Is a 50 tooth chainring too big for a beginner?

Triathlon Forum
1

Hi All,

Over Christmas I helped my Dad pick out his first bike since childhood, and it occurred to me that as triples are dying out in favour of compacts, few bikes actually cater very well in the gearing dept to an unfit beginner.

A 34t inner ring is all well and good when paired with an appropriate cassette, but a 50t big ring seems too much for the general health/fitness riding that he (and many like him, I imagine) will do. There will be a decent amount of cross chaining happening for him to find a comfortable gear, and I just don’t see him pushing a 50/12 gear in a smart way any time soon. Plus it might mean that new riders to raise their cadence a little bit as they get fitter, rather than just grinding slightly bigger gears.

A 50t chainring is only ~6% smaller than the 53t preferred by strong/fast riders, surely there is a more appropriate option for an overweight, middle aged, self confessed couch potato (no offence Dad) who wants to give riding a go?

Why not a 46/34 option on entry level bikes?
Shimano, who pretty much dominate the entry level gearing scene here in the UK, already make a 46t chainring for their cyclocross bikes.

What are people’s thoughts on this?

2

Thing is, there is already a lot of overlap between the rideable gears in a compact setup going from the little to the big ring. The gearing in 34-14 is actually an inch longer than the gearing in 50-21, which are both useable gears if you discount the two smallest cogs when on the little ring and two highest cogs when on the big. And have your front derailleur setup properly. If you put a big ring on the front with less teeth you will have even more overlap, and you won’t actually gain any extra gear ratios. So only worth doing if you are also considering an inner ring less than 34. I do know a guy with a heart condition and if he wants to keep riding he has to keep his HR down, and he has effectively put mountain bike gearing on his road bike.

Of course if you live in Norfolk, don’t worry about it. But if you are here in West Yorkshire that might be an option.

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2013/10/28/1383002861056-ft8f05q9bky4-700-80.jpg

3

Thing is, there is already a lot of overlap between the rideable gears in a compact setup going from the little to the big ring. The gearing in 34-14 is actually an inch longer than the gearing in 50-21, which are both useable gears if you discount the two smallest cogs when on the little ring and two highest cogs when on the big. And have your front derailleur setup properly. If you put a big ring on the front with less teeth you will have even more overlap, and you won’t actually gain any extra gear ratios. So only worth doing if you are also considering an inner ring less than 34. I do know a guy with a heart condition and if he wants to keep riding he has to keep his HR down, and he has effectively put mountain bike gearing on his road bike.

Of course if you live in Norfolk, don’t worry about it. But if you are here in West Yorkshire that might be an option.

Point taken.
Perhaps a 46/30 then? I can’t imagine my dad complaining that a 30t is too “slow” for him when the road heads upwards.

I live in Leeds and do most of my riding up past Otley, so am with you 100% on the hills round here!

4

Hi All,

Over Christmas I helped my Dad pick out his first bike since childhood, and it occurred to me that as triples are dying out in favour of compacts, few bikes actually cater very well in the gearing dept to an unfit beginner.

A 34t inner ring is all well and good when paired with an appropriate cassette, but a 50t big ring seems too much for the general health/fitness riding that he (and many like him, I imagine) will do. There will be a decent amount of cross chaining happening for him to find a comfortable gear, and I just don’t see him pushing a 50/12 gear in a smart way any time soon. Plus it might mean that new riders to raise their cadence a little bit as they get fitter, rather than just grinding slightly bigger gears.

A 50t chainring is only ~6% smaller than the 53t preferred by strong/fast riders, surely there is a more appropriate option for an overweight, middle aged, self confessed couch potato (no offence Dad) who wants to give riding a go?

Why not a 46/34 option on entry level bikes?
Shimano, who pretty much dominate the entry level gearing scene here in the UK, already make a 46t chainring for their cyclocross bikes.

What are people’s thoughts on this?

