That's a small front chainring, is there a reason for that? Why don't you try using 52-46 or something more 'normal'?

i have to say that mr empfield's statement that tri-bikes should come standard with a 34/50 is nuts. he bases this on a race in calif ? there are quite a number of places that people live OUTSIDE of calif where they hold triathlons, it turns out. what in the world are you going to do with a 34 in shreveport, for example? or podusky, iowa? ratstink, florida? etc etc. the world needs a 34 inner standard like a hole in the head - that is, if you acknoledge that the world exists outside and apart from your backyard. a 34 tooth inner is a specialty choice, maybe a wise one here or even there - as a new standard it is a dumb idea if you consider most - i said MOST locales.

What is the problem with a 34 standard? You seem to be offering a lot of insults and criticism without offering any reasoning behind your statements.

john. a 34 inner ring spun at 100 rpm with, say a 17 tooth cog ( nabout as far as you would want to go outboard...) would get you down the road at 16.2 mph, notably slower on 650's. the remaining non-crossed over gears would be slower. now, in what manner would having half your drivetrain dedicated to speeds under 16 mph be benefitting MOST triathletes on MOST courses?

as a specialty gear for mr empfield's example in calif, OK. maybe for LP, or your own hilly race. certainly as a POSSIBILTY it is a nice developement. the compact road BCD is a good idea, to be sure. but a possibilty and a good idea in a special application is not tha same as a new standard spec.

a standard spec should reflect the most benefit for the most people, it seems to me. sub 16 mph is not reflective of most people's efforts on most courses, i do not believe.

I also felt that a 34/50 was a bit overboard. My favorite crusing gear is a 55-17 (650C) which gets me about 21mph give or take a little. There are some small hills on my ride that I would be totally spun out if I was riding with a 50 front chainring.

As for the 34, YIKES!!! I guess California has a lot more hills (Mountains) than SE Michigan, but If it gets you in the range for the terrain you're riding on and your abilities, it would be the right gear.

As for a standard spec, I think it is a little off the wall too

jaretj

I would also be interested in Slowman's thinking on this one, I read the article on the home page about the new FSA cranks with a 50/34. I live in Oregon and could use the 34 on some big hills, although the new standard? I would want to hear some input on this one......

---

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take" - Wayne Gretzky

Maybe not a bad spec for entry-level bikes, and cranks are an easy upgrade once a rider learns how to spin. How many races have you spectated where you fell over laughing at someone trying to go up a hill at 18 RPM because they were clueless about their gearing?Don't junior cyclists have gear limits? Maybe newbie triathletes would benefit from them as well - not legislated, just recommended by the bike spec.

How much crossover would you have on a 50-34? That's a 16-tooth drop - more than the 52 or 53-39/56 or 55-42 you typically see on tri set ups.

For a TT/tri bike, you would typically be spending most of the time in a 50 ring anyway. How fast does a 50-13 at 95 rpm get you moving?

Just questions, not attacks.

---

***

Dan mentions Tyler wanting them, Hamilton said in an interview that he wanted them because he had a fractured collar bone and didn't want to stand up to increase his power, other less powerful riders probably followed suit rightfully so. If I lived in a mountainous area my gearing certainly would change. Spinning up a hill is no secret it works, look at MTB gearing. If Mario Cipollini would not have crashed out of the GIRO he was planning to ride a mountain bike in the mountain stages, this may have been a publicity stunt for Specialized, yet I think Cipollini was more than happy with it. Do you think he would have done this on a flat stage?? Moral of the story, gearing is a personal thing, that changes with the terrain, thats why so many choices are available.

I have never been in the bike manufacturing business and to chose what type of gearing goes onto a manufactures bike probably has many variables. 50/34 would not go over well in my neck of the woods. Yet I wouldn't say it doesn't have a place in the cycling world.

argyllbob I am sure there is something you can do to get a front derailleur to work fine with 50/34 chainrings.

