Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my...
Quote | Reply
I recently switched to 165 crankarms (from 172.5); stayed with the standard 53/39 chainring up front; and using a 12-25 cassette. I'm on the shorter side (5' 6"), and from what I had read and researched, that sounded like it might be a good move to make (slight improvement to aero, combined with little more breathing space to stay in aero, etc.). Pretty happy with the change so far, although I admit to being a little surprised at just how much difference that 7mm makes to my effort in the same gears. Haven't run out of gears going uphill yet, but definitely have to use the bigger (size) gears in the back more often.

I'm going to be doing IM Chattanooga in September, and thinking I may get an 11-28 cassette to provide a full range of options, wanted to get some thoughts on that; as well as the possibility of switching the chainrings to a 52/36 or 50/34. I've searched the forum and read through a number of threads, as well as the related links. The whole thing is making my head spin a bit, to be honest. Assuming that I want to stick with 165 crankarms, trying to figure out how that matches up with the chainring and cassette selections to provide the optimal combination.

One quick example to provide a real-world scenario; we have a couple local hills where the elevation increases a little over 150 ft in just under a mile. At the end of my long (80-90+) mile rides; I'm now going to the 39/25 combo to get up the hill at a nice steady pace. Makes me slightly nervous that the same setup at the end of IM Choo would have me struggling more than I want, leaving me too fatigued to have a good run.
Quote Reply
Re: Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my... [pocolocoman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As far as I am concerned... a 50/34 crank is the best option... PERIOD.

I run an 11-23 most of the time (mostly flat/windy rides). For a hillier ride, I change the cassette as needed. I did GFNY with a 50/34... and 12-28 in the back.

A 34/28 combo... should almost always be small enough for anything. 50/11 big enough for anything.
Quote Reply
Re: Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my... [pocolocoman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pocolocoman wrote:
I recently switched to 165 crankarms (from 172.5); stayed with the standard 53/39 chainring up front; and using a 12-25 cassette. I'm on the shorter side (5' 6"), and from what I had read and researched, that sounded like it might be a good move to make (slight improvement to aero, combined with little more breathing space to stay in aero, etc.). Pretty happy with the change so far, although I admit to being a little surprised at just how much difference that 7mm makes to my effort in the same gears. Haven't run out of gears going uphill yet, but definitely have to use the bigger (size) gears in the back more often.

I'm going to be doing IM Chattanooga in September, and thinking I may get an 11-28 cassette to provide a full range of options, wanted to get some thoughts on that; as well as the possibility of switching the chainrings to a 52/36 or 50/34. I've searched the forum and read through a number of threads, as well as the related links. The whole thing is making my head spin a bit, to be honest. Assuming that I want to stick with 165 crankarms, trying to figure out how that matches up with the chainring and cassette selections to provide the optimal combination.

One quick example to provide a real-world scenario; we have a couple local hills where the elevation increases a little over 150 ft in just under a mile. At the end of my long (80-90+) mile rides; I'm now going to the 39/25 combo to get up the hill at a nice steady pace. Makes me slightly nervous that the same setup at the end of IM Choo would have me struggling more than I want, leaving me too fatigued to have a good run.

To get the same overall gain as your lowest gear (39-25) with the 172.5mm crankarms, you would need at least a 26T cog with the 165s. The 11-28 would actually result in you having a slightly lower "granny" gear than you did before...of course, you probably won't need the 11 since your gain has gotten smaller on that end as well. A 12-28 or even 13-28 (if that's available) should work.

If you want to play around with all of these effects, the best place to go is Sheldon Browns "Gain Ratio" calculator. It's the best way to compare "apples to apples" with all of the factors that determine the overall gain between your foot and the ground: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my... [pocolocoman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did you change crank length to match your position, or change your position to match your crank length? And not just your seat.
Quote Reply
Re: Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my... [Donzo98] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Donzo98 wrote:
As far as I am concerned... a 50/34 crank is the best option... PERIOD.

I run an 11-23 most of the time (mostly flat/windy rides). For a hillier ride, I change the cassette as needed. I did GFNY with a 50/34... and 12-28 in the back.

A 34/28 combo... should almost always be small enough for anything. 50/11 big enough for anything.

I think this is very rider dependent. I ride 53/39 and 11-28 here in hilly Western PA and rarely feel like I really need a compact crank. I did Savageman on this gearing and still felt fine. Unless you are riding huge hills regularly, a 53/39 and 11/12-28 should be perfectly suitable to the needs of most rider.
Quote Reply
Re: Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my... [kyle h] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kyle h wrote:
I think this is very rider dependent.
Agreed. The guy who is barely 3 w/kg may need much different gearing than the guy who's 4.5, especially in rolling terrain.
Quote Reply
Re: Crankarms and Chainrings and Cassettes, oh my... [pocolocoman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Good input, thanks everyone. FWIW; I'm definitely closer to 3 w/kg than 4.5...
Quote Reply