Industry gearing fads

kirkee

52 36 cranks another industry invented new fad that doesn't make any sense, offer them but don't force us to buy them! I see that most newer bikes seem to have them fitted, even noticed an adventure gravel bike specced with one! They're commonly paired with 11 28 cassettes giving near pro level gearing to the masses. It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x. Total bolox. And double bolox to the 52 36.

CitizenLee

I'm gonna have to argue that 1x gearing is better in the mtb world. I've had it on my last 3 bikes (DH then freeride then enduro orientated) and it's a massive improvement over 2x. It gives you the range, a decent weight savings, less bar clutter, less to maintain/go wrong/replace and less expense. There's also no need for a chainguide or tensioner with the narrow wide chainrings and clutch rear mechs.

I don't know much at all about road bikes or their gearing, but I very seldom used the little ring on my 2x Genedis CdF when I was commuting, and the Cannondale Quick I'm getting to replace it now I've moved office again will be 1x11 for all the reasons above. So it definitely has it's place in the road world to.

You could be right about 52 36 though, but I'm sure there's sciency stuff behind it rather than conspiracy by the evil biking overlords to milk everyone for more cash. They've got mtb wheelsize for that :P

kajjal

It’s good to have the variety to choose from.

DavidJB

I want a 52 36 for riding in lake district and dolomites? Why because I normally ride 53/39 but that's too much when doing 12,000ft over 100~ miles and compact is too low.

StillGoing

52/36 is great for those of us lacking the legs for a 53/39. With the 11/28 cassette, you can get up most things and if its going to be a long day going up hill, then a 30, 32 or even 34 cassette option is available with the right rear derailleur. Think you're going to find there's plenty of call for the 52/36 semi-compact.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

It does seem so wrong that many bikes are sold without custom options for the rider, with the odd exception like Rose and Hoy bikes iirc.

We should be able to tailor the bike to our needs, within reason, without having to spend significant extra on things like...
Chainring sizes
Crank length
Cassette range
Stem length
Handlebar width

But going back to chainring sizes, for beginner bikes, a 30-46 with at least 11-28 cassette would be far more use for novice road users in hilly areas and their initial lack of power.

kingdav

Pretty sure I have 52/36 with 11-34 on my allez atm, gets me up pretty much anything and fast enough in descent. I chose 52/36 because it was cheaper (105 crankset at something like £30 from merlin).

The 1x cx based commuter I'm building up has a 36 up front which I'm going to pair with an 11-42. I'll try that out before splashing out on a 48 front ring which is what seemed to give me a similar range to the 2x setup mentioned above.

Buying used usually leaves something in the budget for customisation.

timothyw

When compacts (50-34) were coming in it'd be fairly common to find them with 11-25 cassettes, so you are at least getting an easier gear than that.

With 11-32 cassettes commonly available and 11-34 coming in, you have little reason to complain - gears are easier than ever - and I'm sure you can fairly easily sell on/swap a 52-36 chainset if you were so inclined.

haydenm

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

keef66

TimothyW wrote:

When compacts (50-34) were coming in it'd be fairly common to find them with 11-25 cassettes, so you are at least getting an easier gear than that.

With 11-32 cassettes commonly available and 11-34 coming in, you have little reason to complain - gears are easier than ever - and I'm sure you can fairly easily sell on/swap a 52-36 chainset if you were so inclined.

Whereas an unloved standard 53/39 chainset is a lot harder to sell. Postage costs more than it's worth.

(Anybody interested in a pre-owned 4500 chainset??)

DeVlaeminck

I can't see much need for lower than a 34 or higher than a 52 on a road bike for 99% of riders. With modern cassette ranges I could road race or do the Fred Whitton with the gears I want on a 50/34 or a 53/42. If I had to choose I'd go 50/36 as the narrower gap helps shifting and an 11 or 12-25 would do me for everything except the hardest sportives and a chain and cassette swap for a 12-29 or similar is easy enough.

StillGoing

NitrousOxide wrote:

It does seem so wrong that many bikes are sold without custom options for the rider, with the odd exception like Rose and Hoy bikes iirc.

We should be able to tailor the bike to our needs, within reason, without having to spend significant extra on things like...
Chainring sizes
Crank length
Cassette range
Stem length
Handlebar width

But going back to chainring sizes, for beginner bikes, a 30-46 with at least 11-28 cassette would be far more use for novice road users in hilly areas and their initial lack of power.

