50/34 or 52/36 crankset

bikeme64

I am currently using a 53/39 crankset and a 11 speed 12-25 casstte. I usually ride on rather flat route and will be on the 53-18 gear (Ave Cadence 80) .
I am looking to change my groupset and will be looking at either the 52/36 or the 50/34 compact crank. I am 50+ and not a strong rider.
I would prefer a crank size that can give me a more narrow gear range. Which crank size should I get? 50/34 or 52/36?
Most of the time I am on the (17-18-19-21) cog of the 12-25 cassette.
Also will a average rider like me be able to overcome a 7-8% gradient using a 52/36 with a 12-25 cassette?
Many Thanks for advise!

philbar72

Only you know whether you can get up hills that are around 8-9% but from my own trials and tribulations I've found that a reasonably tough hill like Leith hill is not too bad on a 52/36 with a 25 tooth minimum. I've done it on 39 x23 before.

it should be noted I climb pretty averagely! if however you were doing something alpine, I'd say go compact.

a 34 with 28 will get me up anything, pretty much.

also in terms of range, well that depends on what you put on the back. if 50/34 and 12/25, you'll get a good all rounder without a get out gear, similarly with a 52/36, just a little bit higher in terms of the gearing!

why not try a 50/36 if you want even more narrow gears.

alan_sherman

get another 39/52 if that works for you.

bikeme64

Does it mean a 50/34 (12-25t) has a narrower range of gears as compare to a 52/36 (12-25t) set?
I have tried using the Gear calculator table and found that the spread between the gears are roughly about the same around the middle of the cassette around the 16-21t. It only get spread out at the extreme.
How do I read the range of gears using the Gear calculator table? from the spread of the numbers?

markhewitt1978

bikeme64 wrote:

Also will a average rider like me

There's no such thing. Only you can decide what gear ratios you need. And you can only figure that out from experience with the kit you have.

slowbike

The gaps between the gears (at the back) will not change if you have the same gap but different tooth count at the front.
So 50/34 is just a bit easier but with the same gaps as 52/36 as both have 16 tooth difference between large and small cog.
52/39 is only 13 tooth difference - so either the 50/34 or 52/36 will give you a wider overall range on a narrow band cassette.
If you want a narrower band without losing the range then you could look at a 23-11 or 23-12 cassette and get the 52/36 crank. 36 front 23 rear is insigificantly harder than 39 front 25 rear.

964cup

People make an immense fuss about this, mostly because they get seduced by macho language - "Pro compact", "man gears" and so on. Almost everyone who's not a serious racing cyclist would be best served by a compact chainset and a wide-range cassette. 50x11 is a huge gear (119.6") - Anquetil, Mercx, Hinault all won the Tour using 53x13 (107.3") as their biggest gear, which is considerably lower than 50x11. There was a lot of fuss and psychological game-playing back in the day associated with suggesting that someone's mechanic might be putting on a 12-tooth bottom cog for tomorrow's stage (giving 116.2"). Nowadays Tony Martin sometimes uses 58x11 (138.7") on his TT bike, but you (and I) are not Tony Martin - and he's not actually going that much quicker than Anquetil in his pomp.

French trainers in the 70s and 80s used to restrict their charges to smaller gears (say 53x14 or 52x14 max) to help them develop "leg speed" (cadence) and souplesse (fluid pedalling motion) both of which were considered superior to outright power.

*IF* you spend a lot of time in the four smallest cogs (so 11-15, roughly) then a 52/36 would give you a better chainline, but you'd might be better off raising your cadence instead and spending more time in the middle of the block. Particularly if you're older, since grinding it out will just wreck your knees. Pros use the 53 precisely so that they spend most of their time nearer the middle of the cassette for a good chainline, not just because it gives them a bigger top end. By the same token, having a 34/28 or 34/32 bottom gear means you can maintain cadence up even steep hills, and stay in the saddle, again saving your knees. Just because Pantani climbed Alpe d'Huez in 37 mins en dansant on a 39/21 (and on drugs) doesn't mean you should use the same gearing.

Bear in mind that a lot of cycling journalists (who refer to 34/28 as a "winch gear" or a "bailout gear") are ex-pros, so are fitter than we will ever be or - more often - would like us to think they are ex-pros...

keef66

Get a 50 / 34 chainset and a 12-27 cassette.

