Club guys using 39 tooth inner front ring a lot.

Serious Cat

The guys I refer to use 53/39 standard double front crank and a 10 speed rear cassette. When I started road cycling, I had it drummed into my head that you don't use the higher gears on the cassette when in small front ring, but the guys using standard double cranks are regularly pushing 12 or 13 teeth rear cogs when in the front 39 crank . When im riding using my compact id say I spend 95% of my time in the 50 ring and 5% in the 34, id estimate the club guys using standard doubles to be around 60% in the 53 and 40% in the 39.

Can I ask if any of you guys pushing standard doubles spend a lot more time in the inner front cog than you would if you were pushing a compact ? Does more extensive use of a 39 tooth cog especially in higher gears contribute to accelerated chain wear ?

Anonymous

I have been riding a standard double for a while now, I very rarely went in to the 39, mainly due to avoiding big hills. I recently (maybe 2 weeks ago) started spending more time in the 39 and maybe 17-15 on the cassette, I've become more comfortable with a higher cadence of maybe 100. I'd say this is because of the work I've been doing on the cadence.

I also finds in a groups where you are behind some one who is grinding a big gear (loads on my run), it is easier to sit on the 39 to keep a high cadence.

I think I will go back to a compact soon, much prefer hills and spinning.

Serious Cat

sjmclean wrote:

I have been riding a standard double for a while now, I very rarely went in to the 39, mainly due to avoiding big hills. I recently (maybe 2 weeks ago) started spending more time in the 39 and maybe 17-15 on the cassette, I've become more comfortable with a higher cadence of maybe 100. I'd say this is because of the work I've been doing on the cadence.

I also finds in a groups where you are behind some one who is grinding a big gear (loads on my run), it is easier to sit on the 39 to keep a high cadence.

I think I will go back to a compact soon, much prefer hills and spinning.

Yeah ive been behind plenty of standard crank users who are spinning merrily away in that 15-17 range you mentioned whilst in 39 cog. A nagging thought I get when I see that is somebody commenting once on wearing your chain out early by staying in the inner ring and using higher gears , not sure if that's got any validity or just an old wives tale.

Jim C

On a normal club run type ride, hills, thru and off, downhills- basically Peak District terrain- im on the 39 for 80% of the time. Spinning 100+ rpm - spinning is good

gozzy

Serious Cat wrote:

Yeah ive been behind plenty of standard crank users who are spinning merrily away in that 15-17 range you mentioned whilst in 39 cog. A nagging thought I get when I see that is somebody commenting once on wearing your chain out early by staying in the inner ring and using higher gears , not sure if that's got any validity or just an old wives tale.

It's called cross chaining, and is generally considered bad for your chain.

StillGoing

What does it matter? I spin (90-100rpm) rather than grind so spend more time on the inner ring and the small sprockets of the cassette than my cycling buddy who is on the big ring and bigger gears of the cassette. We're both doing the same speed, but he has a lower cadence than me (70-80rpm) which suits him. I'd struggle grinding out big gears with a low cadence. I can still maintain a decent speed from the small ring without cross chaining to the extremes.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

markhewitt1978

I've generally done the opposite with my compact crank, i.e. in the big ring the majority of the time, sometimes granding up hills cross chained, I've been trying to make an effort to front shift, my problem is that there's not much between being on the 34T ring to going to bottom gear...

me-109

Gozzy wrote:

Serious Cat wrote:

Yeah ive been behind plenty of standard crank users who are spinning merrily away in that 15-17 range you mentioned whilst in 39 cog. A nagging thought I get when I see that is somebody commenting once on wearing your chain out early by staying in the inner ring and using higher gears , not sure if that's got any validity or just an old wives tale.

It's called cross chaining, and is generally considered bad for your chain.

