53/39 from 50/34. Will it make a noticeable difference?

markos1963 · December 2012

neeb wrote:

Slack wrote:

unless you are a pro, or a young person weighing less than 70kg.

What is it with people always assuming that there is some necessary connection between age and fitness, or age and weight?? Half of the less-than-svelte people I pass on climbs are half my age...

Too right! I out climbed most of the pack on this weekends club run. I was riding SS and spent ages listening to the youngsters fret for me because I didn't have gears.

Stedman · December 2012

bernithebiker wrote:

TakeTurns wrote:

It'll make you stronger, lets put it that way.

My first chainset was a 53/39 with 12-25 cassette. Any hill above 10% gradient would hurt. Now however, I can climb anything, combined with a 12-27.

Me too. I could climb anything with my 53/39, 12-27.

But I can climb a damn sight quicker now with my 50/34, 11-23.

Why? Lower gear, higher cadence (=more power), tighter gear spread.

If riding long days (150km+) in the Alps, I'll use an 11-28 to keep the cadence up on the steepest (8%+) climbs.

39 x 27 is 42 inches and 34 x 23 is 43 inches which is arguably a slightly higher gear!

neeb · December 2012

Stedman wrote:

39 x 27 is 42 inches and 34 x 23 is 43 inches which is arguably a slightly higher gear!

They are practically identical, however the 11/23 cassette probably has tighter-spaced sprockets, which might make it easier to find a perfect climbing cadence...

ellj22 · December 2012

I have always ridden a 53/39 until about two months ago.

I used to use 53/39 with an 11-25 cassette and found it effective and fast (When your fitness is good). However last year I injured my knee so swapped out to a 12-27. It was horrible to ride, the ratio's where too wide to maintain a good cadence (and it looks horrible).

I started riding a new winter bike with a compact and I find the 50/34 with a 11-23 a good compromise. although the 34 ring is rather redundant unless it gets really steep (I live in south Devon). The drop between front rings is too big so when I replace rings I will replace inner with a 36.

One interesting thing is that a 50 with an 11 is higher than a 53 with a 12. I cannot sprint on the flat in a 53 and 12 and on a descent steep enough to spin out it is faster to adopt a more aero position from which pedaling is not possible.

So personally I would recommend staying with the compact and a tighter cassette ratio, however I do think 36/52 rings might be very interesting to try.

One thing I would say though is that bigger rings seem to hold your momentum better (might just be me/psychological)

Hoopdriver · December 2012

markos1963 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

Strith wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

In retrospect the only reason I want to swap is because it has a pro carbon cranks. I could simply swap the cranks and leave the original FSA rings I suppose come to think of it?

They will almost certainly have different bcd's on each crankset. Check that.

53/39 is all I need in the uk, but it depends on you and where you ride.

What's a 'bcd'?

Bolt circle diameter (also sometimes called PCD for pitch circle diameter) .

If you drew a circle through all the screws holding the chainrings on, the BCD would be the diameter of that circle.

Got it:)
They are different. 130 on my existing bike. 110 on the new chainset:(

What about changing the rear cassette instead? I just don't want to struggle with hills. Would this help? I'm not unfit. I ride 30 miles four to five days a week. I climb one short steep hill each time 7% I think?

Changing the rear cassette might be a very good idea. I honestly cannot see the point of 53x39 for the vast, vast majority of cyclists, myself included. It's just an ego, macho thing. You are most unlikely to be spinning out in 50x11 and if you are outpacing such a gear chances are you are already in the pro ranks.

I actually think a 50/34 was introduced as a macho thing for unfit cyclists. It makes ordinary riders look good as they spend so much more time in the big ring.
I have a bike with a 50/34 chainset on it and for most occasions the inner ring is redundant. A 50/36 set up makes more sense if you really need a compact.
For the OP a 12/27 cassette is the way to go first if the chainset and your current cassette don't work for you. I don't have too many problems on hills up to 10% riding a fixed 48/18 set up and I wouldn't class myself as a strong climber.

