Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: 53x42 chainrings with a 11-34 cassette.. anyone?? [gall1972]
[ In reply to ]
It doesn't make any sense.
Re: 53x42 chainrings with a 11-34 cassette.. anyone?? [gall1972]
[ In reply to ]
Re: 53x42 chainrings with a 11-34 cassette.. anyone?? [gary p]
[ In reply to ]
gary p wrote:
Why? You can get essentially the same total gearing range with a 53/39 and an 11-32 cassette, with less overlap and tighter steps between the last couple cogs.For smaller gaps you want a smaller cassette. For bigger range of gearing you want a big difference between chainring sizes and a wide range cassette. So, to maintain total gear ratio range but decrease increments, you use a smaller small chainring and a narrower range cassette. That will also reduce the overlap but that's largely irrelevant. What you suggest really doesn't make any sense. How could a smaller difference in chainring tooth count and a wider range cassette have the effect you describe?
Re: 53x42 chainrings with a 11-34 cassette.. anyone?? [Ai_1]
[ In reply to ]
Ai_1 wrote:
For smaller gaps you want a smaller cassette. For bigger range of gearing you want a big difference between chainring sizes and a wide range cassette. So, to maintain total gear ratio range but decrease increments, you use a smaller small chainring and a narrower range cassette. That will also reduce the overlap but that's largely irrelevant. What you suggest really doesn't make any sense. How could a smaller difference in chainring tooth count and a wider range cassette have the effect you describe?Did you not see that the OP was asking about an 11-34 cassette?
"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Re: 53x42 chainrings with a 11-34 cassette.. anyone?? [gary p]
[ In reply to ]
gary p wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
For smaller gaps you want a smaller cassette. For bigger range of gearing you want a big difference between chainring sizes and a wide range cassette. So, to maintain total gear ratio range but decrease increments, you use a smaller small chainring and a narrower range cassette. That will also reduce the overlap but that's largely irrelevant. What you suggest really doesn't make any sense. How could a smaller difference in chainring tooth count and a wider range cassette have the effect you describe?
Did you not see that the OP was asking about an 11-34 cassette?
Apologies. I completely misread your response. I thought you were the OP replying to the first response and asking why it didn't it make sense because you thought the proposed setup was an improvement on a 53/39 & 11-32 (that you thought the 11-34 and 42/53 would give smaller gaps and less overlap). In fact you were saying the exact opposite and I completely agree with you.
Sorry for my confusion!
Re: 53x42 chainrings with a 11-34 cassette.. anyone?? [gary p]
[ In reply to ]
gary p wrote:
... You can get essentially the same total gearing range with a 53/39 and an 11-32 cassette...This is still true though. You'd have smaller jumps with the standard race crank, but the bigger crank gives you the option of quickly flipping out the cassette to something like a 11-28 for tiny jumps and allows you to hang out in the big ring and middle of the cassette (straight chainline) on a flatter course.
dfroelich wrote:
gary p wrote:
... You can get essentially the same total gearing range with a 53/39 and an 11-32 cassette...This is still true though. You'd have smaller jumps with the standard race crank, but the bigger crank gives you the option of quickly flipping out the cassette to something like a 11-28 for tiny jumps and allows you to hang out in the big ring and middle of the cassette (straight chainline) on a flatter course.
Both the OPs proposal of a 53/42 chainset and gary p's 53/39 suggestion involve a 53 tooth large chainring so no difference in bigger gears.
An 11-28 could be used with either chainset and would give the same smaller increments at the back. The main difference would be that with the 53/42, your smallest gear becomes 42/28 and might not be small enough for some. The 53/39 (which would typically be considered a standard) doesn't appear to have any major drawbacks.
...Of course I might be misunderstanding the point again!