53/39 Ultegra 6800 to 52x36
Comments
-
Someone once wrote that larger chainrings are more efficient.Or am I missing something magic about Pro compacts?
That may very well be true but I doubt anyone could tell the difference.
Can someone put it into watts?
My guess is that it is minimal.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Someone once wrote that larger chainrings are more efficient.Or am I missing something magic about Pro compacts?
That may very well be true but I doubt anyone could tell the difference.
Can someone put it into watts?
My guess is that it is minimal.
I think it was measured theoretically that you're better being in the equivalent ratio in the big ring than the small ring but the difference was a Watt or two and I think part of it was that the chain was straighter on the return run - but it was far more complex than just having an extra couple of teeth on the chain ring.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
As I thought. As minimal to be negligible which is why I am happy with a compact.
Someone once wrote that larger chainrings are more efficient.Or am I missing something magic about Pro compacts?
That may very well be true but I doubt anyone could tell the difference.
Can someone put it into watts?
My guess is that it is minimal.
I think it was measured theoretically that you're better being in the equivalent ratio in the big ring than the small ring but the difference was a Watt or two and I think part of it was that the chain was straighter on the return run - but it was far more complex than just having an extra couple of teeth on the chain ring.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I do most of the Yorkshire hills on a 52/36 with an 11/25 cassette - Fleet Moss, Park Rash etc and wouldn't like to ride them with 53/39. Yes I could fit an 11/28 (have a wheel with one for Alps trips) but find that the gaps on the cassette are a bit big.
IMO 52/36 or 50/36 are best compromise - a 34 is too small for most things
This made me smile. A 34 inner ring is too small but a you'd quite like to fit an 11-28 cassette but the gaps are too big. Why don't you fit 34 inner ring with the 11-25? You'll achieve pretty much exactly the same as a 28 cassette but keep the gaps small! (and shave some weight off the bike too)
The more I read these threads about cassettes posted by people with "Pro" compacts (52/36) and the cassettes they use, the more I think these bigger chain sets are a badge of honour. Only when you're finding a 11-25 cassette too short is it worth swapping up to a bigger chain ring. Or am I missing something magic about Pro compacts?
The point is that it is easier to swap cassettes than chainrings. I find that using a 50/34 results in me using the 50 almost all the time except on bigger hills. The 36 is just that bit more useable in all-round riding than the 34 and if I do want that granny ratio for a big hills ride I can get it by using a 28t cassette on that particular day.
I do suspect there is considerable merit in the 50/36 option - how many folk are capable of spinning out a 50-11 unless racing with a tailwind downhill?
I think your point about the badge of honour might apply to some of those using a 39 or 42 inner ring - but then if I lived somewhere slightly flatter I might think differently.
All these debates are a bit silly as the ideal ratios are more determined by your ftp than anything and this will vary widely across contributors....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair
0 -
How so?The point is that it is easier to swap cassettes than chainrings.
Remove chain from rings.
Remove outer ring.
Swap inner ring.
Replace outer ring.
Replace chain.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
All these debates are a bit silly as the ideal ratios are more determined by your ftp than anything and this will vary widely across contributors....
I'm not even sure that statement is entirely true: gearing is more to do with torque than power. And gearing is as much to do with your ideal cadence as anything. But I think there's a belief that big rings somehow make you a more awesome rider. I suspect much of the reason pros use big rings is that they sit in the peleton much of the time.
If it's quite flat, then you can get away with a single ring up front - something like a 50. I ran 53/39 in N Holland and 12-23 - I found the 53 meant that it was too long to use the full range of the cassette. 53-12t would be a pretty awesome speed on the flat - especially on your own.
Ultimately it is, of course, a personal choice. With latest 11-sp it is, as above, very simple to swap chain rings - no harder than a cassette.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Compact's were invented to make cycling more appealing to, and easier for, newbie cyclists...