Although not everyone will agree on the perfect all around gearing, I think it is great when someone is thinking outside of the box.

that would be approx 29.6 mph, marlin. :) pretty fast, but i know a lot of guys who be pretty impatiently ticked off on a big ole downhill if all they could go was 29 mph. but, big gears are not what i was addressing. :)

i will maintain that a 34 would be a waste for anybody living outside mountainous locales, and as such would be a poor standard spec. shitfire, my 12 y/o little girl rides 18 mph here in wisconsin over adult sprint distances (rolling hills and all...) and would not be in that 34 at all. i myself use a 34x 17 on "difficult" wisconsin MOUNTAIN BIKE courses in the dirt and a 38 on moderate ones, and i am a fat old guy. what in the world would either a 12 y/o girl or other fat old guy want with a 34 on their tri-bike for the local YMCA tri?

it is, IMHO, just a regional-centric idea for an OEM spec on tri-bikes. that is my point. most riders in most locales in the most popular shorter distance participatory triathlons would never even use it.

I actually like the idea of a 34/50. It would let me run a lot tighter cassette giving me tighter gearing on the big ring but still giving the low gear I need for the hills. For example, at IMWI, I ran 39/53 and 12-25. This gear combo has some "big" gaps right where I cruise on the flats - e.g. the jump from the 19t cog to 17t is a ~12% increase and the 17t to 15t jump is a ~13% increase.

If I had a 34/50 set, I would run an 11-21 cassette and get roughly the same gear range as the combo above, but the big ring gears would be much closer - e.g. a 17t to 16t jump is only about 6% and a 16t to 15t is only about 7%.

Of course, if you routinely spin out a 53x11, the 34/50 is probably not for you. But in the terrain I train and race in, I rarely get to the 53x12 much less spin it out.

If you've not already done the math...the gear ratios for 34/50 chainrings with an 11-21 cassette are suprisingly close to 39/53 with a 12-23 cassette. In fact, the 50-11 combination actually provides a bigger gear than the 53-12. And even though, as jaretj pointed out, SE Michigan is really flat, I find the 39/53 12-23 combination (with 700c wheels) to be fairly reasonable around here.

So, a 34/50 with 11-21 cassette would provide a similar setup as a 39/53 + 12-23, would be (marginally) lighter, and would provide a tighter cassette spacing (i.e., smaller steps between gears). Refresh my memory...what's the problem with this setup?

Michael Bey

I would think a double would work better. I think triples are designed for 10-12 tooth jumps.

t-t-n ...

Slowman's point about the 50/34 was NOT that one would ride the 34 down the road -- it's the 50 that everybody needs in replacement of the 52/53 that most of us have. And, most of us in hilly areas need a 34 instead of a 39 so that we can ride comfortably up hills at rpms higher than 50.

If a 53/39 setup is right for a pro grand tour racer putting out 225-300 watts on normally paced stages, then the 50/34 setup is right for the great unwashed masses of us that put out 150-200 watts in a triathlon.

It's simple math, dudes...relating power to speed to gearing...you end up with the unavoidable conclusion that 53/39 is dumb, dumb, dumb for 90% of AG triathletes -- even those that stick to flat races.

michael. and gonzo. the problem is not with the 34 50 as a choice, IMHO. for a savvy rider in specific conditions as you note, it is a good choice in gearing.

my point was in taking this and making it the new OEM standard, which i believe would not be beneficial to most riders. half-step plus granny gearing always made great sense in a purist frame of view too, but made for a very unsuccessful OEM spec.

much of what you note as the benefit of the 34 50 has to do with the 50, more than the 34. no argument there from me.

and, as for the technical merits of the tighter cluster to the 34 i refer back to the HS+G phenonmenon. simply put, people did not use them the way they were supposed to. my little girl, for example is a savvy and experienced racer and yet she made me get rid of her 39 for a 41. she hated the 39, as all she ever did was spin it out, or cross it over, or whathave you. there is a degree of overlap with a 42x52 or other "traditional " gearing that acts as a buffer to somebody not entirely up on exactly WHEN to use the 34x50 to its fullest. and, with no overlap if you are not using 34 50 to its fullest you are in trouble with it, just like HS+G. a couple extra overlapped gears or a couple slighly bigger jumps is the price you pay for the increased cushion in a traditioanl set up vs a gear-tech-head set up. as OEM spec, more people can use the cushion/overlap than are gear/tech/head savvy.

