Club guys using 39 tooth inner front ring a lot.

damocles10

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Ben6899

damocles10 wrote:

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Muswell Hill and Swains Lane in the 53... impressive!

damocles10

Ben6899 wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Muswell Hill and Swains Lane in the 53... impressive!

Hurt's like hell and it's slow.

Ben6899

damocles10 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Muswell Hill and Swains Lane in the 53... impressive!

Hurt's like hell and it's slow.

Quicker in the 39, maybe.

damocles10

Ben6899 wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Muswell Hill and Swains Lane in the 53... impressive!

Hurt's like hell and it's slow.

Quicker in the 39, maybe.

It doesn't feel natural to me in 39, I have been criticised before about this.

Serious Cat

damocles10 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Muswell Hill and Swains Lane in the 53... impressive!

Hurt's like hell and it's slow.

How are your knees feeling lately considering your chosen riding style ?

damocles10

Serious Cat wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

Thanks guys, Just saying what I do.....I'm not boasting or bigging myself up.

Muswell Hill and Swains Lane in the 53... impressive!

Hurt's like hell and it's slow.

How are your knees feeling lately considering your chosen riding style ?

Really? I don't go up these hills every day.

Mikey23

One lovely hill I did today maxes out at 22%... 34/28 is pretty essential here in cornwall!

simon_masterson

I'm generally a 'small ring is for hills' sort of rider (and in North Herts and Beds these are few and far between), but I sometimes like to use it for spinning. I've only ever ridden 5 speed and am quite accustomed to being a little over or under geared and pushing a bit harder or spinning a bit faster to compensate. I think my downtube shifters (much as I love them) make it enough of a faff that I'm not the most trigger happy.

Since I changed to 13-20 my small ring has seen more use though.

HellsCyclist

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.

Implying that there are exceptions. What are these exceptions?

imposter2.0

HellsCyclist wrote:

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.

Implying that there are exceptions. What are these exceptions?

It doesn't imply that.

slowbike

Mikey23 wrote:

One lovely hill I did today maxes out at 22%... 34/28 is pretty essential here in cornwall!

Nah - I did 25% on 39-26 before I even knew about compact chain sets .... But I don't have to do that one often ....
If I was somewhere hilly I'd probably have stuck with the compact chain set on the new bike ... But as I had a standard spare and needed the compact for my wife's bike I've gone back to standard. One co session is the 27-12 cassette - nearly got a 25-11 but decided against it .... For now

mrbrightside

Small ring = on the way out! into the wind
Big ring = tailwind home

gozzy

Imposter wrote:

HellsCyclist wrote:

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.

Implying that there are exceptions. What are these exceptions?

It doesn't imply that.

Indeed, it doesn't.
However if an exception must be named, then it's riding on a Tuesday, when you can ride in 39/11 with impunity.

DavidJB

Depends. Doing a base session I'm generally in the small ring turning about 100-105 cadence. I switch to big ring for downhill only really. I could use 53 23-21 just as well but I cba to keep changing down and up all the time.

As for cross-chaining I ride my chains for over 5,000 miles and never have issues.

DavidJB

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!!!

Cadence of 75 haha...

marcusjb

Gozzy wrote:

Imposter wrote:

HellsCyclist wrote:

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.

Implying that there are exceptions. What are these exceptions?

It doesn't imply that.

Indeed, it doesn't.
However if an exception must be named, then it's riding on a Tuesday, when you can ride in 39/11 with impunity.

Unless I am mistaken, this only works if your cadence is above 140? Even on Tuesdays?

My take on it is that whilst using your inner ring across the whole range on the back will possibly reduce your chain life and be a little less efficient, it is probably not as destructive as using the big ring in the same manner - seeing someone riding big ring on the bottom end of their cassette, with the rear mech straining forwards, just doesn't look like a recipe for drivetrain longevity.

BrandonA

I think though as others have said to comes down to the cadence people feel comfortable cycling at and the power they are able to (or do) generate. Also, how much they cross chain and whether they ride on their own or in a pack.

