I'll be the peasant in the room. 50/39/30 chainrings with an 11-32 8-speed cassette. Perfect for scooting around town even when loaded up with my work stuff
There's nothing wrong with it. I have plenty of fancy bikes but ride a cheap and reliable Shimano triple on my commuter. Works great! Edit: mines a 48/38/28 with 11-28 cassette (9 SPD)
I bought a new endurance bike last year. It came with 12-speed Shimano 105 with 50/34 chainrings and an 11-34 cassette. Before collecting the bike I sold the 11-34 to the dealer and had them put an 11-36 on instead, so it only cost me about £15 to have the exchange done and, living in a very hilly part of Wales, I think that is a fantastic combo for the hilly terrain I live in.
@@gurinderkular7209 Even if it is 'just' two extra teeth it allows me to get up even the steepest hills where I live, mostly without tears in my eyes 😄
Great. Most bikes seem to get sold overgeared, because the general population pedals at too low a cadence. I won't even consider a bicycle without atleast a 1:1 granny gear.
You’re an absolute tank!💪 Hats off to you scchua! About 17 years ago, I tried moving my then Grandpa’s De Bernadi that had dura ace 7400 groupset on it, he ran 55/41! In short, I can’t move anything over 51😭
When I started racing in the mid-70’s I also had a 42/52, used a 14-22 5 speed freewheel for road races and 14-18 for crits. Can’t imagine using those gears today!
The trick with larger chainrings is the low end on the cassettes has gotten much lower. The increase in chainring probably just offsets the reduction in the rear so their climbing is exactly the same as it was prior, but the top end is MUCH higher.
It's in both directions but mostly toward smaller overall gear ratios/larger cogs for easier climbing. 56t has been around for a long time. 10t cogs on the small end and anything larger than 27t is what's new.
hmm, smaller cogs plus larger chainring equals larger gear inches, there's no offset. A 56 chainring and 10 cog gives a massive 149 gear inches. You just need to be massively strong to make use of such a gear, end of story. In the early 90's when i was racing, a 52t chainring was standard (even for pros), and a 13-18 freewheel. 12t cogs were starting to appear, and sometimes you'd read about a top sprinter using a 54t chainring for a sprint stage. 54-12 is 120 inches, 52-13 is 107. The only difference is a massive increase in rider strength amongst the pros.
Ollie, we were waxing our chains and changing grease in our bearings for oil in the 80's. rim brakes would have also thrown you over the handlebars if you pulled them too much. Nutrition and training is the difference
The increased range of the cassettes is defintely one of the biggest reasons for larger chainrings. My older bike is 105 with an 11-28 10-cog cassette and 50/34 chainrings. My new bike is Ultegra with an 11-30 11-speed cassette and 52/36 chainrings. The larger range in the back allows me to be able to ride with the larger chainrings while still maintaining a similar gear ratio (34/28 vs. 36/30) at the bottom end.
I had a 52/36 with a 11/25 years ago. It's not the adoption of bigger fear ratios, it's the move to "bigger" tyres that can facilitate bigger gears. However, the average chainrings went from 53/39 to 50/34 or smaller as my Grevil has 48/35 with an 11/28 or 11/33. My guess is the move in the pro Peloton to 54/40 or higher is because they are producing more power.
Don't see any comments along the lines of how big your "motor" is that's driving the chainring/transmission so-to-speak. Cutting to the chase, how many watts of power we all have at a particular moment available determines how tall of a gear we can push. I've noticed over the years, that early season when I'm at a lower level of fitness I tend to be in the lower gears more. Whereas later in the season, over those same roads/trails, that I will constantly find myself in the higher/taller gears and not using the lower gears as much. To turn taller gears you need more watts (bigger motor)! Pros can turn a 54+ chainring. At 67 years old, I'm now finding the compact crank to be more along my liking.
To turn larger gears you can alternatively get away with more strength. Because I lift weights I find that I can push the big gears even when I'm not as fit. I just push them more slowly in that case.
Finally doubles are getting wide ranges with tight cadence steps to match 52/39/26 triples I’ve been using for the last 30+ years - setups that give me even straighter chainlines, smaller steps, and huge range, with minimal weight penalty. Progress!
I've been riding 52-42 chain rings with a 6-speed 14-24 freewheel for about 20 years. Typically end up cross chaining to avoid the small chain ring, so now I'm upgrading to 46-34 chainrings with an 8-speed 13-32 cassette...
