48/34 chainset on sportives - anybody using this?

Gran E. Gear

Mornin' all,

Just wondering if anybody's using a 48/4 road compact on their club.sportive bike?

I'm not a racer, but prefer my own pace on longer days.

I haven't gelled with the 50/34 compact but am reluctant to go back to 53/39 coz I find it too high.

Am considering 48/34 with an 11-23 cassette.

Would appreciate anyone's thoughts who's tried the lower gearing.

Adios.

maddog 2

yep. I run 34/48 and either 12-25 or 12-27, depending on the terrain. I like to keep a high cadence and ride a lot of hills. I stay in the big ring for most stuff, only dropping to the 34 for proper hills. Never miss the higher gears but appreciate thelower ones, and I like the simplicity of staying on the big ring for most of the time.

redddraggon

48-11 is plenty high enough, I only really use my 50-11 on descents

andylav

I run 2 compact set ups - 50/38 with an 11-23 cassette for most riding, changing to a 48/34 with 12-25 cassette set up for specific sportive type events where I know there is a lot of climbing involved.

The 48 is really nice to tick along in -so much so that I'm thinking of fitting it to my winter bike this year !

jackfeeder

I did the Dragon ride (120k) on a 48/34 this year and it was fine. I like a high cadence so it works for me, although I am tempted to change to a 50/34 as has been mentioned above to help with speedy downhills (and when I get a bit fitter).
If you are new to sportives like me then the compact is ideal.

richa

Gran E. Gear wrote:

I haven't gelled with the 50/34 compact but am reluctant to go back to 53/39 coz I find it too high.

Am considering 48/34 with an 11-23 cassette.

Not sure I understand what you don't like about the 50-34 compact?

I dont see the asdvantage of a 48-34 compact over a 50-34?

What cassette do you currently have?

redddraggon

RichA wrote:

dont see the asdvantage of a 48-34 compact over a 50-34?

Better shifting between rings.

More usuable big ring - slightly less likely to have a crossed chainline.

maddog 2

RichA wrote:

I dont see the asdvantage of a 48-34 compact over a 50-34?

better shifting, a smaller gap, and you can stay on the big ring for longer, and run a slightly better chainline for a given big-ring gear.

Not much in it obviously but if you don't miss the high gears then it's a worthwhile change IMO. High gears are overrated anyway. Above 45mph it's all about wind conditions and the hill itself, not your gearing. I've hit 60 coming off a few hills with my setup so it's clearly not an issue for me.

wildmoustache

[/quote]

High gears are overrated anyway. quote]

This has some truth in it for sure. BUT ... reading this board I something think people find comfort in their low gearing in a way that ultimately limiits their power development.

The smallest gear I ever run is 36x25 ... even in very long sportifs with lots of cols to get over. Sometimes I reach for a smaller gear and it isn't there, but in truth if it was I suspect I'd end up spinning and going up mountains slower.

So, if your knees can take it, don't assume low gearing is the best strategy.

magnetdoggs

im running 50, 36 and 12-27 at the rear.
this ratio hasnt failed me on any hills as long as you have the legs.

richa

IMHO...

maddog 2 wrote:

better shifting

Between the 34 & 48? Marginal.

maddog 2 wrote:

a smaller gap

Between gears. Even more Marginal if at all.

maddog 2 wrote:

you can stay on the big ring for longer

And?

maddog 2 wrote:

run a slightly better chainline for a given big-ring gear.

Only for a low gearing. It's worse for a high gearing.

We've got to remember that there isn't some magic cadence (90) that we all must cysle at. Our legs are very adaptable and marginally closer gaps between grears while nice is surely hardly noticable, nor beneficial.

Smokin Joe

I run both 50/36 and 48/34.

Having tried 50/34 I hated it. The two tooth difference on the small ring might seem marginal but I found it a king sized pain in the ar$e.

wors

Sorry for the hijack but does anyone run 52/39 with a 12-27 on the back? I currently have a 12-25 on the back but would sometimes like that one extra gear on really steep stuff.

wildmoustache

ya ... I've run 53-39 with 12-27. Nice. I prefer a 38 on the front with that one though as 39 x27 is just a tad high for me in extreme situations.