15-17 on a typical 9/10 cassette is hardly cross-chained.

alihisgreat

I use the 39 a fair amount because a lot of the time you're just not going fast enough to get a good chainline on the big ring, and its good if you want to keep a high cadence on a recovery ride or into a headwind.

slowbike

Depends on who I'm riding with - if I'm by myself then invariably I'm on the big ring unless it's a >4% gradient. If I'm doing a slower ride then I'll stay in the 39 ring ...

keef66

I have a 10 speed 50/39/30 triple and a 9 speed standard 53/39 double. I spend much of the time in the 39 ring on both bikes and using the whole of the cassette. Big ring is for long downhills and gale force tailwinds. Not many of the former round here!

Serious Cat

Would it be accurate for me to say a fair few riders who use a standard double use their 39 front ring almost as their default ring with occasional forays to the 53 ring for when the road is going downhill ? If they do this, are they going to go through chains a heck of a lot quicker ?

markhewitt1978

It also suggests many of them would find a compact to be better for them?

farrina

markhewitt1978 wrote:

It also suggests many of them would find a compact to be better for them?

That was my experience.

Now that I am getting on a bit, I find that I am not able to push the bigger gears as easily as I did (not doing the mileage either) and that I was frequently using 53 x 18/19 (12 - 23 cassette) Chain line (especially when using the 19 was not good). I therefore switched to a 50/36 compact (with same cassette) which has allowed me to use 50 X 17/18 with much improved chain line.

I should add that I deliberately replaced the 34 std inner with a 36 to ensure that there was not a big gap in the gears sequencing lower down the range.

Frankly looking back I should have done this years ago.

keef66

markhewitt1978 wrote:

It also suggests many of them would find a compact to be better for them?

I think with a compact I'd be doing a lot more more front shifting. I like the fact that on rolling terrain I can stay in the 39 and rarely spin out. You may conclude from this I'm not going very fast

drlodge

keef66 wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

It also suggests many of them would find a compact to be better for them?

I think with a compact I'd be doing a lot more more front shifting. I like the fact that on rolling terrain I can stay in the 39 and rarely spin out. You may conclude from this I'm not going very fast

I agree, with a 39 you are able to stay in that chainring for longer, however there is always a compromise - a 39 doesn't give you as lower bottom gear as a 34.

I find (with a 34/50 12-29 setup) I out spin the 34 at about 20 mph, and I have to change down from 50 to 34 at about 15mph - so there's a 5mph overlap. Bottom line, I have to drop down to the 34 if I'm on some kind of incline, and the 50 is used on the flat and downhill. I just get used to double changing alot!

markhewitt1978

Isn't the answer then a triple? As you can use the middle ring for 90% of stuff then you have a small ring for climbing and a big ring for fast stuff.

drlodge

Technically, yes. A triple provides a lot more range, and a middle chainring thats usable over more of the "useful" range. However its more complicated to shift nicely, and requires a different shifter.

Personally I prefer a compact, it gives me enough range and the Campag ultra shift mechanism makes double shifting quite easy.

Jim C

Yes a triple is an excellent set up.
I've swapped the rings on my only compact to 52 38. ie very similar to a normal double. I'm not a fan of compacts. The ring I want to spend 80% of my time in, whilst still maintaining a straight ish chain and good cadence is missing

Iamnot Wiggins

Serious Cat wrote:

Would it be accurate for me to say a fair few riders who use a standard double use their 39 front ring almost as their default ring with occasional forays to the 53 ring for when the road is going downhill ? If they do this, are they going to go through chains a heck of a lot quicker ?

I used to ride like this on a standard but can't say I noticed any increased wear on my chain compared to when using a compact.

StillGoing

markhewitt1978 wrote:

It also suggests many of them would find a compact to be better for them?

If I use my 100rpm cadence in the small ring to shuffle along at 20mph on the flats, with a compact that's roughly 34/13. With a 36 or 39 inner ring it's 36/14 and 39/15 respectively and less strain on the chain. With a compact the alternative on the big ring is 50/19 which puts me towards the other end of the cassette (12-26: 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26) and less range to bail out if the road starts going uphill suddenly and the likely need to change rings on the front. A 39/50 combination might be an option as I have never span out on 50/12 gearing, but staying in the inner ring for most of the ride is still better with my cadence preference.

jibberjim

Chains are consumable items, trying to optimise chain lines with where you ride might safe you a month of riding, or maybe a couple of quid a year. If that's a big problem buy cheaper chains.

rafletcher

markhewitt1978 wrote:

It also suggests many of them would find a compact to be better for them?