Utter borlicks. This is the sort of nonsense I want to laugh at!ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
the more I think these bigger chain sets are a badge of honour.
A 53/39, or 52/42, is known as a 'standard' chainset because it was the norm, nothing to do with a 'badge of honour'... Compact's were invented to make cycling more appealing to, and easier for, newbie cyclists...
The compact may be used by many amateurs, but it was popularised by racers.0 -
Compact's were invented to make cycling more appealing to, and easier for, newbie cyclists...
Utter borlicks. This is the sort of nonsense I want to laugh at!
whatever... I guess you ride a compact, and maybe you're not a newbie... but my main point is that a 53/39, or 53/42, is not a 'badge of hour' but a standard chainset - and some 'compact riders' like to make out that anyone not riding a compact is doing so to be prove a point.
No - I ride the chain set appropriate to the terrain and not my ego. I have a bike with 50/34 and an 11-32 cassette and a bike with 53/39 and 12-23 cassette. But I bow down to your awesomeness as I'm sure you ride 53/39 up vertical inclinesROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Compact's were invented to make cycling more appealing to, and easier for, newbie cyclists...
Utter borlicks. This is the sort of nonsense I want to laugh at!
Why? Most novice cyclists are less capable of turning a big gear at a reasonable cadence than experienced ones and so a compact is more suited to them.FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
the more I think these bigger chain sets are a badge of honour.
A 53/39, or 52/42, is known as a 'standard' chainset because it was the norm, nothing to do with a 'badge of honour'... Compact's were invented to make cycling more appealing to, and easier for, newbie cyclists...
The text you have quoted was originally posted by meanredspider and not me btw....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
How so?The point is that it is easier to swap cassettes than chainrings.
Remove chain from rings.
Remove outer ring.
Swap inner ring.
Replace outer ring.
Replace chain.
Still more effort than swapping a cassette on a given wheel - and much more faff than swapping the rear wheel for one with a different ratio cassette FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
Compact's were invented to make cycling more appealing to, and easier for, newbie cyclists...
Utter borlicks. This is the sort of nonsense I want to laugh at!
Why? Most novice cyclists are less capable of turning a big gear at a reasonable cadence than experienced ones and so a compact is more suited to them.
That might (in part, anyway) be true but it is not WHY compacts were invented. In fact, in my nearly 50 years of cycling, "newbies" tend to "mash" anyway and bikes squarely aimed at beginners are often fitted with triples. Compacts aren't so much aimed at a type of rider as a type of ride, giving a wide range of flexibility. They also offer the opportunity to fit the narrowest range cassette. I don't think I've ever read that 50-11t is too short a gear ratio (in fact, bizarrely in the light of this debate, 11 is often seen as too long) and 34-23t isn't particularly "spinny". There's also a useful spread between the rings so you aren't overlapping the gears. You have less weight and a shorter chain. As a do-it-all set-up, I'm struggling to see the downside.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
How so?The point is that it is easier to swap cassettes than chainrings.
Remove chain from rings.
Remove outer ring.
Swap inner ring.
Replace outer ring.
Replace chain.
Still more effort than swapping a cassette on a given wheel - and much more faff than swapping the rear wheel for one with a different ratio cassette
By the time you've fed the gears onto the hub, I bet it's a close-run thing. And swapping a wheel (if we're going that route) is not much quicker than swapping an entire crank - and a more expensive way of achieving the same end.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
How so?The point is that it is easier to swap cassettes than chainrings.
Remove chain from rings.
Remove outer ring.
Swap inner ring.
Replace outer ring.
Replace chain.
Still more effort than swapping a cassette on a given wheel - and much more faff than swapping the rear wheel for one with a different ratio cassette
By the time you've fed the gears onto the hub, I bet it's a close-run thing. And swapping a wheel (if we're going that route) is not much quicker than swapping an entire crank - and a more expensive way of achieving the same end.
Whatever..... :roll: :roll:FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0