But like others, I prefer a 50-36 up front. the 50 allows you to stay in the big ring for far more of the time.

markos1963

I run a 50/34 with a 12/25 but to be honest I find the jump between the rings too much, on my hack I have a 53/39 with 13/24(6 speed!) and I love this set up as I can cruise on the 39 ring most of the time. I often find with the compact that I hang on to the big ring on climbs longer than neccessary as I don't like the big jump down.
Next time I will gat a 50/36-12/25 or more likely a 53/39-12/27

Ken Night

maddog 2 wrote:

yep. I run 34/48 and either 12-25 or 12-27, depending on the terrain. I like to keep a high cadence and ride a lot of hills. I stay in the big ring for most stuff, only dropping to the 34 for proper hills. Never miss the higher gears but appreciate thelower ones, and I like the simplicity of staying on the big ring for most of the time.

Likewise to all that

I also run 50/36 with 13-26, and love it, because of the straight run of 7 sprockets with 1T gaps from the 13, and with the option of 13-29

I have never been dropped on a sportive because I didn't have a high enough gear

I have also considered 46/34 with a 11-?, but not got round to it

mrushton

I'm considering going to 48/36 with 11-25 or 12-27. Currently run 50/36 with 12-25 or 13-26 and v.rarely do I ever use the biggest gears. A 48/11 is still a 117 inch gear i think - bigger than 52-12 but the chainline would b slightly better and the gears become closer in ratios. i consider the majority of cyclists overgeared imo and carrying a 53/12 that might use for 5 mins seems pointless when it's generally lower gears you need.

wildmoustache

markos1963 wrote:

I run a 50/34 with a 12/25 but to be honest I find the jump between the rings too much, on my hack I have a 53/39 with 13/24(6 speed!) and I love this set up as I can cruise on the 39 ring most of the time. I often find with the compact that I hang on to the big ring on climbs longer than neccessary as I don't like the big jump down.
Next time I will gat a 50/36-12/25 or more likely a 53/39-12/27

you should be able to just swap the 34 ring for a 36. you certainly can on campag. think you can on the shimano compacts as well ... just buy a 36 from TA or someone.

wildmoustache

mrushton wrote:

I'm considering going to 48/36 with 11-25 or 12-27. Currently run 50/36 with 12-25 or 13-26 and v.rarely do I ever use the biggest gears. A 48/11 is still a 117 inch gear i think - bigger than 52-12 but the chainline would b slightly better and the gears become closer in ratios. i consider the majority of cyclists overgeared imo and carrying a 53/12 that might use for 5 mins seems pointless when it's generally lower gears you need.

see my point above. there is a counterargument that if you have very easy gears you end up overusing them and not building power. i think this is going on with quite a few riders on this board who struggle round etapes etc.

jethro924

50/36 12-25 Summer bike
48/34 12-25 Winter bike

Had 53/39 for a couple of years and used to use the 53 ring for 10% of the journey max

IMHO 53/39 is for pros, not mere mortals, Take 3 teeth off each ring and you have 50/36. 48/34 is better, especially for hilly audax etc, using 60% / 40%.

However, the summer bike has to do the "club 10s", and I sometimes use the 50 - 12, downhill, with the wind behind me and as I lose so much time uphill and into the wind, every second counts!

IanTrcp

I swapped my 50 for a 48 to get away from the 16 tooth drop. For the Etape I went with 48/34 and a 13-28 with close ratios 13-14-15-16-18-20-22-24-26-28 to give myself the best chance of finding the 'perfect' gear on the long climbs.

I span the 28 on the way up the Tourmalet. As it was raining, 48X13 was plenty on the descent (I hit 70kph max and that was more than enough given the conditions),

Despite having problems with cramp etc. I found that 34X24 was the winning combination on the road upto Hautacam.

Naz

Reading this whole thread makes me glad I have a triple (53/42/30). Why?

1. Jump between front chainings of 11 or 12, not 14 or 16, so changing down a chainring usually means only a single cog change at the back, not an awkward 2 or 3
2. I spend most of my riding including hills in 42 front ring, not in between an overgeared 50 and undergeared 34
3. I don't need to change chainsets depending on the type of riding I do !
4. I can run a close ratio cassette and still have a top gear of 53x11 and a bottom gear of 30x23

Ken Night

Naz wrote:

Reading this whole thread makes me glad I have a triple (53/42/30). Why?

1. Jump between front chainings of 11 or 12, not 14 or 16, so changing down a chainring usually means only a single cog change at the back, not an awkward 2 or 3
2. I spend most of my riding including hills in 42 front ring, not in between an overgeared 50 and undergeared 34
3. I don't need to change chainsets depending on the type of riding I do !
4. I can run a close ratio cassette and still have a top gear of 53x11 and a bottom gear of 30x23

Well put

I still have an irrational aversion to a triple though.

