Cool points aside…
Is there any benefit to using the big ring over the little ring if I am able to maintain the same average cadence and power (using different rear combination).
I ask this because power curve is much smoother using the little ring.
have you considered chainline? If your Pm is crank based, it won’t show the loss in watts a crossed chained will cause, never mind the added wear on your drivetrain.
The big ring is bigger, so you can use a bigger gear. People ask, should you spin a small gear or mash a big gear? I say: spin a big gear.
(oh, wait, that was yesterday)
Smaller rear cogs, are, I believe, slightly less efficient. So going big ring with a bigger rear cog might be slightly more efficient than going small rings with an even smaller rear cog.
Of course efficiency loss to “cross chaining” could factor in there as well. And I think the efficiencies are probably sub-watt, or somewhere around there. Not much.
If the gear inches are the same the effort is as well (give or take a watt for drivetrain friction). The reason there is overlap between the gear inch range for the chainrings is that the rear derailleur shift much faster and easier (and works better under load) than the the front derailleur.
It’s better to be in the ring that allows you to be toward the middle of the cassette so that you have the best range of alternate gears and can quickly shift to them. Typically this is the big ring on the flats, and the small ring on climbs.
If the gear inches are the same the effort is as well (give or take a watt for drivetrain friction). The reason there is overlap between the gear inch range for the chainrings is that the rear derailleur shift much faster and easier (and works better under load) than the the front derailleur.
It’s better to be in the ring that allows you to be toward the middle of the cassette so that you have the best range of alternate gears and can quickly shift to them. Typically this is the big ring on the flats, and the small ring on climbs.
this is correct. If you find that the big ring is too large to be useful consider getting a smaller one, chainrings seem to be very cheap used. You want to have “just enough” gear to get you over the hills and go as fast as you need to go. Having gears you don’t use comes at a cost
Cool points aside…
Is there any benefit to using the big ring over the little ring if I am able to maintain the same average cadence and power (using different rear combination).
I ask this because power curve is much smoother using the little ring.
For the sake of argument , At a cadence of say 80, a rider with big muscular legs who can spin a 53/39 11/23 gear combo with ease will go faster than a chicken legged rider who struggles to spin a compact 50 and 12 tooth cog at cadence of 80 because per pedal stroke, a 53 ring will allow for the bike to cover more distance than a 50 ring. Simply put, powerful riders with legs resembling tree trunks who can easily spin an 53/39 11/23 gear combo will blow away the chicken legged triathletes who lack the leg power to aggressively spin even a 50/34 12/28 gear combo.
I my self spend a lot of quality time in the gym doing super heavy leg training because I like big rings and I cannot lie.
Can someone ban this idiot?
Cool points aside…
Is there any benefit to using the big ring over the little ring if I am able to maintain the same average cadence and power (using different rear combination).
I ask this because power curve is much smoother using the little ring.
For the sake of argument , At a cadence of say 80, a rider with big muscular legs who can spin a 53/39 11/23 gear combo with ease will go faster than a chicken legged rider who struggles to spin a compact 50 and 12 tooth cog at cadence of 80 because per pedal stroke, a 53 ring will allow for the bike to cover more distance than a 50 ring. Simply put, powerful riders with legs resembling tree trunks who can easily spin an 53/39 11/23 gear combo will blow away the chicken legged triathletes who lack the leg power to aggressively spin even a 50/34 12/28 gear combo.
I my self spend a lot of quality time in the gym doing super heavy leg training because I like big rings and I cannot lie.
For the sake of argument , At a cadence of say 80, a rider with chicken legs who can spin a 53/39 11/23 gear combo with ease will go faster than a muscular legged rider who struggles to spin a compact 50 and 12 tooth cog at cadence of 80 because per pedal stroke, a 53 ring will allow for the bike to cover more distance than a 50 ring. Simply put, powerful riders with chicken legs who can easily spin an 53/39 11/23 gear combo will blow away the riders with legs resembling tree trunks who lack the leg power to aggressively spin even a 50/34 12/28 gear combo.
I my self do not spend a lot of quality time in the gym doing super heavy leg training because I like big butts and I cannot lie.
I like little butts and I cannot lie. Oh, yea and this guy spinning any gear will crush even the biggest tree-trunked leg cyclist.
Cool points aside…
Is there any benefit to using the big ring over the little ring if I am able to maintain the same average cadence and power (using different rear combination).
I ask this because power curve is much smoother using the little ring.
For the sake of argument , At a cadence of say 80, a rider with big muscular legs who can spin a 53/39 11/23 gear combo with ease will go faster than a chicken legged rider who struggles to spin a compact 50 and 12 tooth cog at cadence of 80 because per pedal stroke, a 53 ring will allow for the bike to cover more distance than a 50 ring. Simply put, powerful riders with legs resembling tree trunks who can easily spin an 53/39 11/23 gear combo will blow away the chicken legged triathletes who lack the leg power to aggressively spin even a 50/34 12/28 gear combo.
I my self spend a lot of quality time in the gym doing super heavy leg training because I like big rings and I cannot lie.