I would say it was quite the contrary - simply a recognition that the vast majority of riders do not need, and will not benefit from, a 53 ring, and that most will enjoy their riding a lot more if they are not obliged to push a big gear. I do not think that many riders are after a macho look of being in a big ring, and those handful who do feel this macho need will go for the 53 (or higher!) ring anyway, no matter the cost to their knees or overall enjoyment.

DavidJB · December 2012

Having a 53 will make you a pro. Otherwise everyone will laugh at you. You must never drop into the 'granny' ring which on a double is the inner ring and you're only allowed to move halfway down the cassette (say to 18 or so). Follow these rules or you'll be the laughingstock of the cycling world.

bernithebiker · December 2012

Stedman wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

TakeTurns wrote:

It'll make you stronger, lets put it that way.

My first chainset was a 53/39 with 12-25 cassette. Any hill above 10% gradient would hurt. Now however, I can climb anything, combined with a 12-27.

Me too. I could climb anything with my 53/39, 12-27.

But I can climb a damn sight quicker now with my 50/34, 11-23.

Why? Lower gear, higher cadence (=more power), tighter gear spread.

If riding long days (150km+) in the Alps, I'll use an 11-28 to keep the cadence up on the steepest (8%+) climbs.

39 x 27 is 42 inches and 34 x 23 is 43 inches which is arguably a slightly higher gear!

Well spotted!

I actually use a variety of cassettes, depending on where I am. At home, I have the 11-23 on as there are no massive hills and it gives me a nice tight spread of gears.

But as soon as I go to the mountains I'll put on the 25-11 or 28-11.

I think maintaining a high cadence on long hard climbs is important, for me at least.

So basically, my point is that by using a compact I can a) have a very tight spread of gears in less hilly country
and b) get a very low gear if doing big climbs.

As for top speed, I can get to 60-65km/h OK pedalling out the 50-11 (downhill of course!), beyond that, you're better off going aero.

mkviken · December 2012

im going from 34/50 to 39/53

this just came in the post today. very nice

Critch · December 2012

I cant make my mind up, which doesn't help! My road bike is 53/39 + 11/28 (10 speed) and my hybrid is 50/34 + 11/28 (9 speed). Sometimes I prefer the road bike gearing then I hop on the hybrid and think hmm this is nice gearing. Both gear sets have their drawbacks and for me I fish for the right gear/cadence sometimes on both bikes till I find one acceptable. The 50/34 would be better up hills of course, but the 11/28 on the back of the road bike helps. I think I'll probably go 50/34 + 11/28 when I get me new road bike next year. I can always change things about.

Herbsman · December 2012

amaferanga wrote:

with a 34/50 I found that the gear I wanted was too often right in the middle between being on the big and small ring - in other words I'd have a crossing chain too often. I don't get this with a 39/53 or a 37/52, but it was always a problem with a 34/50.

I had the same problem. Both of my bikes originally came with compact chainsets. I've never been more glad to see bike parts go in a bin.

deano79543 · December 2012

markos1963 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

Strith wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

In retrospect the only reason I want to swap is because it has a pro carbon cranks. I could simply swap the cranks and leave the original FSA rings I suppose come to think of it?

They will almost certainly have different bcd's on each crankset. Check that.

53/39 is all I need in the uk, but it depends on you and where you ride.

What's a 'bcd'?

Bolt circle diameter (also sometimes called PCD for pitch circle diameter) .

If you drew a circle through all the screws holding the chainrings on, the BCD would be the diameter of that circle.

Got it:)
They are different. 130 on my existing bike. 110 on the new chainset:(

What about changing the rear cassette instead? I just don't want to struggle with hills. Would this help? I'm not unfit. I ride 30 miles four to five days a week. I climb one short steep hill each time 7% I think?

Changing the rear cassette might be a very good idea. I honestly cannot see the point of 53x39 for the vast, vast majority of cyclists, myself included. It's just an ego, macho thing. You are most unlikely to be spinning out in 50x11 and if you are outpacing such a gear chances are you are already in the pro ranks.