i LIKE 34 50.

i liked HS+G, too.

i do not think either is the best choice for an OEM spec bike. i think if specced as OEM most riders in most locations doing the most races or riding the most miles will not be served by it.

julian. excellent points. and, i agree with them, but for the 30-FOUR. going to a 50 from a 52 is one thing, but dropping from a 42 or 39 to a 34 is another. 2 teeth vs 5 -8 teeth, and the bigger jump comes lower in teeth and so higher in effect besides.

it means that overlap is essentially eliminated. fine if you know where that is, but as an OEM spec most people do not.

if you said go to a 50 X 37 or 36, that would be different. 34 is too unusable for just "going down the road" to be anything other than a savvy gear-head type choice, IMHO. if it became the new standard i will predct that there will be a LOT of dissatified customers spinning out and crossing over their new bikes, bringing them back for a "usuble" inner ring, is what i am saying. maybe not in calif, maybe not in asheville - but everywhere else.

<< How fast does a 50-13 at 95 rpm get you moving?

from my calculations, a 50/13 at 95rpm on 650 wheels would give you 28.3mph.

Some other numbers (all on 650 wheels)

50/11 at 85rpm = 30.0mph, at 95rpm = 33.5mph, at 125rpm (downhill) = 44.1mph

50/15 at 85 = 22.0mph, at 95rpm = 25.6

34/13 at 85 = 17.2mph, at 95 = 19.3mph

34/14 at 85 = 16.0mph, at 95rpm = 17.9mph

So I would think that using a 50/34 combination does have some merit, it would change the way that you use your gears. I would think that it would allow for a tigher combination on the back, like an 11-21 where you might usually need a 12 - 27. It would also mean that you could probably spend more time in the big chain ring under most circumstances.

I just looked at the results from Ironman Florida last year, a flat bike course. I would venture to say that everyone, the winner included could have used a 50/34 and been fine. The winner averaged 24.1mph, so if he was spinning at an average of 85rpm's he would have been in a 50/14, 50/13 the whole time. I used a flat race as an example because I think a course like Lake Placid, it would be obvious that a 50/34 would be advantageous to have.

Flame away!

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

Yeah, the overlap is basically gone, but I don't understand your argument that the 34 is too unusable for just "going down the road". The gear range on a 39t ring with a 12-25 cassette (700C wheel) is 3.3m to 6.8m while a 34t ring with an 11-21 cassette is 3.4m to 6.5m. Not that much different. If you consider a 34t unusable, you must also think that a 39t is unusable.

I can, however, see STI shifting with a 34/50 being a pain with it's one-cog-at-time mode for upshifting. So going from 50x17 to 34x13 to get the next lowest gear would take 5 shifts (assuming an 11-21 cassette)! But I run bar-end shifters on my tri-bike so this wouldn't matter as much.

I'm not flaming, just trying to get into the right thinking. Remember I'm a flatlander. While riding the mountains in Lake Placid or courses simular to it, do you pedal downhill or is there so much grade that you just coast and brake? Nothing around here is much bigger than maybe 150 ft (5 mile hill and Kensington for those who are local). I find myself pedaling downhill to get up just above 40mph and then will have to slow down cuz it flattens out or goes back up a little bit. I need some big gear that a 50 wouldn't provide to keep up. Even some of the local tris that are hilly (Ann Arbor) I would spin out with a 50.