Yeah…sort of like the Industrial Revolution and the puppy who lost its way.
Having gears you don’t use comes at a cost
I spent a lot of time this winter making sure that I could use all my gears. I found that a 50/36 with a 12-25 cassette lets me use virtually every gear, and if for some reason I’m on a descent that would allow me to spin out that 50/12 gearing, then I’m just going to sit back and recover in order to hammer harder when the road flattens out.
The best thing to do is figure out what gearing you need to cover the terrain that you’ll be covering. If that means running a 1x10 or 1x11 with a 36 chainring and 12-32 cassette than so be it.
Having gears you don’t use comes at a cost
I spent a lot of time this winter making sure that I could use all my gears. I found that a 50/36 with a 12-25 cassette lets me use virtually every gear, and if for some reason I’m on a descent that would allow me to spin out that 50/12 gearing, then I’m just going to sit back and recover in order to hammer harder when the road flattens out.
The best thing to do is figure out what gearing you need to cover the terrain that you’ll be covering. If that means running a 1x10 or 1x11 with a 36 chainring and 12-32 cassette than so be it.
True, but the cost of that big 32 is a ton of 2-tooth jumps, which means you are much more likely to have those “can’t quite get the right gear” moments.
I am befuddled with the popularity of using a 32 for a TT bike, it makes no sense, especially a single ring 32.
Pro racers used them in the high mountains so they could avoid making so many chainring shifts to respond to attacks, which is exactly the oppisite of what a tri / tt rider needs, i.e. the correct gear to make the most power at the optimal rpm for an extended period
For the sake of argument ,
Ok for the sake of argument then
Those two riders are next to each other all things equal in regards to crr/drag etc:
The rider with the 53 is in the 13 in the back
The rider with the 50 is in the 12 in the back.
Which do you think is going faster at this identical cadence of 80? Since you simply noted ranges of cassettes and rings, this is a perfectly valid scenario for them to be in.
I like lifting myself personally so I’m not against you being for it, but you need to let the blood back into your brain a bit before you make these ridiculous posts.
Also you do know that cassettes can be swapped out right?
Smaller rear cogs, are, I believe, slightly less efficient. So going big ring with a bigger rear cog might be slightly more efficient than going small rings with an even smaller rear cog.
Of course efficiency loss to “cross chaining” could factor in there as well. And I think the efficiencies are probably sub-watt, or somewhere around there. Not much.
This seems to be the only answer upto now addressing the original question.
The reason for that what trail wrote is true should be that although with a bigger cog there are more chainparts contacting the cog, the angle the chainparts have to move relatively to each other is less due to the bigger diameter.
I ask this because power curve is much smoother using the little ring.
What? Are you talking about your actual power curve or your power when graphed for the ride along with your HR, cadence, and speed?
I think that the reason the OP perceives his power curve to be smoother when using the smaller chainring is because the real life gaps in effort between shifts are smaller when moving up and down the cassette in the little ring.
Take this comparison:
Scenario A - being in the 53t chainring and shifting from a 16t cassette ring to a 15t ring.
Scenario B - being in the 39t chainring and shifting from a 16t cassette ring to a 15t ring.
Cadence is 80, 700c wheel with 23mm tyre in both scenarios.
In both scenarios, there is a 6.7% increase in speed. So they’re the same, right? Wrong.
In scenario A, that increase is 1.4mph (from 20.7mph to 22.1mph)
Whereas in scenario B, that increase is only 1.1mph (15.3mph to 16.4mph)
The jump in power required is much bigger when changing speed from 20.7mph to 22.1mph, compared from speeding up from 15.3mph to 16.4mph. That’s why it feels like you can fine tune your effort better when in the small ring.
This logic follows when comparing any equal cassette shifts in different chainrings.
Perhaps a slightly more relevant example would be comparing a small/small combination that gives you the same speed as a big/big combo. The big big combo will have larger jumps because you are, in effect, multiplying by 53 as opposed to multiplying by 39.
I hope that the above makes sense!
Credit to Sheldon Brown’s gear calculator for all calculations.
Liam
For the sake of argument ,
Ok for the sake of argument then
Those two riders are next to each other all things equal in regards to crr/drag etc:
The rider with the 53 is in the 13 in the back
The rider with the 50 is in the 12 in the back.
Which do you think is going faster at this identical cadence of 80? Since you simply noted ranges of cassettes and rings, this is a perfectly valid scenario for them to be in.
I like lifting myself personally so I’m not against you being for it, but you need to let the blood back into your brain a bit before you make these ridiculous posts.
Also you do know that cassettes can be swapped out right?
All I’m suggesting is that the rider who can spin the hardest gearing the fastest, wins. Period. Therefore, it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that a rider spinning a 53 and a 11 in the back at a cadence of 80 will travel farther than some one on a 50 with 12 out back peddling it at a cadence of 80.
Yeah but the guy with the 53-11 would get crushed by a guy with a 56-11, so not sure why he wouldn’t go with the 56.
All I’m suggesting is that the rider who can spin the hardest gearing the fastest, wins. Period.
Yet you entirely missed the point that in the example above the 50/12 is the harder gear…