As I get older ( almost 65) my gears are closer and lower. I can climb anything in 39x30, and I don't need anything harder than 39x13. So I have one chainring and if the wind is at my back or it's downhill, I coast. I love retro. I love 5 and 6 and 7 speed freewheels. My latest project is a 5-speed. I crossed Canada on an 8-speed. But each to their own.
A couple things; Larger diameter chainrings and cassettes are theoretically more efficient as there should be less frictional loss from chain link articulation. (Same concept as what is claimed with the Ceramic Speed OSPW.) Pros consistently using an 11-34 cassette, they are likely taking advantage of an improved chainline by keeping the chain more central on the cassette for more of the time. (This has been the case in time trials for a while with the massive 60+ tooth setups)
Bigger is better as far as easier also in front chain rings. One of your wattage test said that the small cog in the back uses/looses/waste/takes more watts to turn so why not go bigger in the front to stay in the bigger in the rear. Testing has proved bigger trying to rear is better
Ollie, I was figuring the large chainrings were a marginal gain w/respect to chain friction. Larger ring reduces tension on the chain, reducing friction.
Ultegra cyclocross gearing with an even smaller small ring is the bees knees! 46/34. GRX 810 derailleur allows for an 11-34 cassette on the road setup, with 11-42 (separate chain) on the gravel wheels.
I live in a very flat area, not a single climb longer than 2-4 minutes anywhere I ride. I mainly race very flat criteriums and the occasional road race, along with a lot of club group rides on the weekends in the summer. I have no problems running my 53/39 chain-set with an 11 speed 11/32 cassette. I could probly even run an 11/28 if i wanted most of the time, but im a bit of a heavier rider (95kg) so its nice to have that 32 in back when I want to take it super easy up a hill. I have found that when i do adventure somewhere with longer/steeper climbs though this setup is not ideal.
I know this makes me sound old, but my first real road bike in the 70s came with "criterium" gearing: Campagnolo Record with a 44-54 chainring and 13-18 "straight block" freewheel. I rode that on the flat and on hills, including a 2-day double century, until I could afford a 42-52 chainring and a 13-21 freewheel. A different time.
1960s used to race on 44/52 with14-23.44 was the smallest on Campagnolo at the time with151 BCD. Latter changed to 144 BCD allowing a 42T. Now ride 1980s steely, the same Record 42T with Di2 Shimano 11 speed Alfine gear hub (409% range). Reduced winter cleaning by 90% Now 77 and noticed bottom gear needed reduces at about 1" per cycling year!
On my old 1982 Reynolds steel tubing Puch bike, I have a 52/43 Shimano Biopace Oval Chainrings. On my newer S Works SL6, I use a Spanish Rotor Oval chainrings 52/34. Been riding oval rings all my life!
Instead of 11/34 I’d really welcome something like 12/34 or even larger as the default cassette for anything less than 12-speed. I use the 50-11 combo only in rare descending occasions and would be more than happy to trade it for smaller gaps between gears.
I ride Shimano 105 11speed - 50/34 with 11-34 cassette. I live in an area that is primarily hilly with some flats and a variety of climbs, short and long. This set up is fantastic for every terrain in my experience.
My first, very cheap ten-speed back in the early '80s had a 52-42 in front and a 14-22 in the back (on the plus side, it was Campagnolo). I for one welcome the very short gearings of today (I have a touring bike with Deore 2x10, 40-28 in the front and 11-34 in the back, and it's fine like that).
Regarding gearing. I just picked up a 63 Bianchi Specialissima. The thing is a perfect time capsule, right down to the factory installed cable crimps. Anyway, gearing? 54/46 in the front and 13-24 5sp in the rear. The last part of my typical ride is a mile long drag of average 7%. Half way home I'm standing on the pedals imagining I'm Fausto.
My first racing gears as a Junior in the late 80's...52/42 chainrings with 15-19 5-speed freewheel. 12-23 tooth cassette with a 39-tooth chainring a few years later was considered "mountain" gearing. Oh, my, how times have changed.
As a youth I ran 42/52 with either an 11/18 or 12/26 7 speed freewheel. This was the standard set up of the day. Now running compact 34/50 with 13/29 cassette. Much easier on the knees!
