Why were all the recent TDF TTT bikes set up with 58 and 60 tooth chaing rings?
Because any team of 8 world tour guys drafting each other easily went over 55 kph. You aren’t pedaling a 53 tooth ring that fast.
What do you mean? 53/11 at 95 rpm is 35.8 mph(56.7kmph) If gear ratio is everything then that is prefectly fine, right?
You gain leverage with the bigger chain ring. The ratio between cogs will also be smaller at the smaller end of the cassette.
You have nearly the exact same leverage. That is dictated by the crank length, and even then there is little difference in leverage across the most commonly used crank lengths.
The crank arm is a lever. The chain rings and cogs are a pulley. By increasing the chain ring you are adding mechnical advantage(aka leverage). In theory so does a smaller cog. The problem with the cog is it is attached to a relatively large radius fly wheel. The cost in force of a smaller cog is greater than a bigger chain ring, because of the large radius to the mass(the wheel vs the crankarm).
No. They’re both moving the same mass, because they’re connected by this thing called a chain. Outside of very tiny marginal losses due to friction, the only thing that matters is the ratio of chainring size to cog size.
What do you mean? 53/11 at 95 rpm is 35.8 mph(56.7kmph) If gear ratio is everything then that is prefectly fine, right?I cannot add much to JasonHalifax’s explanation, other to say that your misunderstanding is that you are thinking of each component as an independent element rather than considering the system as a whole. Yes, a large CR adds more leverage, but then you immediately give up more leverage on the back end when you are running that on a larger cog to achieve the same gear ratio. The two cancel out.
Regarding TTT gearing, yes, a 53x11 at 95 RPM might be fine for the average speed. But they are not riding average, they are well above and below that speed, and they need headroom. So, jumping up to a 58 would let them ride 5 MPH faster at the same cadence. And, don’t forget the intangibles of reduced chainline friction and smaller incremental jumps between rear cogs, which is important when precision riding in a TTT paceline.
IMO increasing your willingness to crash will increase your crit results alot more that chasing marginal gains.
So having a “walk away” bike (with ok wheels) is better that a super bike you will want to scratch.
Where do people come up with this?
It’s utter nonsense.
If you crash, you lose. Pretty simple concept. No one wants to crash.
Yeah, I posted the same thing above, then deleted it because I wrote it too dickish.
The really good crit riders are among the safest, and don’t do stupid things. You don’t see Justin Williams, Holloway, Young, et al. with a lot of road rash.
I’m not really good, but have ~300 crit starts from Cat 5 to P12, and have crashed twice that I can remember. Once in a Cat 4 yard sale, once I slid myself out in the rain in a breakaway. I use my “good bike” for crits.
IMO increasing your willingness to crash will increase your crit results alot more that chasing marginal gains.
So having a “walk away” bike (with ok wheels) is better that a super bike you will want to scratch.
Where do people come up with this?
It’s utter nonsense.
If you crash, you lose. Pretty simple concept. No one wants to crash.
Sure, you don’t **want **to crash… but power alone will not make you make you win in a bike race.
If you hesitate you lose !!! (assuming that you are in the correct Cat)
A of things need to go right to win a bike race… what i’m saying is that your **willingness **to take risk will help you a lot more that 2% efficiency.
What % of successful crit racers had crashes ?
Note: I probably have the watts of a Cat 2-3 (maybe), but do not have the like taking corner at speed with people around me (in part because; i don’t like braking bones, in part i don’t want to scratch my nice bike)… so i do tri
Note 2: a fairly good downhill skier, in a part of the world with a lot of hidden rocks… guess what; i’m a better skier when i use my older skis that i don’t really care about… less hesitations (thus less falls) and more focus on having fun than trying to preserve my bases.
Sure, you don’t **want **to crash… but power alone will not make you make you win in a bike race.
If you hesitate you lose !!! (assuming that you are in the correct Cat)
A of things need to go right to win a bike race… what i’m saying is that your **willingness **to take risk will help you a lot more that 2% efficiency.
What % of successful crit racers had crashes ?
Note: I probably have the watts of a Cat 2-3 (maybe), but do not have the like taking corner at speed with people around me (in part because; i don’t like braking bones, in part i don’t want to scratch my nice bike)… so i do tri
Note 2: a fairly good downhill skier, in a part of the world with a lot of hidden rocks… guess what; i’m a better skier when i use my older skis that i don’t really care about… less hesitations (thus less falls) and more focus on having fun than trying to preserve my bases.
What percentage of successful BIKE RACERS had crashes?
All of them .
Crashes happen, of course. They happen in crits, they happen in road races, they happen in time trials.
Just because you don’t have the ability or confidence to ride your bike in close quarters at high speeds does not mean that others don’t, either. What you perceive as “risky” is, in fact, not.
You’re propagating a bunch of nonsense based on your ignorance and inexperience.
Sure, you don’t **want **to crash… but power alone will not make you make you win in a bike race.
If you hesitate you lose !!! (assuming that you are in the correct Cat)
A of things need to go right to win a bike race… what i’m saying is that your **willingness **to take risk will help you a lot more that 2% efficiency.
What % of successful crit racers had crashes ?
Note: I probably have the watts of a Cat 2-3 (maybe), but do not have the like taking corner at speed with people around me (in part because; i don’t like braking bones, in part i don’t want to scratch my nice bike)… so i do tri
Note 2: a fairly good downhill skier, in a part of the world with a lot of hidden rocks… guess what; i’m a better skier when i use my older skis that i don’t really care about… less hesitations (thus less falls) and more focus on having fun than trying to preserve my bases.
My desire to not crash has nothing to do with damaging the bike I’m on.
Well the subject of the discussion is if spending +$10K on a bike with 1 extra gear will make you faster at crits.
What i’m saying is that, in my case, all the marginal gains (if any) will be lost to my reduced willingness to scraped a nice bike.
(Don’t get me wrong, injuries are a lot worse than having to broken gear, we are talking about net marginal gain here)
Why were all the recent TDF TTT bikes set up with 58 and 60 tooth chaing rings?
Because any team of 8 world tour guys drafting each other easily went over 55 kph. You aren’t pedaling a 53 tooth ring that fast.
What do you mean? 53/11 at 95 rpm is 35.8 mph(56.7kmph) If gear ratio is everything then that is prefectly fine, right?
You gain leverage with the bigger chain ring. The ratio between cogs will also be smaller at the smaller end of the cassette.
You have nearly the exact same leverage. That is dictated by the crank length, and even then there is little difference in leverage across the most commonly used crank lengths.
The crank arm is a lever. The chain rings and cogs are a pulley. By increasing the chain ring you are adding mechnical advantage(aka leverage). In theory so does a smaller cog. The problem with the cog is it is attached to a relatively large radius fly wheel. The cost in force of a smaller cog is greater than a bigger chain ring, because of the large radius to the mass(the wheel vs the crankarm).
No. They’re both moving the same mass, because they’re connected by this thing called a chain. Outside of very tiny marginal losses due to friction, the only thing that matters is the ratio of chainring size to cog size.
