wahoo, Bianchi Track Bike, a couple of Honda mountain bikes
Liked 432 Times
in
266 Posts
What electronic front derailleur works with a triple with a 20+ gear range (52/39/30)?
__________________
Cheers, Mike
-Stupid hurts....ride safe
Cheers, Mike
-Stupid hurts....ride safe
#40
A few gearing points in general, if not already known by the OP:
1 tooth difference on the (small) high cog, means much greater difference in percentage than 1 tooth at the large (low) cogs. This is why the old "straight block" freewheels or cassettes of 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 are a lot less useful, unless you want finer gear steps in the lower range, and usually, you want the opposite, because at the top end when you are outputting both high rpm and high torque, thus high power, your torque range is more limited, so that's where you want finer steps, if at all. This is why wider range cassettes have increasing tooth gaps between cogs, so for example:
1,1,2,2,3,3,4 on a 12,13,14,16,18,21,24,28 cluster, which has a characteristic "curved slope" to the gears (logarithmic progression), rather than a "straight slope" (linear progression).
Very large (greater than 36?) pie-plate low cogs, have the teeth so far radially from the freehub center, and thinner cogs these days to fit 10/11/12/13 speeds, that alone, they have insufficient lateral stiffness, so require being riveted to adjacent cogs or a large-radius carrier, to reduce the flex and have good quality shifts. With a triple crank, one more chainring at small size, aluminum, and the crank spider already acting as a carrier, the weight penalty is small. And modern triples shift great, especially if old road of 52/42/30, but with 16T gaps normal these days, you can easily go 52/36/24 or lower, and shift fine. I can't recall the chainrings on my half-step+granny, but the jump from inner to middle ring was significant, and handled just fine, down or up. The bigger the gaps between chainrings, the fewer duplicate gears.
The main advantage of a hyperwide 1X cassette is, no duplicate gears, in addition to no front derailleur and shifter weight, and simplicity of shifts.
The advantage of a front derailleur, even for no other reason, is when you drop a chain, a quick and easy shift in front puts the chain back on, with no oily fingers. Even with correct chainline and no lateral wobbles on any gears (although freehub is getting a bit on the loose side), on a short-chainstay bike (20" wheels), sometimes I drop a chain on a shift, and this is only a double crank.
1 tooth difference on the (small) high cog, means much greater difference in percentage than 1 tooth at the large (low) cogs. This is why the old "straight block" freewheels or cassettes of 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 are a lot less useful, unless you want finer gear steps in the lower range, and usually, you want the opposite, because at the top end when you are outputting both high rpm and high torque, thus high power, your torque range is more limited, so that's where you want finer steps, if at all. This is why wider range cassettes have increasing tooth gaps between cogs, so for example:
1,1,2,2,3,3,4 on a 12,13,14,16,18,21,24,28 cluster, which has a characteristic "curved slope" to the gears (logarithmic progression), rather than a "straight slope" (linear progression).
Very large (greater than 36?) pie-plate low cogs, have the teeth so far radially from the freehub center, and thinner cogs these days to fit 10/11/12/13 speeds, that alone, they have insufficient lateral stiffness, so require being riveted to adjacent cogs or a large-radius carrier, to reduce the flex and have good quality shifts. With a triple crank, one more chainring at small size, aluminum, and the crank spider already acting as a carrier, the weight penalty is small. And modern triples shift great, especially if old road of 52/42/30, but with 16T gaps normal these days, you can easily go 52/36/24 or lower, and shift fine. I can't recall the chainrings on my half-step+granny, but the jump from inner to middle ring was significant, and handled just fine, down or up. The bigger the gaps between chainrings, the fewer duplicate gears.
The main advantage of a hyperwide 1X cassette is, no duplicate gears, in addition to no front derailleur and shifter weight, and simplicity of shifts.
The advantage of a front derailleur, even for no other reason, is when you drop a chain, a quick and easy shift in front puts the chain back on, with no oily fingers. Even with correct chainline and no lateral wobbles on any gears (although freehub is getting a bit on the loose side), on a short-chainstay bike (20" wheels), sometimes I drop a chain on a shift, and this is only a double crank.
#41
Commuter
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: SE Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 742
Bikes: Main Bikes: 2023 Trek Domane AL3, 2022 Aventon Level.2 eBike, 1972 Schwinn Varsity, 2024 Priority Apollo 11
Liked 519 Times
in
278 Posts
I have a colleague who is a cyclist from way back, and he warned me about it too. I asked him "what's wrong with triple chainrings?" He said: "They don't always work well.
I've had two bikes with triple chainrings and they both worked fine:
On the other hand, I'm having a HELL of a time getting the front derailleur on my 1972 Schwinn Varsity to shift to the large chainring.
I've had two bikes with triple chainrings and they both worked fine:
- Trek 1000 road bike
- Trek Verve 3 hybrid bike.
On the other hand, I'm having a HELL of a time getting the front derailleur on my 1972 Schwinn Varsity to shift to the large chainring.
Likes For Smaug1:
#42
Method to My Madness
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 4,140
Bikes: Trek FX 2, Cannondale Synapse x2, Cannondale CAAD4, Santa Cruz Stigmata 3
Liked 1,699 Times
in
1,166 Posts
#43
I have a colleague who is a cyclist from way back, and he warned me about it too. I asked him "what's wrong with triple chainrings?" He said: "They don't always work well.