To spec a tri-bike with a 34 around here would probably leave the dealers with a lot of chainrings to send back or might even be a selling point as to not buy that bike that wouldn't work well here.

jaretj

gonzo. the difference lies in the crossover. to ride easy, say 17 mph on flat ground with a 34 you would need to be crossed all the way to 16 at least, or more if you didn't want to be spinning madly as you rode down the road at 100 rpm. i like to spin as much as the next guy, but not 100 rpm al the time. likely i would need to be in the way crossed over 14 or 15.

compare other anecodotes on a 34 as a JRA gear . . . .

if i ride my mt bike singlespeed with nice fat tires ( same outer circumference approx as a 700 c...) pumped soft with a 34x 17- standard off road 2:1 gear - along asphalt of any sort life sucks. as i say, a 34X17 is considered a standard recreational OFF ROAD gear, and that includes climbing. even off road a 34X17 is too low for fun on flat ground, really.

if you build a fixer you would NEVER use a 34 x17, 16, OR 15. in fact, the gold standard here is a 42x17, and to acheive that with a 34 you would need to be entirely cross chainring to the 13 ( actually between 13 and 14.

when would you use the 34? surely you cannot mean that the 34 and 39 are interchangable as usable JRA gears. or, maybe you do not mind crossover? i am puzzeled, i must admit. places where JRA means climbing to the blue ridge parkway are not what i am tlaking about. general use in the overall non-alpine world is - why you would choose a 34 for those locales when even mt bikers would not is quite beyond me.

but, to some degree you have ferreted me out, i admit. i am a 42 tooth inner ring retro-grouch, it is true - well, maybe a 41 ( if you are a 12 y/o girl........ JOKING !!!) :) as soon as i fininshed MOO i took that 39 off my bike for riding in my home state of wis, and enjoy the 42 once again for most everthang.

and there is this:

"I can, however, see STI shifting with a 34/50 being a pain with it's one-cog-at-time mode for upshifting. So going from 50x17 to 34x13 to get the next lowest gear would take 5 shifts (assuming an 11-21 cassette)! But I run bar-end shifters on my tri-bike so this wouldn't matter as much. "



well said. with the overlap gone accessing the next gear at a crucial time becomes quite a savvy move. for OEM spec, too savvy.

BTW, none of this is new, as an idea.

i really can't emphasize this enough - it is an old argument.TA has made this sort of gearing available as an option since the beginning of time, it is a hardly a new thing because mr empfield brings it up now, which i find pretty funny. it never caught on before mostly do to the user-savviness required, just like HS+G. a little overlap give a rider some cushion. several choices " close enough" available without always knowing where your chain is exactly. this cushion and overlap has traditionally won out over the " better" but more demanding gear choices, and i will predict it will still. not because it is better, but because it is good enough, more forgiving, more versatile in a prctical sense, and easier. one man's view, looking back and taking things into account.

Interesting thread, but how about getting back to the original question. What front derailleur would work with a 50/34? I think Ultegra and DA spec a max difference in chain rings of 14 teeth. Would they work with this gap of 16 teeth? I just don't know, and I don't know what would work. I would hate to spend a fortune on a new crank only to find it wouldn't shift.

I probably would use a 50/34 in races here in South Florida. Even a 50/12 on my 650 wheels would move me along at 27+ miles an hour. It would take a strong tailwind to allow me to spin out in that gear. I am in the big chainring all the time on a flat race anyway. I would have a straighter chain line most of the time with a 50/34.

aj. brings up an excellent point. but, why a 34?? when would aj be in the 34 ?? of what use would it be, i wonder.

why not a 44 x 50? straight chainline, considerably more usable gears in the " zone" where he is racing, a decent training ring in the 44, and a cushion so you do not have to be constantly alert as to where your chain is exactly. of what use is a 34 in fla, i marvel?

oh yeah, why wouldn't any triple front mech work? i bet a cheap-a$$ old suntour 5000 from rivendell would be fine. :)

I certainly am not talking about myself, but I have heard of this fatso flatland Florida boy who travels to Lake Placid every year around the end of July. When he goes, he panics and puts a triple chain ring on his otherwise hot triathlon bike. It makes him look bad in the one place where he otherwise looks like a stud -- transition. He uses the 30 a lot. A 34 might be small enough to stick with a double if I, I mean, if he loses some of the flab.

Fat chance.