No it doesn't. The 34T on compact double is waaay low - my triple has a 30T inner! I find that I have to change between 50 & 34 a lot more often that I would between 52 and 39 - mainly because at my level of fitness/strength I spend most time in the 39. BUT I'm not yet fit enough / strong enough to push the 39 (middle ring on a triple) up steep hills of any length - so my double is a 50/34 compact for now. But hopefully soon I'll change it to 50/36 and then 52/36 and finally 52/39, except for very hilly routes or alpine climbing, where I will revert to 50/34.

drlodge

Whether you "need" a compact or standard depends on the lowest gear you need. Hence if you need a 34/28 to get you up that hill, a standard is going to be challenge. But if you aren't using bigger than a 25 sprocket you might move to a standard with 28 or smaller cassette for example.

Personally I wouldn't be without my compact and now 12-29 cassette given the hills I have to climb and my ability to climb them...

Pross

On flat sections of club runs I'm usually in the 39 with somewhere around the 15 to 17t sprockets at the back. I've never used it with the 12 or 13 as far as I know. Occassionally when the pace is up I'll be on 52 x 17 or 19. So basically, on the flat I'm in whichever chainring gives me the right gear to be comfortable whilst remaining in the middle of the cassette. For a lot of us oldies it stems from riding a 42t inner chainring with something like a 13 - 21 cassette and pretty much all club run pace rides were done in the little ring.

drlodge

Pross wrote:

For a lot of us oldies it stems from riding a 42t inner chainring with something like a 13 - 21 cassette and pretty much all club run pace rides were done in the little ring.

YES! I always wondered why I was on the small chainring and everyone else would be in the big one. But I was running 42/52 with 13-21!! But now with a modern compact setup I can mostly be in the big chainring

damocles10

I hardly ever use the 39 with the exception of a very steep hill every once in a while. Most hills and flats are in 53 all the way, I can spin up a 53 with the benefit of increased speed, if I am in a group doing 20 - 25mph I am happy with a cadence of 75-80 on a 53 as that feels natural to me. I am in London so the steepest hills I can find is probably Muswell Hill and Swain's lane, they can be tough on a 53 but doable, just!!!

markhewitt1978

Strong legs! ^

alihisgreat

damocles10 wrote:

I hardly ever use the 39 with the exception of a very steep hill every once in a while. Most hills and flats are in 53 all the way, I can spin up a 53 with the benefit of increased speed, if I am in a group doing 20 - 25mph I am happy with a cadence of 75-80 on a 53 as that feels natural to me. I am in London so the steepest hills I can find is probably Muswell Hill and Swain's lane, they can be tough on a 53 but doable, just!!!

oooh look at me I ride really fast :roll:

drlodge

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

I hardly ever use the 39 with the exception of a very steep hill every once in a while. Most hills and flats are in 53 all the way, I can spin up a 53 with the benefit of increased speed, if I am in a group doing 20 - 25mph I am happy with a cadence of 75-80 on a 53 as that feels natural to me. I am in London so the steepest hills I can find is probably Muswell Hill and Swain's lane, they can be tough on a 53 but doable, just!!!

oooh look at me I ride really fast :roll:

You said what I was thinking

I will stay in the big chainring for small hills where you can power up it, but for any decent hill (or actually anything that's classed as a hill rather than a bump), I'll be in my 34 ring and looking for the big gears at the back too. Me, I'm just a mere mortal.

markhewitt1978

drlodge wrote:

I will stay in the big chainring for small hills where you can power up it, but for any decent hill (or actually anything that's classed as a hill rather than a bump), I'll be in my 34 ring and looking for the big gears at the back too. Me, I'm just a mere mortal.

We do exist! Actually it was refreshing on the sportive I did in Leeds yesterday, that so many 'ordinary' riders were around. People who struggle up hills, stop for rests etc