Simply not possible that. Manufacturers will know what the main sellers are and will gear their product to that. If the markets main sellers are 172.5mm crank length and 52/36, that's what they'll put on their bikes. Just the luck of the gene pool if the crank lengths are too long or short for you. As TW points out, the 52/36 with an 11-28 cassette is a better option than we got with 50/34 and the 12-25 cassette.

cookeeemonster

kirkee wrote:

52 36 cranks another industry invented new fad that doesn't make any sense, offer them but don't force us to buy them! I see that most newer bikes seem to have them fitted, even noticed an adventure gravel bike specced with one! They're commonly paired with 11 28 cassettes giving near pro level gearing to the masses. It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x. Total bolox. And double bolox to the 52 36.

52/36 is the best option for me out of the others I've tried - 50/34 and 48/34 (cx bike - think it was something like that).

So I'm a happy customer...plenty of others will be too.

There's loads of choice out there...you can use it? Build your own? Write an email or two to the manufacturers complaining to them rather than us?

Don't really get what you're wound up about?

davep1

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

CitizenLee

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

The benefits are clear both in theory and in practical use.

Maybe you should actually try a decent 1x set-up.

de_sisti

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Don't really get what you're wound up about?

Me neither. Just concentrate on your own needs.

Just like Dave P, I also ride triples, but bought the chainring sizes to suit me and amalgated sproket sizes from cassettes for the range I want. Happy days.

Vino'sGhost

CitizenLee wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

The benefits are clear both in theory and in practical use.

Maybe you should actually try a decent 1x set-up.

1 x is great on Mountain bikes for lots of reasons, a lot of those reasons arent there on the road but it hasnt stopped marketing depts try.

Disk brakes and tubeless are also epic on mountain bikes no neccescarry on the road but still marketing will have its way.

Just ride what youve got or want and enjoy.

paul64

Is there a technical reason why we don't see 36/50?

When I started riding it was on 42/52 and I appreciated the transition between chainrings and 2 clicks to adjust gears. Over time I moved from 21 to 23 to 25 to 27 on cassettes and from 42/52 to 39/52 to 34/50, I still love to ride in my 50s but my body and knees especially appreciate the ease of gearing. These days I have 2 bikes with 34/50 and one with 36/52 and all have a 29 sprocket for those 1 in 5 or worse short climbs on my routes.

Ideally I would have 36/50 so that a 14 tooth jump on the front that is technically better, unless I am mistaken. Or perhaps the evolution of derailleurs over time solved it anyway.

kirkee

Well 'Football isnt coming home' but then the TDF probably isnt either?! On subject- as mentioned in a reply post, the main bug bare for me is the industry speccing bikes as they think they should be specced with the latest trends. Gearing should idealy be customisable at the point of sale, who wants a Gravel bike with a 36 52? I hear the 1 x argument, but, unless your riding top of the range Eagle or new XT mtb group's the gearing range will lack compared with a decent cheap 2x. The common spec on budget mtb's are not either of the wide ranging 1,x groups therefore these budget bikes would be better if they offered 2x options along with 1,x the same should apply with compact, semi compact or standard with road bikes. As for pairing a compact with an 11 25, maybe when compacts first came out years back but I doubt thats the case now. I used to deride 34 50 crank s but if its steep go lower.

kirkee

paul64 wrote:

Is there a technical reason why we don't see 36/50?

When I started riding it was on 42/52 and I appreciated the transition between chainrings and 2 clicks to adjust gears. Over time I moved from 21 to 23 to 25 to 27 on cassettes and from 42/52 to 39/52 to 34/50, I still love to ride in my 50s but my body and knees especially appreciate the ease of gearing. These days I have 2 bikes with 34/50 and one with 36/52 and all have a 29 sprocket for those 1 in 5 or worse short climbs on my routes.

Ideally I would have 36/50 so that a 14 tooth jump on the front that is technically better, unless I am mistaken. Or perhaps the evolution of derailleurs over time solved it anyway.

You would think a 36 50 crankset offering would make more sense than a 36 52, who really needs a 52 11 gear and if you do youl probably be on a standard anyway.

haydenm

kirkee wrote:

Gearing should ideally be customisable at the point of sale, who wants a Gravel bike with a 36 52? I hear the 1 x argument, but, unless your riding top of the range Eagle or new XT mtb group's the gearing range will lack compared with a decent cheap 2x.