I actually think a 50/34 was introduced as a macho thing for unfit cyclists. It makes ordinary riders look good as they spend so much more time in the big ring.
I have a bike with a 50/34 chainset on it and for most occasions the inner ring is redundant. A 50/36 set up makes more sense if you really need a compact.
For the OP a 12/27 cassette is the way to go first if the chainset and your current cassette don't work for you. I don't have too many problems on hills up to 10% riding a fixed 48/18 set up and I wouldn't class myself as a strong climber.

A nice example of "Chest Beating" in the last above reply!!!!

So Alberto Contodor rides a Compact with a 28/11 on the rear and he's unfit? Hmmmm?

I didn't realise Norfolk was the predominant area in the UK for climbing mountains?

markos1963 · December 2012

deano79543 wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

Strith wrote:

Bluedoggy wrote:

In retrospect the only reason I want to swap is because it has a pro carbon cranks. I could simply swap the cranks and leave the original FSA rings I suppose come to think of it?

They will almost certainly have different bcd's on each crankset. Check that.

53/39 is all I need in the uk, but it depends on you and where you ride.

What's a 'bcd'?

Bolt circle diameter (also sometimes called PCD for pitch circle diameter) .

If you drew a circle through all the screws holding the chainrings on, the BCD would be the diameter of that circle.

Got it:)
They are different. 130 on my existing bike. 110 on the new chainset:(

What about changing the rear cassette instead? I just don't want to struggle with hills. Would this help? I'm not unfit. I ride 30 miles four to five days a week. I climb one short steep hill each time 7% I think?

Changing the rear cassette might be a very good idea. I honestly cannot see the point of 53x39 for the vast, vast majority of cyclists, myself included. It's just an ego, macho thing. You are most unlikely to be spinning out in 50x11 and if you are outpacing such a gear chances are you are already in the pro ranks.

I actually think a 50/34 was introduced as a macho thing for unfit cyclists. It makes ordinary riders look good as they spend so much more time in the big ring.
I have a bike with a 50/34 chainset on it and for most occasions the inner ring is redundant. A 50/36 set up makes more sense if you really need a compact.
For the OP a 12/27 cassette is the way to go first if the chainset and your current cassette don't work for you. I don't have too many problems on hills up to 10% riding a fixed 48/18 set up and I wouldn't class myself as a strong climber.

A nice example of "Chest Beating" in the last above reply!!!!

So Alberto Contodor rides a Compact with a 28/11 on the rear and he's unfit? Hmmmm?

I didn't realise Norfolk was the predominant area in the UK for climbing mountains?

Where did the OP say he was riding mountains? Bath although hillier than some parts of Norfolk wasn't mountainous the last time I rode there(yes I do get out and about from the flatlands) I managed Ok on my fixed. Far from chest beating I'm just trying to dispel the myth that the only way to ride a bike is to go compact.

smidsy · December 2012

I doubt I could run a standard double and some climbs are still a struggle even with 34/27 so compacts certainly have their place. I realise that says more about my fitness than it does about the equipment but the point is that if a compact gets you out there and enjoying cycling surely that is no bad thing?

Dave_P1 · December 2012

mkviken wrote:

im going from 34/50 to 39/53

this just came in the post today. very nice

I got close to buying a set of those, but it was the 53/39 rings that put me off. A shame really as there a bargin!

bernithebiker · December 2012

smidsy wrote:

I doubt I could run a standard double and some climbs are still a struggle even with 34/27 so compacts certainly have their place. I realise that says more about my fitness than it does about the equipment but the point is that if a compact gets you out there and enjoying cycling surely that is no bad thing?

All the discussions about being stronger/weaker, faster/slower with 53/23 or 50/27 are meaningless without knowing your cadence.

Just because someone uses a 34/27 to go up a steep hill does NOT mean they are slower than someone using 39/25. If cadence is 100 versus 50, you see what I mean.

Many pros favour high cadence, and where steep mountains feature, many of them can be seen running quite low gearing. So if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us......

CptKernow · December 2012

In retrospect, now I've had a compact 34/50, I think I'd prefer a triple.