I'll be 60 next year and I've put a cyclocross 46 / 36 chainset on my winter bike with a 12-27 cassette to give me a wide enough range of spinny gears. Even downhill with a tailwind I rarely spin out in 46 x 12

mrb123

964Cup wrote:

People make an immense fuss about this, mostly because they get seduced by macho language - "Pro compact", "man gears" and so on. Almost everyone who's not a serious racing cyclist would be best served by a compact chainset and a wide-range cassette. 50x11 is a huge gear (119.6") - Anquetil, Mercx, Hinault all won the Tour using 53x13 (107.3") as their biggest gear, which is considerably lower than 50x11. There was a lot of fuss and psychological game-playing back in the day associated with suggesting that someone's mechanic might be putting on a 12-tooth bottom cog for tomorrow's stage (giving 116.2"). Nowadays Tony Martin sometimes uses 58x11 (138.7") on his TT bike, but you (and I) are not Tony Martin - and he's not actually going that much quicker than Anquetil in his pomp.

French trainers in the 70s and 80s used to restrict their charges to smaller gears (say 53x14 or 52x14 max) to help them develop "leg speed" (cadence) and souplesse (fluid pedalling motion) both of which were considered superior to outright power.

*IF* you spend a lot of time in the four smallest cogs (so 11-15, roughly) then a 52/36 would give you a better chainline, but you'd might be better off raising your cadence instead and spending more time in the middle of the block. Particularly if you're older, since grinding it out will just wreck your knees. Pros use the 53 precisely so that they spend most of their time nearer the middle of the cassette for a good chainline, not just because it gives them a bigger top end. By the same token, having a 34/28 or 34/32 bottom gear means you can maintain cadence up even steep hills, and stay in the saddle, again saving your knees. Just because Pantani climbed Alpe d'Huez in 37 mins en dansant on a 39/21 (and on drugs) doesn't mean you should use the same gearing.

Bear in mind that a lot of cycling journalists (who refer to 34/28 as a "winch gear" or a "bailout gear") are ex-pros, so are fitter than we will ever be or - more often - would like us to think they are ex-pros...

That about sums it up. Excellent post.

slowbike

964Cup wrote:

Almost everyone who's not a serious racing cyclist would be best served by a compact chainset and a wide-range cassette.

On a "Do-it-all"/"Ride anywhere" bike - then yes totally agree.

But for those who want to tune in specific bikes/wheels for specific tasks then the answer has to be "No - you're talking a load of bollocks"

I've got a "do it all"/"ride anywhere" bike - it's a CX - I bought it specifically for wet/winter commute riding - but it does more than just that. It came with a triple crankset and a 32-11 9 speed cassette - so fits your "compact chainset and wide-range cassette" requirement.
Can I ride to work and back on it? Yes - of course - I still do ..

However, it came with 32mm CX tyres - don't really need those if I'm riding the road - so swapped to slicks.
The 32-11 9 speed cassette has some big gaps in it - and with a 30/39/50 crank I've got a huge range - with just 1 hill I found I was never using the 30 ring on the front and never coming more than 1/2to2/3rds way up the cassette - I did use the 50-11 on the downhill bit - but it's a commute - so all out speed didn't matter. I found it hard to find a comfortable gear at a comfortable pace - I needed that elusive missing cog.

I wanted to keep the 32-11 cassette for family rides - towing trailers or riding alongside tiddlers ... nice easy gearing. Combined with the 32mm cross tyres this made it the right bike for that sort of job.
But not as nice as it could be for the bulk of my riding - ie commuting - so along comes a second wheelset with the road tyres and a 23-12 cassette - now I can pedal at a comforable cadence, still get up the hill and spread the wear over a bit more of the cassette - I lost a bit of top end - but hey, it's a commute - not a race!

So - I disagree with your "served best" recommendation - you're served best by a ratio and range that covers the majority of your riding - if it's pan flat then it's pointless having a 34-28 combo or a 53-11 - but if it's hilly you might want either/both - at which point you have to start the compromise.
And if you occaisionally have forays into different territory - cassettes don't have to be that expensive to have a spare to switch with for those different demands.

coops1967

Go here:-
http://www.gear-calculator.com/

Select to compare two setups - one you can setup as your current gears, then play around below to see how the low and high compares and gear spread.... very, very nice website/gear calculator (choose your tyre size, av cadence, gear setup etc).

slowbike

yup - I use that when contemplating gearing ...