A double is right..........a gentleman wouldn't shoot a sitting duck or pedal a triple

Naz wrote:

changing down a chainring usually means only a single cog change at the back, not an awkward 2 or 3

I was thinking about this thread this evening, riding my road bike with 50/36, 10 speed 13-26, and loving the 7 sprockets with 1T gaps...

Change chainrings when the sprocket gap is 2T

I've been riding my cross bike a bit the last couple of weeks, it has 48/34, with 8 speed 12-28, and of course the gaps are bigger.....which means I only have to change a single cog at the back

redddraggon

Naz wrote:

Reading this whole thread makes me glad I have a triple (53/42/30). Why?

1. Jump between front chainings of 11 or 12, not 14 or 16, so changing down a chainring usually means only a single cog change at the back, not an awkward 2 or 3
2. I spend most of my riding including hills in 42 front ring, not in between an overgeared 50 and undergeared 34
3. I don't need to change chainsets depending on the type of riding I do !
4. I can run a close ratio cassette and still have a top gear of 53x11 and a bottom gear of 30x23

And that's why I like a standard 53/39, the 30t chainring is too low geared for me. I can spend all my time in the 39t upto 20mph. necessitating the need for no shifting at the front.

peanut

very interesting thread particularly as I have just fitted my first compact double 50t-34t

I have spent countless happy hours constructing gear inch tables speculating about endless chainset and cassette combinations and gear inches etc.

I finally upgraded from 8 to 10 speed this year and now have more gears than I know what to do with.
First time out I thought that the jump between 50 and 34 too much . .I expect I shall get a 48t and try that.

I think that there is a lot of truth in the observation by wildmoustache that the more gears you have the more you use them at the expense of developing muscles to cope with the hills.
When I was younger and fitter I would never dream of using anything greater than a 38t small ring with a 23t . It got me round 100 mile audax including Porlock hill and cheddar gorge without problem .
I have always tried to keep the last sprocket in reserve for emergency bailout
Now I'm an old fat git I need some extra help so I use a 12t-25t :roll:

Smokin Joe

We have become a bit wimpish with gear ratios. 42x19 used to be the norm for a bottom gear in the days of 5-speed, with 21 if you lived somewhere hilly and a 23 was considered to be a dinner plate. I never saw anyone with the mythical exploding knees either.

Even at my time of life and miserable state of fitness 36x23 will get me up the local 20% climb, the 26 is an emergency gear and I find it too low for anything less than 25%.

Mettan

I use a 50/34 with an 11/32 rear (chronic knee injury) - done 2 Sportives this year - perfectly adequate, although I'm in considerable knee pain after the first 10 miles regardless

aracer

I do wonder whether there is a correlation between liking and hating 50-34 and Campagnolo (non-Escape) and Shimano users. I could imagine finding changing down from 50 to 34 rather irritating with Shimano where you have to do multiple clicks not to end up with your legs spinning.

peanut

aracer wrote:

I do wonder whether there is a correlation between liking and hating 50-34 and Campagnolo (non-Escape) and Shimano users. I could imagine finding changing down from 50 to 34 rather irritating with Shimano where you have to do multiple clicks not to end up with your legs spinning.

not sure which Shimano STi shifter you are referring to but with my 2008 105 shifters it is just a single short shift virtually instant. I think the old 8 speed Sora STi were several clicks for a shift .
The reason for disliking the compact 50t 34t is that the huge difference in teeth create a massive jump in gear inches every time you shift from small to large ring and back again.
It would be exactly the same for any manufacture of chainset Campag Shimano Sram Mavic etc

aracer

You misunderstand, peanut (whilst having hit on the nub of the problem I'm talking about). With Shimano you only get one upshift per lever movement, so to shift up several gears at once you have to click multiple times which takes a finite amount of time (that or put up with the massive jump in gear inches). With Campag you simply make a single movement of the thumb button to change up several gears on the back at the same time as you change rings, which means that you're instantly in a gear not very different from the one you were in before - the rear change has happened by the time the front has so you are never in a gear which is a huge amount different.

Not trying to start a Campag / Shimano argument - I have both - it's just the only real functional difference between the two.

peanut

actually aracer I don't wish to be pedantic but I think that it is you that is not understanding.
We are talking about chainsets on this thread and shifting from one ring to another on a compact chainset.

You said in your post

`I could imagine finding changing down from 50 to 34 rather irritating with Shimano where you have to do multiple clicks not to end up with your legs spinning.

. Which is why I corrected you about shimano STI shifting on the front mech.it is a single throw.

What we were discussing is the big difference between 50t and 34t which is bigger jump even than a standard 53-39t chainset