why are crankset getiting smaller?

john lynch
john lynch Posts: 81
edited January 2011 in MTB general
is there anyone agrees? cranksets are going from 48teeth down to 44 now 42 why?

just looked at the 2011 trek rem and its 42 as is the lapirre zesty 714
granted you can change the outer ring as i have done to 46 on my trek ex9
looking for a new bike for the summer dont realy want to spend up to £4,000 on a bike then more to change the gearing and i cant see the shops doing it
or would they?
is it me or its 42 what everyone wants?
lapierre zesty 714

Comments

  • .blitz
    .blitz Posts: 6,197
    More travel = more ground clearance = higher BB or smaller big ring.

    No-one uses the big ring anyway :wink:
  • nicklouse
    nicklouse Posts: 50,675
    42 has been the norm big ring for OE bike builds for years.

    44 tends to be the after market size.

    and 48 is for trekking.
    "Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
    Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
  • john lynch
    john lynch Posts: 81
    hi,my trek come with 44 xt in 09
    this years 42
    lapierre zesty 714
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    i run a double and bash and the biggest ring on there is a 36, that's plenty big enough for me :D
  • john lynch
    john lynch Posts: 81
    DH agee prob only 36
    lapierre zesty 714
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    i ride xc/all mountain or whatever you want to call it these days :lol: a 22/36 is my main ride.

    i do have a hardtail with a triple chainset on it which i mainly use for commuting but very rarely use the big ring then
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    42t only really on cheap bikes previously, all mid-high end bike have had 44s for years, with what could be deemed aftermarket chainsets, so I see what you mean Nick.

    It's a change in the terrain people ride in part I reckon, not so much pedalling down fireroads anymore!

    I reckon riding styles are changing too, people want a stupidly low gear they can use to plod up climbs on a heavy bike, so they can enjoy the descents.

    Anyway, I reckon big rings are useful, granny rings aren't :-)
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    njee20 wrote:

    Anyway, I reckon big rings are useful, granny rings aren't :-)

    masochist :lol:
  • john lynch
    john lynch Posts: 81
    thank you nick, nothing worse than after a hard day working, coming home and there a roady or what ever they called wanting a lewis hamlton and you know you dont stand a chance!!!
    lapierre zesty 714
  • .blitz
    .blitz Posts: 6,197
    njee20 wrote:
    Anyway, I reckon big rings are useless, granny rings aren't :-)
  • Chunkers1980
    Chunkers1980 Posts: 8,035
    That sure is a statement plucked out of context.

    Are you telling us why you have such a nice bike?
  • john lynch
    john lynch Posts: 81
    nothing to do with the bike,it the crank size
    lapierre zesty 714
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    where you from john? a few of us from pontypool,newport,cardiff area met up for a ride last sunday and want to get a big group together to ride :D
  • john lynch
    john lynch Posts: 81
    cwmbran.
    lapierre zesty 714
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    ah ok, there's 2 of us in pontypool and 1 in cwmbran that ride quite regulary if you're interested? i'm from cwmbran originally but moved to the metropolis of pontypool :lol:
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    For a lot of riders the big ring's pretty redundant so knocking it down a couple of teeth gets more overlap but loses only the reaallly high gear, which probably makes it more usable for the average joe.

    TBH I still reckon 2x9 should be the default option on any mountain bike bar a really racy XC bike or a tourer/trekker... 3x9 is like 1x9, some people love it and they can sort it out themselves but 2x9 is where it's at for most folks- even them that don't know it yet!
    Uncompromising extremist
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    Northwind wrote:
    For a lot of riders the big ring's pretty redundant so knocking it down a couple of teeth gets more overlap but loses only the reaallly high gear, which probably makes it more usable for the average joe.

    TBH I still reckon 2x9 should be the default option on any mountain bike bar a really racy XC bike or a tourer/trekker... 3x9 is like 1x9, some people love it and they can sort it out themselves but 2x9 is where it's at for most folks- even them that don't know it yet!

    i wouldn't go back to a 3 x 9 now. just the extra clearance it gives is worth it :D
  • john lynch
    john lynch Posts: 81
    regular up the basin filling my face.
    lapierre zesty 714
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    john lynch wrote:
    regular up the basin filling my face.

    :?:
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    TBH I still reckon 2x9 should be the default option on any mountain bike bar a really racy XC bike

    A double makes even more sense on an XC race bike, where less time spent shifting on the front has a real advantage. Just have appropriate ring sizes, certainly 22/34 wouldn't make much sense!
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    welshkev wrote:
    Northwind wrote:
    For a lot of riders the big ring's pretty redundant so knocking it down a couple of teeth gets more overlap but loses only the reaallly high gear, which probably makes it more usable for the average joe.

    TBH I still reckon 2x9 should be the default option on any mountain bike bar a really racy XC bike or a tourer/trekker... 3x9 is like 1x9, some people love it and they can sort it out themselves but 2x9 is where it's at for most folks- even them that don't know it yet!

    i wouldn't go back to a 3 x 9 now. just the extra clearance it gives is worth it :D

    I'm tempted to get a 36t middle ring and lose the big one, for £13 for a deore ring it can't hurt to try.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    i'd say do it, i've never felt that i'm missing gears :D
  • captainfly
    captainfly Posts: 1,001
    44t chainring? How fast are you riding? I'm a 1x9 convert and if I am spinning out on a 36 to 11 then I'm doingwell over 30mph and that's about a fast I'm happy with off road this side of proper DH, oh and as for granny ring I'd rather push the bike as it is probably quicker :wink:
    -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    Mongoose Teocali
    Giant STP0

    Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    welshkev wrote:
    i'd say do it, i've never felt that i'm missing gears :D

    Will I need new chainring bolts if I take the big ring off? If so, can this be avoided by fitting a bashguard?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    bails87 wrote:
    welshkev wrote:
    i'd say do it, i've never felt that i'm missing gears :D

    Will I need new chainring bolts if I take the big ring off? If so, can this be avoided by fitting a bashguard?

    i'm not sure, i bought mine as a double and bash so i didn't have that problem :?
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    If you don't use a bash you'll need new bolts. Using a bash will avoid this. So yes and yes.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Thanks, LBS will be shut by the time I get there, I wonder what bashguards Halfords have got......
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    Can it not wait until tomorrow?! It's not really a stock item anyway I'd say.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    I was only (half) joking. I had to go to Halfords for a track pump anyway, so thought I might as well see. No chain rings or bash guards (unsuprisingly) and no track pump either :roll:
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."

Categories