One little tip - there's a drop down box against "display" - you can set this to "Gear Inches" so you can see just how close your selections are.

alan_sherman

Sheldon Brown's gear calculator cav be set to show speed at any given cadence. The trouble with compacts are that they require a front change right at typical club run speed. Old school 39 front rings allow you to ride socially almost all day without a front change. When you want to pick up the pace, go big. A 36 / 50 is better, maybe a 30 / 39 / 50 is the perfect do it all chainset....

alistaird

964Cup wrote:

People make an immense fuss about this, mostly because they get seduced by macho language - "Pro compact", "man gears" and so on. Almost everyone who's not a serious racing cyclist would be best served by a compact chainset and a wide-range cassette. 50x11 is a huge gear (119.6") - Anquetil, Mercx, Hinault all won the Tour using 53x13 (107.3") as their biggest gear, which is considerably lower than 50x11. There was a lot of fuss and psychological game-playing back in the day associated with suggesting that someone's mechanic might be putting on a 12-tooth bottom cog for tomorrow's stage (giving 116.2"). Nowadays Tony Martin sometimes uses 58x11 (138.7") on his TT bike, but you (and I) are not Tony Martin - and he's not actually going that much quicker than Anquetil in his pomp.

French trainers in the 70s and 80s used to restrict their charges to smaller gears (say 53x14 or 52x14 max) to help them develop "leg speed" (cadence) and souplesse (fluid pedalling motion) both of which were considered superior to outright power.

*IF* you spend a lot of time in the four smallest cogs (so 11-15, roughly) then a 52/36 would give you a better chainline, but you'd might be better off raising your cadence instead and spending more time in the middle of the block. Particularly if you're older, since grinding it out will just wreck your knees. Pros use the 53 precisely so that they spend most of their time nearer the middle of the cassette for a good chainline, not just because it gives them a bigger top end. By the same token, having a 34/28 or 34/32 bottom gear means you can maintain cadence up even steep hills, and stay in the saddle, again saving your knees. Just because Pantani climbed Alpe d'Huez in 37 mins en dansant on a 39/21 (and on drugs) doesn't mean you should use the same gearing.

Bear in mind that a lot of cycling journalists (who refer to 34/28 as a "winch gear" or a "bailout gear") are ex-pros, so are fitter than we will ever be or - more often - would like us to think they are ex-pros...

Thanks, IMHO a useful and insightful view. Makes a lot of sense and being 50+ always wondered why I much prefer the 48/34 11/28 combo I've got to the older 52/39 of my previous bike (bought the chainset as it was at a very good price not because I wanted a 48/34..>)

A

imposter2.0

I don't really see what being '50+' has to do with it either way. There's no metaphorical cliff that you fall off when you hit 50. You either have fitness, or you don't, regardless of age.

alistaird

Imposter wrote:

I don't really see what being '50+' has to do with it either way. There's no metaphorical cliff that you fall off when you hit 50. You either have fitness, or you don't, regardless of age.

Clearly you don't have my knees :roll:

I agree I was unfit before I was 50.....

StillGoing

bikeme64 wrote:

I am currently using a 53/39 crankset and a 11 speed 12-25 casstte. I usually ride on rather flat route and will be on the 53-18 gear (Ave Cadence 80) .
I am looking to change my groupset and will be looking at either the 52/36 or the 50/34 compact crank. I am 50+ and not a strong rider.
I would prefer a crank size that can give me a more narrow gear range. Which crank size should I get? 50/34 or 52/36?
Most of the time I am on the (17-18-19-21) cog of the 12-25 cassette.
Also will a average rider like me be able to overcome a 7-8% gradient using a 52/36 with a 12-25 cassette?
Many Thanks for advise!

52/36 or if you can arrange it, 50/36 with a 12/28 or 11/28 cassette. I'm mid 50's and have suffered a stroke and have a completely blocked artery restricting blood flow to my left. I run a 36 inner with a 12/28 and use a high cadence around 90-100rpm. The 36 and 14 tooth with a high cadence allows me to run a decent pace rather than being in the big ring and a bigger tooth sprocket at the back for the same speed.

londoncommuter

philthy3 wrote:

52/36 or if you can arrange it, 50/36 with a 12/28 or 11/28 cassette.

But if gaps are important to the OP then aren't you much better off going for a 34 and 25 or 26T cassette rather than 36 and trying to compensate with a huge cassette?

I agree with some of the above that it's down to chainline really once you decide you don't need the 52/11. FWIW, I'm currently obsessing on every ride about this and have got to get a life....