I agree there, I would imagine it's easier for direct sales companies too. For 1x on MTBs I have only really spent a lot of time on XO1 which is spot on, I have just recently got XT 1x on another bike and I think the chainring is currently too small. I'll either suffer with it or get a bigger ring and hope the range is still there at the back for now but I'd do a lot not to use a 2x setup on my MTBs now. I bought a cheap genesis core for the GF with 2x and I wouldn't know if it's better than a cheap 1x setup, unfortunately the list of upgrades I would want is long and the 2x may not be top of it

akh

kirkee wrote:

paul64 wrote:

Is there a technical reason why we don't see 36/50?

When I started riding it was on 42/52 and I appreciated the transition between chainrings and 2 clicks to adjust gears. Over time I moved from 21 to 23 to 25 to 27 on cassettes and from 42/52 to 39/52 to 34/50, I still love to ride in my 50s but my body and knees especially appreciate the ease of gearing. These days I have 2 bikes with 34/50 and one with 36/52 and all have a 29 sprocket for those 1 in 5 or worse short climbs on my routes.

Ideally I would have 36/50 so that a 14 tooth jump on the front that is technically better, unless I am mistaken. Or perhaps the evolution of derailleurs over time solved it anyway.

You would think a 36 50 crankset offering would make more sense than a 36 52, who really needs a 52 11 gear and if you do youl probably be on a standard anyway.

I've been riding 36/50 for about a year. Swapped out the inner ring on my 105 5800 crankset. Front shift is slicker than 34/50 and it suits my riding better. Shimano inner chainrings cost less than 20 quid.

CitizenLee

kirkee wrote:

I hear the 1 x argument, but, unless your riding top of the range Eagle or new XT mtb group's the gearing range will lack compared with a decent cheap 2x. The common spec on budget mtb's are not either of the wide ranging 1,x groups therefore these budget bikes would be better if they offered 2x options along with 1,x the same should apply with compact, semi compact or standard with road bikes

It's always been a case of you get what you pay for with bikes, and as someone else mentioned manufacturers will always play to what's most popular and suitable for most people. Having said that, even at the lower end the benefits of 1x still outweigh the slight lack of range of the cheaper gearing options... again, for most people. Plus, decent 1x parts aren't just exclusive to the top end, it extends down to the mid range too... so future upgrades won't necessarily break the bank if someone finds their current gearing lacking. It would certainly be cheaper than upgrading a low end 2x to a high end 2x.

cld531c

AKH wrote:

kirkee wrote:

paul64 wrote:

Is there a technical reason why we don't see 36/50?

When I started riding it was on 42/52 and I appreciated the transition between chainrings and 2 clicks to adjust gears. Over time I moved from 21 to 23 to 25 to 27 on cassettes and from 42/52 to 39/52 to 34/50, I still love to ride in my 50s but my body and knees especially appreciate the ease of gearing. These days I have 2 bikes with 34/50 and one with 36/52 and all have a 29 sprocket for those 1 in 5 or worse short climbs on my routes.

Ideally I would have 36/50 so that a 14 tooth jump on the front that is technically better, unless I am mistaken. Or perhaps the evolution of derailleurs over time solved it anyway.

You would think a 36 50 crankset offering would make more sense than a 36 52, who really needs a 52 11 gear and if you do youl probably be on a standard anyway.

I've been riding 36/50 for about a year. Swapped out the inner ring on my 105 5800 crankset. Front shift is slicker than 34/50 and it suits my riding better. Shimano inner chainrings cost less than 20 quid.

Great to hear this - want to do that to mine - did you do anything other than change the ring (adjustments etc)?

akh

Nope, just swapped the inner ring. The big ring dictates the derailleur height and chain length, and as that wasn't changed, there was no need to change either. I checked the lower limit screw on the front derailleur to be safe, but it was fine.

cld531c

Cheers - will get ordering!

davep1

CitizenLee wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

The benefits are clear both in theory and in practical use.

Maybe you should actually try a decent 1x set-up.

Go on then, spell out the benefits. I have one road bike, and one mountain bike. I have a 52-36 with 11-32 on the road bike, it works brilliantly here and in the Apennines in Italy. If I lived there, I would swap the chainset for a 50-34, but I don't need to. The mountain bike is old, and I can't afford to replace it or "simplify" the gearing. It just works wherever I want to take it; sometimes I have to ride it on the roads to get to trails, and I like the options a triple gives you.

When I go for a ride, I have a simple choice of which bike to take. Why would I want to complicate that with the thought that maybe I haven't got the right chainring on either?

haydenm

DaveP1 wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

The benefits are clear both in theory and in practical use.

Maybe you should actually try a decent 1x set-up.