The inner 34 ring was too low for most uses except really steep hills - otherwise I'd be seriously cross-chaining. It goes the other way too; on the 50 ring I ended up using the lower end of the sprocket for flats.

The other problem is the drop between the front ring means you end up having to double shift at the rear as well...

neeb · December 2012

CptKernow wrote:

In retrospect, now I've had a compact 34/50, I think I'd prefer a triple.

The inner 34 ring was too low for most uses except really steep hills - otherwise I'd be seriously cross-chaining. It goes the other way too; on the 50 ring I ended up using the lower end of the sprocket for flats.

The other problem is the drop between the front ring means you end up having to double shift at the rear as well...

You don't want a triple... you just want a 36T inner ring instead of the 34. That will mostly solve the problems you are talking about. Unless you really need the extra lower gear that the 34 ring gives you over a 36.

Very approximately, if you are thinking about gears at the lower end, you can think of "one lower gear" as being either 2 (or 3) teeth less at the front or 2 teeth more at the rear, and also the difference in the number of teeth between your small and large chainring at the front will determine how big a drop you get between the two chainrings.

So going from 23 teeth on your rear sprocket to 25, or from 25 to 27, is about the same as the difference between 39 teeth at the front and 36, or between 36 and 34. And the drop between 53 at the front and 39 is about the same as the drop between 50 and 36. The problem is that the drop between 50 and 34 is bigger. As, incidentally, is the drop between 52 and 36. It is completely idiotic that the major manufacturers are now all marketing 50/34 and 52/36 options on compact chainsets, but not 50/36. I really do think that it is a marketing ploy to make us buy more chainsets, by ensuring that all of the readily available options are less than perfect. I can't think of any other reason why it is so difficult to get this extremely useful combination (50/36).

CptKernow · December 2012

neeb wrote:

You don't want a triple... you just want a 36T inner ring instead of the 34. That will mostly solve the problems you are talking about. Unless you really need the extra lower gear that the 34 ring gives you over a 36.

I actually ended up buying a 36t inner ring for my 34/50 compact. Got on with it much better.

My point about the triple is that a lot of people are fine on the outer 2 rings most of the time but just need the inner for 'emergencies'

gthyer · December 2012

Really interesting discussion.

I've just come from a 52-42 12-26 on my old bike to a 50-34 12-25 on my new one. I'm really not liking the difference - the jump down to 34 is horrendous!

I was considering replacing the cassette to a 11-25 to help with the top end, but this really won't help the drop to the inner ring. Also, I'm struggling to find a 36-tooth 110PCD ring for campag! Anyone know of any that exist?

I suppose the other option that is now seeming the most sensible and potentially cheaper path is to stop tweaking a less than ideal set-up, ditch the 50-34 and go for a 53-39, keeping the 12-25 on the rear. Looks like it'll be closer to the 52-42 that I'm used to but with a better range. :?

CptKernow · December 2012

gthyer wrote:

I was considering replacing the cassette to a 11-25 to help with the top end, but this really won't help the drop to the inner ring. Also, I'm struggling to find a 36-tooth 110PCD ring for campag! Anyone know of any that exist?

TA Nerius. That's what I put on the veloce chainset I had.

neeb · December 2012

+1 for TA Nerius.

However, if you have the 2011 => ultratorque it gets complicated because of the threaded bolt holes on the inner ring. I can't remember all of the details about what combinations work, but you will at least need to get 2-piece chainring bolts of some sort and probably the TA own-brand ones. They are reversible to allow them to function with both pre- and post 2011 rings. I think they will allow you to use a campagnolo 2011 => outer ring with a TA inner ring, but I'm not 100% certain. I have paired TA 50T and 36T rings (with the TA bolts) on a 2012 SR crank.

neeb · December 2012

P.S. Presumably Campagnolo will soon make 36T inner rings available as spares, since they have now introduced the 52/36 option. They don't seem to be available yet however, and you can bet that they will be a lot more expensive than the TA ones, which perform well and look good (they are anodised black to match the campagnolo ones).

nickel · December 2012

I think what your average cadence is makes a huge difference. If you're riding around grinding out 70rpm then the inner ring of a compact will never get any use. However, if like me your preferred cadence is around 95-100 then the inner ring of a compact is still useable. 34x14 or 34x13 will allow me to ride at 18-20mph. The main drawback for me using a compact is the huge gap between rings, however I know I'm not strong enough to ride a lot of the hilly rides that I do on a standard (and my knees would be destroyed. I could fit a large ratio cassette but that would annoy me as I like to be able to fine tune my cadence and the big gaps between sprockets would be irritating.