Alex99

bikeme64 wrote:

I am currently using a 53/39 crankset and a 11 speed 12-25 casstte. I usually ride on rather flat route and will be on the 53-18 gear (Ave Cadence 80) .
I am looking to change my groupset and will be looking at either the 52/36 or the 50/34 compact crank. I am 50+ and not a strong rider.
I would prefer a crank size that can give me a more narrow gear range. Which crank size should I get? 50/34 or 52/36?
Most of the time I am on the (17-18-19-21) cog of the 12-25 cassette.
Also will a average rider like me be able to overcome a 7-8% gradient using a 52/36 with a 12-25 cassette?
Many Thanks for advise!

If you go for the 52, you'll still ride the 18 sprocket most of the time. If you get the 50, you'll be on the 17 sprocket for approx. the same ratio. Only you can decide if you need 34x25 as your low gear. I presume you'll be getting 11 speed, so the 17 sprocket would be in the middle of the cassette (I think). Maybe better chainline with 50x17 than 52x18???

keef66

Imposter wrote:

I don't really see what being '50+' has to do with it either way. There's no metaphorical cliff that you fall off when you hit 50. You either have fitness, or you don't, regardless of age.

Annoying though it is, you do lose muscle mass as you age. There's no sudden, cliff edge drop off, it's all very gradual. But inevitable, sadly. Which means a loss of power, and you have to accept that you'll be going a little slower with each passing year, especially uphill. So easier gearing becomes more attractive / useful.

imposter2.0

Yes, but that process effectively starts in the mid-30s - and besides, I know several riders in their 50s who still ride at 2nd cat or above. I just don't like seeing the '50+' tag being used as an explanation for underperforming.

bikeme64

With 53/39 crank I am usually on the 17-21 cog. Assuming if I change to 50/34 crank I will probably be on the 16-21 cog. Why should I change my cassette from 12-25 to a 11-28? What benefits do I get? Besides 11-28 I will get a wider gear spread in between.
Many thanks again for the advise given

Alex99

bikeme64 wrote:

With 53/39 crank I am usually on the 17-21 cog. Assuming if I change to 50/34 crank I will probably be on the 16-21 cog. Why should I change my cassette from 12-25 to a 11-28? What benefits do I get? Besides 11-28 I will get a wider gear spread in between.
Many thanks again for the advise given

You wouldn't need to change. You'd be fine on the 12-25 and maybe get a better chainline for your most used gear range. If you ride flat-ish routes, stick with your 12-25 for a tighter range.

Some people might complain that 50x12 is too small. Not an problem for most I would think.

keef66

Imposter wrote:

Yes, but that process effectively starts in the mid-30s - and besides, I know several riders in their 50s who still ride at 2nd cat or above. I just don't like seeing the '50+' tag being used as an explanation for underperforming.

But was the 2nd Cat 50 year old an Elite level in his 20's?

My biggest regret was that I didn't return to road cycling till I turned 50. I've surprised myself by how much I've been able to increase my endurance in the ensuing years, but I clearly don't have the sprinting or climbing ability I had as a youngster. All I'm interested in doing now is cycling as much as I can in order to manage / slow the decline.

keef66

Alex99 wrote:

bikeme64 wrote:

With 53/39 crank I am usually on the 17-21 cog. Assuming if I change to 50/34 crank I will probably be on the 16-21 cog. Why should I change my cassette from 12-25 to a 11-28? What benefits do I get? Besides 11-28 I will get a wider gear spread in between.
Many thanks again for the advise given

You wouldn't need to change. You'd be fine on the 12-25 and maybe get a better chainline for your most used gear range. If you ride flat-ish routes, stick with your 12-25 for a tighter range.

Some people might complain that 50x12 is too small. Not an problem for most I would think.

50 x 12 is the biggest gear on my summer bike, and round here I never feel I'm spinning out. Even downhill with a tailwind I can still feel resistance at the pedals suggesting I could go faster if I had the legs...

imposter2.0

keef66 wrote:

But was the 2nd Cat 50 year old an Elite level in his 20's?

Strictly speaking, there wasn't an 'elite' category 30 years ago. But in any case, no they weren't. On the flip side, they didn't take up cycling at age 50 either.

964cup

In response to various people:

50+ is nothing to do with performance, or strength (more macho bullsh*t) it's to do with biology. As you age, your connective tissue - ligaments, tendons, meniscii, intravertebral discs etc - age with you; they lose elasticity, accumulate damage and in some cases shrink and dry out. 50-year-old knees cannot absorb the same punishment as younger ones. End of. In fact, younger ones can't absorb the punishment some people think they can, which is why so many competitive skiers end up retiring young with knee problems. So high cadence & low torque is the way to go if you want to carry on walking, never mind cycling.