Go on then, spell out the benefits. I have one road bike, and one mountain bike. I have a 52-36 with 11-32 on the road bike, it works brilliantly here and in the Apennines in Italy. If I lived there, I would swap the chainset for a 50-34, but I don't need to. The mountain bike is old, and I can't afford to replace it or "simplify" the gearing. It just works wherever I want to take it; sometimes I have to ride it on the roads to get to trails, and I like the options a triple gives you.

When I go for a ride, I have a simple choice of which bike to take. Why would I want to complicate that with the thought that maybe I haven't got the right chainring on either?

You said you weren't convinced of the benefits of 1x in ANY format. What you really mean is that, to you, it's not worth the cost and may not benefit your particular style of riding. Those aren't really the same thing. In my experience of what the vast majority of UK based enduro racers do, 1x is better.

Admittedly I said 2x was rubbish on mountain bikes in general which is a bit of an over statement, in some circumstances it's a bit less rubbish

CitizenLee

DaveP1 wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

The benefits are clear both in theory and in practical use.

Maybe you should actually try a decent 1x set-up.

Go on then, spell out the benefits.

I did spell out the benefits for MTBs in my first reply on the first page. As have others in the thread. Much less weight, less clutter, less to go wrong, less to maintain, less expense, no chain drops or need for a chain guide/tensioner and more or less the same range. You're also free to Google the benefits of a 1x set up for a wider take on it, or even put the numbers into a gearing calculator and see why there's no real need for a multiring set up these days... or how many of the gears on a triple are overlaps.

It might not be better for you and your bike... but based on your replies I'd argue you don't represent the vast majority of mountain bikers. If what you have works for you then that's great, go enjoy it... but don't assume something is pointless or has no benefits when you have no first hand experience of it yourself.

davep1

CitizenLee wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

kirkee wrote:

It's like the 1 x systems in the mtb world, try to buy a 2x Mtb groupset now, not easy to find, because you should be riding a 1x.

You should. 2x is rubbish on mountain bikes.

I still ride a triple on my old hard tail and am more than happy with it. NOT convinced about the benefits of 1x in any format...

The benefits are clear both in theory and in practical use.

Maybe you should actually try a decent 1x set-up.

Go on then, spell out the benefits.

I did spell out the benefits for MTBs in my first reply on the first page. As have others in the thread. Much less weight, less clutter, less to go wrong, less to maintain, less expense, no chain drops or need for a chain guide/tensioner and more or less the same range. You're also free to Google the benefits of a 1x set up for a wider take on it, or even put the numbers into a gearing calculator and see why there's no real need for a multiring set up these days... or how many of the gears on a triple are overlaps.

It might not be better for you and your bike... but based on your replies I'd argue you don't represent the vast majority of mountain bikers. If what you have works for you then that's great, go enjoy it... but don't assume something is pointless or has no benefits when you have no first hand experience of it yourself.

Thanks for the (patronising) reply. Is it necessary to try something to have an opinion?

Whatever gear system you have, there will be a compromise somewhere. For me, a 1x set up is a compromise too far over a double (or shock horror even a triple). To get the range of a double, you need a cassette with a massive spread of gears, and possibly a couple of different chain rings to swap in or out depending on where you are going. You then also have big jumps between each cog on the cassette; in my experience when you are climbing off road you want them to be pretty close to each other.

I have read extensively about the so-called benefits of 1x systems, and they all seem like vague/sketchy justifications for change. "much less weight" you say, how much less? 500g? 2kg? "Less clutter"? Even my ancient hardtail has brake and shifters combined. "Less to go wrong/maintain"? The amount of times I have a problem with my front mech compared to the rear mech is negligible. Yes it is fiddly to clean a front mech, but in terms of cleaning a whole bike that has been off roading (or even on the road) in the winter, not that big a deal. "Less expense"? Are you sure about that? Retail costs for groupsets I just looked at SRAM Force 1x the RRP is more than SRAM Force 2x. Yes there are deals where 1x is cheaper but not that much. "No chain drops"? Again, if you ride on bumpy terrain I just don't believe that. I know with my front mech, if the chain comes off the front I can get it back on again using the shifter more times than not. I don't have a chain guide or tensioner either.

davep1

HaydenM wrote:

In my experience of what the vast majority of UK based enduro racers do, 1x is better.

Admittedly I said 2x was rubbish on mountain bikes in general which is a bit of an over statement, in some circumstances it's a bit less rubbish

UK based enduro racers? The population of UK off road riders is way bigger than that!