Your point is a good one - no gearing is for everyone. The big guns like Shimano, SRAM, Trek, SBC, etc have to decide which product they think will have the broadest appeal around the world - if they order supplies in bulk and produce in bulk, they’re going to save money. The fewer SKUs the better. A 50/34 is a pretty safe bet for a lot of folks on a lot of roads, so that’s what they go with. Before that, triples were very common, and I think are an even better choice for the reason you mention - smaller small ring, and a middle ring of ~39-42t. They’re dying out because they’re not “cool”. The best way to get similar gearing with a double is to use a long cage rear derailleur with a 32 tooth big cog. With 11-speed systems, it works pretty well. With 10-speed, you end up with gear jumps in the rear that are, in my opinion, too large for most road riding (the changes in effort from cog-to-cog is quite large). Shifting is slower, too, due to these jumps.

We’re seeing a reduction in chainring size availability as we see an increase in chainring technology and cost. Shimano’s two-piece forged rings are insanely good, and also very expensive. They just can’t offer Dura Ace level rings in every tooth count. Back in the day you’d see manufacturers make a ridiculous number of tooth counts, because they were stamped or machined rings, which are a LOT cheaper to make. Want a 47 tooth ring instead of 48? Here you go. Those days are over.

Sounds like your best option is to get what is sold as a cyclocross chainring.

5

Why not a 46/34 option on entry level bikes?

My wife, who rides for exercise and just the joy of riding, is also a poor fit for a 50/34, even with a 11-28T in the rear.

I have a 46T big ring just waiting to be installed. It will allow her to ride in the big ring a lot more (we have a lot of rollers), reduce her shifting to small ring, and I don’t think she’ll ever tell me that 46/11 isn’t enough for the flats. 99% of her riding is done at speeds < 18 mph.

She could probably do MOST of her riding in a 39T, but 39/28 isn’t low enough.

Thinking about this a bit more, if I were buying a new groupset, she might be a good candidate for a 1x11 with a really wide range cassette.

6

That only strong fast riders need a 53 or a 50 or a 56 is a myth. IT DEPENDS! What RPM do you ride at and what speed will you need to pedal at.

On a flat course, you actually need a lot less gear. a 50/12 could be plenty for a flat 70.3 to ride a 2:00 split… and might only use 2-3 gears the whole event… depending on your preferred cadence. On a hilly or windy course, you need both higher and lower gear ratios… a wider spread.

Pay less attention to road racing. Their demands are dramatically different that a TT.

That being said… a 50/34 with a 11-25 for a flatter course, 11-28 for hillier or windy courses will hit the needs of 95% of triathletes on almost every course.

BOP riders doing IM or 70.3 on a hilly course, should have a triple and possibly a long cage derailleur and a 11-32 or 11-34.

7

That only strong fast riders need a 53 or a 50 or a 56 is a myth. .

I agree with your points Moto, and for you or me it would be sound advice. I run a 52/36 on my tri bike so I can strike a balance on the steep climbs and rolling terrain near where I live.

The situation with an unfit beginner is different though. They simply stop pedalling on the descents as they are glad of the rest, and may find a 50t too hard to push on the flats without going right up to the big end of the cassette. Cadence is a good point, but a 50t may force newbies into a lower cadence than is optimal and they may end up doing knee damage due to too much grinding.

My argument is basically that a slower rider who doesn’t feel the need to constantly pedal downhill will get more utility out of a smaller chainring.
The chainring technology/cost/availability issue occured occured to me too, hence the suggestion of a 46t since Shimano make that size anyway.

8

You are over thinking this.
Your dad has plenty of gears available, nothing is wrong.

9

Does it got to be a roadbike? Fitness bikes come with different cranks. And if this is an option… I got a 105 triple (50-39-30) lying around with about 1k on its teeth. Would ship from Germany.

10

I’ve got an 11-32 on one of my road bikes using a short cage. Give it a try it may work on your dad’s

jaretj

11

You are over thinking this.
Your dad has plenty of gears available, nothing is wrong.