I moved to a hilly area 2 years ago and also added some 5-10kg luggage to my bike. This forced me to find a peculiar chainring combination of 48-32 for 110 BCD spider! Even with 2 teeth difference, it's noticeably easier to climb :)
In my 60th year, I decided to upgrade to a new Cannondale Quick 1 Hybrid….50/34, 11-32 Cassette. Its still going to be about 8 weeks until all the snow melts, but I am eager to feel the difference my new gearing makes on my rides.
Chainrings have been the most important thing for sure ever since your average high end TT bike started being sold with enough gearing to hike up Mount Everest while towing a trailer and still spinning out at 4 mph. I ride 58 and it’s beautiful on a flat ride. I don’t particularly enjoy going uphill.
Two additional angles on the gearing topic: 1) clued in pro teams are trying to avoid using 10t cogs as much as possible, and hopefully, 11t too. No question, the 10t bleeds watts. So the ‘actual’ versus ‘nominal’ high gear in the back is 11 or 12, and it’s even better to stay in the middle of the cassette most of the time. Thus: bigger chain ring/s. 2) I suspect average cadences are actually down from the Lance era. EPO was great for high cadence outputs, but now it’s more economical to run closer to what, 85-90rpm? If I’m right, bigger rings also make more sense.
Campagnolo found that the difference 1 tooth makes it 0.1 watt for the same chainline, hence they moved to 10t small sprocket on their latest Super Record wireless. SRAM gives away 5 Watts because their chain and tooth profiles on their 12 speed system is less efficient. Maximal efficiency comes from a straight chain line - so your optimal gear ratio has to be in the sprocket on the cassette that is directly behind the chainring. Less of an issue with 6 or 7 speed as a wide chain would not need to articulate much in extreme gears. 11 and 12 speed pitches a much narrower chain to a tighter angle because the block is wider at the rear. Cadence is based on personal preference, and for the most part settling on a happy medium. The Armstrong era came about because sports scientists realised that ultra low cadence could cause damage, as ex-pros suffered with knee problems when races started going up harder climbs. With more gears starting to appear at the back wider ratios meant you had the opportunity to run easier gears for climbing without sacrificing the high gear close ratios for flatter racing. Froome spins at high cadence, and so do many climbers now. Being able to start an attack from a comfortable cadence is much more decisive than trying to get on top of a big gear.
@@matt_acton-varian I’m with you, except on the 11 versus 10t efficiency loss. I’ve never heard anywhere else that the loss with a 10 is near as low as 0.1 watt. That’s so small that it would tend to be considered statistically insignificant, no?
@@ChlorophyllCrusher That was according to Campagnolo press release based on research for their Super Record Wireless groupset - which utilises a 10-29 cassette and smaller front chainrings. Unlike SRAM with their 12 speed concept, Campagnolo have kept the standard roller and pin size as opposed to SRAM'S slightly oversized system. By the time an amateur reaches speeds requiring such a gear either you are going downhill so are barely pedalling, or are sprinting at full gas by which time your losses will be a very small percentage of your output.
As a non-racing bicycle commuter and A to B up to 100 miles, I found 52*13 was not enough. I'd spin out on the level with a following breeze or even slightly downhill. But, back then, you had to compromise coping with 42*28 (could get up a 25% gradient with difficulty) as the lowest you could go with a Suntour Ultra6 and the gear mechs of the time.
40 tooth inner ring fits a 130 BCD, there were a lot of racing cranks back then with 52/40 rings. 40x28 was a pretty good bailout gear for a race bike if you were in any sort of shape.
Back home in Finland I use the 39-53 chainrings and 11-25 casette. When I Travel to south (Dolomites, Italy, Mallorca, Spain etc) I change for 36-50 chainrings and 11-30 casette.
When I bought my Specialized Allez it came with 3x9 Shimano Sora gears - 50/39/30 chainrings and 12-25 cassette. It still has the same chainrings (for the time being) but I recently changed the cassette for an 11-32. The plan is to change the chainrings to a 2x setup with 50/34T as I find the middle ring too big and the small ring to small for the hills where I live.
Running Garbaruk 48 Oval chainring and 12 speed 11-52 cassette with Force1 with ratiotech 12 speed ratchet upgrade. Only losing ~ 2kph with 48/11 at 95rpm compared to 50/11 ratio. I’m not a strong enough cyclist to pull max speeds on flats anyway, so the delta is imperceptible to me. The biggest benefit is the climbing with 48/52 ratio; plenty of hills where I live. It’s truly amazing what the pros are doing on those massive ratios, particularly climbing (42/34, etc..)