I've had two bikes with triple chainrings and they both worked fine:
On the other hand, I'm having a HELL of a time getting the front derailleur on my 1972 Schwinn Varsity to shift to the large chainring.
I've had two bikes with triple chainrings and they both worked fine:
- Trek 1000 road bike
- Trek Verve 3 hybrid bike.
On the other hand, I'm having a HELL of a time getting the front derailleur on my 1972 Schwinn Varsity to shift to the large chainring.
#44
Newbie
Thread Starter
#45
Method to My Madness
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 4,140
Bikes: Trek FX 2, Cannondale Synapse x2, Cannondale CAAD4, Santa Cruz Stigmata 3
Liked 1,699 Times
in
1,166 Posts
My best guess would be yes. There are many discussions regarding the 16T cog and the preference for having single tooth caps up to the 17T cog. Mathematically, a two-teeth gap between the 15T and 17T cogs is a much bigger change than a two-teeth change from a 52T chain ring to a 50T chain ring. Why don't you try riding without using the 16T cog and see if you can deal with that?
#46
My old road bike, originally 2x7, when I went to a triple in front, I went half-step+granny, because with only 7 speeds in back and tall gearing with 700c wheels, half steps in the top end were helpful when on long stretches to fine tune things.
My current bike, 20" wheels and still 7 speed cassette, I have about the lower 2/3 the gear range of my old road bike, thus half steps are less necessary. I have a wide double (50/34), 5 duplicate gears in the middle of the range, and they are darned close, not half-step difference, and it's fine.
EDIT: Oh, if you mean the difference without the 16T, yeah that is a much bigger jump, do as others have said and test yourself.
Last edited by Duragrouch; 05-22-24 at 09:44 PM.
#47
Newbie
Thread Starter
My best guess would be yes. There are many discussions regarding the 16T cog and the preference for having single tooth caps up to the 17T cog. Mathematically, a two-teeth gap between the 15T and 17T cogs is a much bigger change than a two-teeth change from a 52T chain ring to a 50T chain ring. Why don't you try riding without using the 16T cog and see if you can deal with that?
#48
Newbie
Thread Starter
52 to 50 is exactly 4% difference in one direction and about the same in the other. Could you feel it? Yes. Would it make a difference? Depends if you are near your cadence or torque limit. Are you a half-step+granny kind of rider, who sets up the chainrings, even though overlapping in ratios, to be a half-(cog)-step different, and splits their shifts, shifting both front and rear every other shift? If so, you would probably notice the difference, though not necessarily bad. If not a half-step person, you may not notice.
My old road bike, originally 2x7, when I went to a triple in front, I went half-step+granny, because with only 7 speeds in back and tall gearing with 700c wheels, half steps in the top end were helpful when on long stretches to fine tune things.
My current bike, 20" wheels and still 7 speed cassette, I have about the lower 2/3 the gear range of my old road bike, thus half steps are less necessary. I have a wide double (50/34), 5 duplicate gears in the middle of the range, and they are darned close, not half-step difference, and it's fine.
My old road bike, originally 2x7, when I went to a triple in front, I went half-step+granny, because with only 7 speeds in back and tall gearing with 700c wheels, half steps in the top end were helpful when on long stretches to fine tune things.
My current bike, 20" wheels and still 7 speed cassette, I have about the lower 2/3 the gear range of my old road bike, thus half steps are less necessary. I have a wide double (50/34), 5 duplicate gears in the middle of the range, and they are darned close, not half-step difference, and it's fine.
#49
Still kinda new to some cycling terminology haha, when I started getting back into riding a bike I most use the middle chain ring because I won't get tired easily, a few months ago I starting using the big chain more to train myself to exert my muscles, I do fall back onto the middle chainring when I feel it getting hard to pedal consistently on the big chainring and play around with the rear cogs to feel that I can still put some torque but still have a easy cadence.
I don't push a harder (tall) gear when seated, it puts more stress on my kness. I also raise the saddle as high as possible without having to rock my hips to reach the pedal at the bottom, as this keeps my knees straighter and less stress there. But too high and hip rocking is also bad. Most people, it seems, have the seat too low.
When climbing, I either spin up in a low gear, or, upshift a couple gears and stand on the pedals. Too low a gear, cadence is too fast, tire fast. Too high a gear, have to pull too hard on the handlebars, tire fast. Gear just right, and I can climb with just weight on pedals without hard pull, about (guessing) cadence of 50, this is very efficient and easy on knees because leg is straight when under highest force.
With my flat handlebars, longer bar-ends are helpful on standing-climbs, as you'll want a handgrip further forward than when seated. If road bars, on the brake hoods instead of the top back bar.
Last edited by Duragrouch; 05-22-24 at 10:34 PM.
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Great White North
Posts: 983
Bikes: I have a few
Liked 305 Times
in
128 Posts
I am trying to figure out my gearing as well. I built up a gravel bike with SRAM and currently using 30-43 chainrings and a 11-34 cassette (12s). My only issue is when on the road I sometimes running out of gears on the top end and on the hills I rarely use the small ring. On ANY sort of downhill I ALWAYS run out of gears and end up spinning wildly just to do 35-40 mph. I have a 34-46 crank ordered so hopefully that will be the sweet spot. FWIW most of my other bikes are vintage with much taller gearing but I am getting older and need to make the hills more enjoyable.