Personally most of my rides tend to average a 90 cadence, I try not to cross chain and on the roads and speeds I ride this means the bulk of my work is completed on the big ring (on a compact). I only tend to need to drop to the smaller ring when I'm going up a relatively steep hill.

socistep

My front derailleur was broke on my CAAD8 for 2-3 months so I was stuck in the 50 until this weekend, looking at strava I've been doing about 6-8k feet climbing per week this year, legs have been heavy but better last few weeks so I've decided I'm going to stick with it on my commutes to build strength apart from a steep hill (last night I went up Pool Bank in Leeds so was grateful to have the 34 back!) - then for longer rides I'll mix it up more.

Not sure if that approach is good but I'll give it a go!

damocles10

DavidJB 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!!!

Cadence of 75 haha...

That's simply retarded....your point is what exactly?

andrew_s

HellsCyclist wrote:

Gozzy wrote:

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

Implying that there are exceptions. What are these exceptions?

The exceptions are those people who don't get as far as considering at all.

Wear and tear on your transmission is worse in small sprockets than in large ones. This is because chain tension is higher, and higher chain tension causes wear faster, in just the same way as pressing down harder on a file cuts faster.

For example, 52/16 is exactly the same gear as 39/12, so cadence, leg pressure, power etc are all the same.
However, the radius at which the 52/16 gear applies force to the rear wheel is 33% greater than the radius at which the 39/12 gear applies force, and so the chain tension required to apply the same power on the large sprocket is only 75% of that required on the small sprocket.

philbar72

DavidJB 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!!!

Cadence of 75 haha...

whats wrong with that. thats my standard climbing speed, seems to work nicely. personal choice!

e999sam

As has been said before when 52/42 and 13/21 were the standard I nearly always used the 42 but these days I only use the 39 step and long hills. I mostly use a 53 - 17 or 19 with the 21 for small climbs. I never use bigger than 21 with a 53 chainring or smaller than 14 0n the 39 chainring.

damocles10

philbar72 wrote:

DavidJB 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!!!

Cadence of 75 haha...

whats wrong with that. thats my standard climbing speed, seems to work nicely. personal choice!

Thanks philbar72. Starting to feel victimised here..exactly what you say 'it's a personal choice'. if you guys want to spin on 39, that's fine, I don't so I should not be ridiculed for it.

Bordersroadie

andrew_s wrote:

Wear and tear on your transmission is worse in small sprockets than in large ones. This is because chain tension is higher, and higher chain tension causes wear faster, in just the same way as pressing down harder on a file cuts faster.

For example, 52/16 is exactly the same gear as 39/12, so cadence, leg pressure, power etc are all the same.
However, the radius at which the 52/16 gear applies force to the rear wheel is 33% greater than the radius at which the 39/12 gear applies force, and so the chain tension required to apply the same power on the large sprocket is only 75% of that required on the small sprocket.

Well written. This is really quite interesting (perhaps the only interesting thing I've ever read on this often yawn-inducing subject). I ride a 46-34/11-28 on one winter bike and have generally used 34-12 in preference to crosschaining the 46. I've been adopting this viewpoint for most of my fifty years. I'd never actually considered that the chain might suffer more from stretching (ie higher tension on small/small) than from sideways deflection (ie cross chaining on big/big).

Quite a compelling argument to encourage cross-chaining, to a certain extent! I can hardly believe that a single forum posting may just change the habit of a lifetime....:shock:

Serious Cat

damocles10 wrote:

philbar72 wrote:

DavidJB 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!!!

Cadence of 75 haha...

whats wrong with that. thats my standard climbing speed, seems to work nicely. personal choice!

Thanks philbar72. Starting to feel victimised here..exactly what you say 'it's a personal choice'. if you guys want to spin on 39, that's fine, I don't so I should not be ridiculed for it.

Damocles you have kind of portrayed yourself as wearing a superman costume pushing your 53 ring up L`Angliru , just smile and take the ribbing.

drlodge

madasahattersley wrote:

Personally I haven't been out of my 58 ring since 2009.

Inner rings are for the elderly and children only as far as I'm concerned, and of course scientific research shows that the big ring is more efficient and better for leg strength which in turn increases power and speed.

58 teeth? Pah!! I ride a Rourke and we all know what kind of chainset they put on Rourkes these days