Hoopdriver · December 2012

The 'huge' gap between rings on a compact is only two teeth mote than that of a standard chainset.

simon_masterson · December 2012

I had 53/39 (Biopace, too) before and I have 50/39 now.

Reason? I have little money and my chainrings were desparately worn. I have no money and was given a 'new' set; I'm grateful. I was happier with the 53 for fast downhill stretches and I tend to spin out, but 5-6 speed freewheels don't tend to go smaller than 14, and a 6 speed with a gap of 2 teeth between each sprocket (I really do not like the huge jumps that a 14-28 gives) only goes down to 24. For me however that's fine as Hertfordshire isn't replete with hills, Bedfordshire has a few, and the UK has nothing on everywhere else for hills anyway!

Just go with what's comfortable; Fausto Coppi didn't have a compact, and 34x28 should see you up a wall/up the stairs to bed/etc.

skyblueamateur · February 2014

Have just brought a bike which has come with 53/39 and 12/25 Campag Veloce.

I'm coming from using a compact Veloce with 12/25 and am a bit concerned about the gearing. I got up most things fairly easily on the compact without using my lowest two gears except when the gradient got north of 10%, such as on Edge Hill, where the 25 came in more than useful.

What would people recommend for the Standard? I've been looking at 12/27 or 13/29?

DiscoBoy · February 2014

SkyBlueAmateur wrote:

Have just brought a bike which has come with 53/39 and 12/25 Campag Veloce.

I'm coming from using a compact Veloce with 12/25 and am a bit concerned about the gearing. I got up most things fairly easily on the compact without using my lowest two gears except when the gradient got north of 10%, such as on Edge Hill, where the 25 came in more than useful.

What would people recommend for the Standard? I've been looking at 12/27 or 13/29?

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

jonny_trousers · March 2014

Really interesting discussion. Excuse my ignorance, but, where Campag is concerned, would a 52/36 combination only fit onto a compact crankset? No option to buy the chainrings and fit them to a standard 53/39?

52/36 sounds like a good compromise to me.

neeb · March 2014

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Really interesting discussion. Excuse my ignorance, but, where Campag is concerned, would a 52/36 combination only fit onto a compact crankset? No option to buy the chainrings and fit them to a standard 53/39?

52/36 sounds like a good compromise to me.

Yes, you need a compact (110 BCD, or "bolt circle diameter") crankset to fit a 36T ring. Chainrings are sold for specific BCDs, and you can't make a 36T ring for a standard (135 BCD) crankset because the bolt holes would need to be somewhere around where the teeth are... The standard Campagnolo cranksets are 135 BCD and generally the smallest inner ring you can fit is 39T.

With larger chainrings (e.g. 39T inner, 53T outer) you can get versions for both compact and standard cranskets, but you still need to make sure you get one with the correct BCD. You can't fit a 39T inner ring for compact BCD to a standard BCD crank, or visa-versa.

neeb · March 2014

One thing I have always wondered about - assuming you can get the rings you want, is there any disadvantage whatsoever to running a compact BCD crankset instead of a standard one? I could fit 53/39T TA Nerius rings to my Campagnolo compact crank if I wanted. The obvious argument against this is that the setup would be less stiff, but when I put my bike against a wall and stomp hard on the pedal I see the frame, tyres and/or wheels flex laterally but I don't see the chainring flexing at all... Or would there be some perceptible "wind up" flex under torque (like on a rear wheel) due to a small BCD on a large chainring?

53/39 from 50/34. Will it make a noticeable difference?

Comments

Categories