I wasn’t suggesting that there was anything “wrong” and I’m certainly not suggesting that he doesn’t have gears that he can use.
I’m discussing the possibility of if many like him would prefer a 46t, and if manufacturers should perhaps consider this when speccing beginners’ bikes.
If you think I’m overthinking it then so be it. I’m not trying to say that I’m definitely right or that you’re wrong, I’m merely sharing my opinions.

12

Am I missing something…you do not see the overlap with a 53/39?

13

Depends??? On you top speed being faster, then yes

14

Does it got to be a roadbike? Fitness bikes come with different cranks. And if this is an option… I got a 105 triple (50-39-30) lying around with about 1k on its teeth. Would ship from Germany.

Thanks Shoki, but I don’t think it’ll be necessary.

15

Most beginners are just going to find a gear that is comfortable for the lowish pace they will be pedaling at and, they will be able to find that gear on the small front ring of compact crank. Spending the extra money to run a production line with sub compact cranks is not going to affect bike sales one bit so there is no reason for a bike manufacture to do that. No beginner is consulting a gear chart and longing for a 46-X gear . . . .

I do think one of the reasons behind the vast increase of compact cranks as standard on road bikes though is that compact cranks are the best of both worlds in that they work well for beginner riders but also provide some benefit for more serious riders in that you get a lower gear for climbing while not losing much at all on the high end.

So, bike manufacturers are to some degree factoring in the beginner riders but they are doing that by offering compact cranks on entry level bikes.

16

You are over thinking this.
Your dad has plenty of gears available, nothing is wrong.

That’s what I was thinking. Just as long as he doesn’t take a picture of his bike in the small ring, he’ll be OK.

17

As a former overweight couch potato, don’t count on your Dad as staying out-of-shape. He may end up surprising you! I was glad to have the bigger gear as I got in shape and lost weight.

You are over thinking this.
Your dad has plenty of gears available, nothing is wrong.

I wasn’t suggesting that there was anything “wrong” and I’m certainly not suggesting that he doesn’t have gears that he can use.
I’m discussing the possibility of if many like him would prefer a 46t, and if manufacturers should perhaps consider this when speccing beginners’ bikes.
If you think I’m overthinking it then so be it. I’m not trying to say that I’m definitely right or that you’re wrong, I’m merely sharing my opinions.

18

Is the 46t chainring much more niche than I realise?

A 46/34 would require no additional manufacturing equipment from Shimano etc, as they already make 46t chainrings. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying the business side of this scenario and I’m happy to be properly infromed by any bike shop owners/suppliers amongst you, but I see it as a case of making less 50t rings and making more 46t rings.

And just because no beginner is consulting a gear chart and actively desiring a 46t doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t benefit from the switch.
For example - I recently changed out my GF’s cassette from a 12-28 to a 12-30, she never said that her lowest gear was a bit hard but I had been watching her on the steep climbs when we were out together. She didn’t know she needed (could benefit from) it but hasn’t stopped thanking me since.

19

Am I missing something…you do not see the overlap with a 53/39?

Erm did I suggest there wasn’t one?

I was just saying that given there is already an overlap in a 50/34 setup with anything vaguely standard at the back, having fewer teeth on the front ring would simply widen that overlap and wouldn’t increase your range of available gear inches. I guess it would increase the granularity of ratios, which could be useful if you have a very particular cadence that you can’t stand to deviate from.

20

A 46/34 would require no additional manufacturing equipment from Shimano etc, as they already make 46t chainrings. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying the business side of this scenario and I’m happy to be properly infromed by any bike shop owners/suppliers amongst you, but I see it as a case of making less 50t rings and making more 46t rings.

Not wanting to piss on your bonfire, but the point I was making is that the gear ratios you would gain when on the big ring if you switched the 50 for a 46 are in the range already available to you on the 34 tooth small ring.