Switching from a 12 to an 11 is a bigger change than 50 to 53. Get the cassette.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

I'd get 53 cause bigger rings are more efficient

See how you go with a new cassette first, they're cheao and you would have needed one before long anyway. Get an 11-25 (no point in sacrificing a climbing gear, unless you'll really never use it)

As somebody else said, the jump from 12t to 11t is pretty big (about 3mph faster before you spin out).

If that still doesn't cut it then fit the chain rings and roll the dice with a recalibration.

My 2 cents

the 52x12 will make you go about 30.5 mph at 90 rpm, while the 11 will net you another 3 mph.

You must be a real horse on the bike if you are riding over 30 mph half the time!

Can you out spin an 50/12 on the flats for an entire race? If not, what is the issue?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Changing the cassette to a 11-23 would probably be the second option, but I'm afraid I'd spin out anyways.

Do this. You should be able to comfortably ride at ~35 mph with that gear, which won't be very often. If you are really spun out, then tuck and coast.

Thanks for all your answers. This wasn't meant to be a humble brag, I'm no supercyclist. I had a big tailwind on one of the sections where i like to push it, and I got kinda frustrated whenever the road started sloping down. I never use the smaller gears, and it just feels silly to spin out when I would be able to put put more power.

I'll try to put on a different cassette and see if that is enough. Anyone know for sure about the chainrings. Quarq faq isn't rally giving a straight answer.

Cassette changes affect the gear ratios to a greater extent then do chainring changes. So the others are correct and change the cassette first.

If you have a newer Quarq, either the Elsa R or Riken R, chainring changes don't require recalibration. Any Quarq that has the OmniCal feature has this capability.

---

--------------------------------------------------
Non-Swimming Duathlete

that is TOTALLY what I was thinking - Yikes! Forget the cassette; where do I get legs like his???

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

I'm not sure that horses are any good at riding bikes

To the OP...ignore the useless info above. Get the 11-23 and crank it up on the flats and downhill sections. Lots of time to gain over people who coast.

Explanation please.

Said it in a gcn video, still highly doubt he's spinning that out

Bigger gears have less frictional drivetrain losses than smaller ones, because the chain has to bend more to wrap around smaller gears. A 50x25 gear will require marginally fewer watts than a 34x17. This is the logic behind larger jockey pulleys, since they are the smallest gears in the drivetrain. Going from a 50T to a 53T (assuming gear inches stayed the same) would save <1/4W.



http://www.bikeradar.com/...oper-shifting-44016/

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Very interesting and totally true!

But, if you're going to marginalize gains (which is important to compete at the highest levels of the sport) please present with all of the factors that are associated with the equipment. For example, I would assume that you would want to include a comparison of 'moment of inertia' data between the larger and smaller chainrings, as well as friction loses relative to cross-chaining a 50x25 as opposed to a relatively straight chain-line of a 34x17, etc. Otherwise, it's misleading. I'm very interested to hear the results!

I'm guessing that there is virtually no energy savings to speak of (or at least none that 99.9999% of us should worry about) to be had. Even your example quotes the energy savings as less than 1/4 watt. Which may as well be so close to zero that it shouldn't ever be incorporated into any criteria that one should use when deciding upon chainrings. But, that's just my opinion.

Yes, in the example crosschaining would more than eclipse the difference. The post was just to explain the concept that larger cog systems have lower frictional losses than smaller ones (at the same ratio). Larger systems are also heavier and less aerodynamic. I'd guess that the aero impact of going from a 50T to a 53T is greater than the frictional savings. That being said, all of these are so small that choosing the proper gearing from a biomechanical standpoint should be the guiding factor in chainring/cassette selection.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)