I don't know what kind of club runs you lot go on. We generally average 30kph over 100-ish k with about 1200-1500m of climbing (Herts hills, Chilterns etc). I spend most of my time in 50x15 at 85-90rpm (so 35-37kph); I climb the short punchy bits either in 50x25 (on an 11-28 cassette) or 50x28 (on an 11-32 cassette), and the longer hills in 34x19 or 34x21, with the remaining cogs available for steep things like Swains or Plough Hill (15%-ish). Yes, I can get up Swains in 36x25 (and have to on another bike) but it's not fun. I'm taking the same bike to the Alps on Wednesday, where I expect I'll see rather more use of the 34x32, and will spend plenty of time "spinning out" the 50x11 - but we all know there's no point pedalling on descents once you go past 50kph, right? - because the aero drag of your feet rotating outweighs your small contribution to gravity.

I have another bike with a 52/36 that's only used for flat stuff (Regent's Park, Tour of Cambridge etc). That's so I can sit in the 52x15 at the same cadence, but I can't see any other reason to have the 52 for the kind of riding I do. It's got a 12-25 cassette on it, so it has a lower top-end than the climbing bike.

As for this thing about "gaps". Sure, if you're a finely honed TT machine. But for the rest of us? 52x15 at 85rpm = 52x16 at 90rpm. Turn off your cadence meter and tell me you can tell the difference of 5rpm in your legs. I can't. So when someone tells me 11-speed is better because the cassette now has the magic 16 instead of the "jump" from 15 to 17 (10 whole RPM) I have to laugh. Look at your Strava data. Compare your average cadence to the 25% and 75% quartiles in Stravistix, and to the maximum. For example: 116k @ average 29.4kmh, 1124m climbing, cadence average 79rpm, 25% quartile 73rpm, 75% quartile 90rpm, max 127rpm. So a 17rpm (three cog) variation in normal cadence. Setting us up to believe that we "need" no big jumps is a way to convince us that we "need" 12-speed.

imposter2.0

964Cup wrote:

So high cadence & low torque is the way to go if you want to carry on walking, never mind cycling.

Sorry, that's just alarmist nonsense. Most of the ex-pros still around from the 50s/60s and 70s can still walk, ffs. They weren't exactly known for their 'high cadence' - whatever that means anyway. Nobody on here seems to be able to actually define it, but it's a great phrase to throw around when you want to give the impression you know what you're talking about.

964cup

Yes, they absolutely were known for their high cadence - see my point about leg speed (taken from Fotheringham's book on Hinault, amongst others). That's kind of the whole point. My copy of Sex, Lies and Handlebar Tape is at work, but IIRC stage speeds in Anquetil's day were in the mid-40s, with attacks at up to 60 kph. If your highest gear is 53/13 (and it was probably 52/13), then your cadence at 45kph is 90 and at 120kph it's 120. They would of course have run lower cadences up the Cols, because of the limits of available gearing (say a 41/28 at best, more likely somewhat higher - although remember they would often change bikes at the bottom of the Col to a lighter climbing bike with lower gearing).

As for knees, http://www.opedix.com/wysiwyg-images/14 ... d4cdd4.pdf, https://www.fifpro.org/en/news/blog-hip ... ootballers, http://www.caringmedical.com/prolothera ... -athletes/ and so on.

Or, if you want personal experience, I used to be a competitive skier. My knees are, in the professional opinion of the chap I saw when I finally snapped my left MCL, "f***ked". (weakened ligaments, aforementioned missing MCL, patellar abrasion, meniscal tears). I certainly don't do much running, and I've had a do a lot of quad work to support the left knee. I'm not quite over 50 yet (3 years to go) but have collected a fairly wide variety of age-related connective tissue problems (doc's words, not mine) and have certainly been advised to go for high cadence and avoid grinding.

See also Hinault's & Fignon's recurrent tendinitis (Hinault needed an op, Fignon retired).

imposter2.0

To be fair, that sounds like 'normal' cadence ranges, as opposed to particularly high or low. Having said that, anecdotal quotes from a few random books is not evidence of anything, other than it suggests that nothing has really changed in cadence terms ever since bikes had more than one gear. And still no-one can define 'high' or 'low' cadence, which kind of makes my point.

webboo

At the time when Hinault needed his Achilles' tendon operation. There was a lot of talk about how the increased power from using steroids led to Tendon injuries. There was a lot of strong hints and pictures of him suddenly becoming a lot hairier.
So possibly nothing to do with his cadence.
As the age thing it's more a case of keeping at it then you don't decline so fast. Using your self as an example with your list of skiing related injuries doesn't prove anything.