My 2003 Giant road bike came with 50/34 carbon front and rear forks , always found hills a challenge until I got bike fit each year … now 68 almost 69 , and still ride this bike as it’s so expensive getting new ones .. will see how this year pans out too on that front …
Like the chat on chainring size, I just wish, for the everyday person, that the compact Chainset be made just that, ie a 46/30 as in the current gravel combo. For most, unless you race, this is a really good combo with an 11-34 cassette, covers pretty much most needs.
For a vintage steel bike, with a nice Campy 53/39, I just ordered a Miche 13-29 ten speed cassette. I can't really use the smallest cogs, so ditch them. The modern road bike for endurance rides has a 46/34 paired with an 11-32 cassette. And finally, for light touring I like 44/28 paired with an 11-32 cassette.
One major difference you didn't mention that helps increase descent speeds is tires. I rode 19mm 110 psi tires in the 70's & 80's and there is just no comparison to the improved handling, traction, and comfort of my current 32mm 50 psi tubeless setup.
They had a subjective test with 50mm tyres, I think something like Schwalbe Supermoto, winning out. I honestly suspect the uci is holding Roadbikes back from being as good as can be on that. Motorbikes are way longer Slacker and weigh180+ kg more n handle fine. Maybe a light XC MTB frame with rigid fork would be a better roadbike if descending matters.
People criticized me some ~7 years ago when i was racing. Because i had a 9 speed group set but had Shimano 600 54-42 crank set but i compensated in Hill climb with a 11-32 cassette. Miss that gearing so much
New bike equipped with Ultegra 53/39 front, 11-30 out back. For mere mortal me, on steep climbs, that left me looking for at least another click down. Thus, swapped out the cassette for 11-34, and I was back in business. The bigger back cassette seems like a no-brainer with the wider chainring.
I usually ride a 50-36, but I will have a hill climb race in several month, this is my "big event of the year" on the Mt Fuji, the course is 24km with a 5.1% average gradient so not a very steep climb. I plane to go with a 48-43 for this race to keep the best chain line everytime with the best efficiency (bigger chainring =better efficiency because of less chain friction where it matter the most so that make sens with the 34t cassette becoming the standard, pros ride bigger chainrings).
I have just switched out my 11/28 for a 11/34 with a 50/34 chainring. I was expecting more of a difference. While each individual rotation of the crank is easier it takes more of them to climb a hill so the overall effort is about the same. It was recently explained to me that the higher RPMs taxes the cardiovascular system more and the lower RPMs taxes the skeletal-muscular system more. I think it just depends on the individual.
My gearing is 50/46/24 with an 8 speed 11-32 cassette (606% range) Cobbled it all together from different parts. Downshift to 24 ring is tricky, but it works.
you nailed it when you said road bikes of 15 years ago. I ride a 2009 Ridley and its 53-39. I upgraded the cassette to 11-28, it came 11-26. Fun bike to ride, but not up hill. I'd rather ride my mtn bike w a 1x wide range cassette.
Went from a 50/34 with 11-32 cassette (Ultegra 6800) to a 48/35 10-36 (SRAM Red). I like the 48-10 and the 35-36 which are additions to the Ultegra range. Especially that low gear.
I don't mind the smaller gears: I now use a 30/46 chainring with an 11-34 cassette. It's not a very fast setup, but most days I never need or want to exceed 30km, for any reason. At this point in my life, I'm much more interested in injury prevention than in riding fast.
48-36-30 sugino 165 triple, 11-36 xt 10 SPD cassette, ene barcons, campy trp fder, Xtr rapid rise rder. Amazing setup for being old, in the way, and in the mts.
I run 53/39 chain rings and 36/11 cassette as a bike messenger / courier in Edinburgh. Gets me up the steepest hills in the city and I can keep up with the flow of traffic everywhere. I used to run a 1x but I felt the chain wore out quicker cause of an inefficient chainline.
Converted my 53/39 to a 53 1X setup with a 12-25 cassette as I'm living in a superflat area where Strava congratulates me when I do 10meters of elevation on a 60Km ride. Way easier to clean around the front chainring area when there is no front mech in place :D
I use a 52/36 up front with a hybrid 11 spd cluster "custom" built using two stock 11 spd Shimano clusters, 11-32 and 12-25, resulting in 13-32. If you can spin well, then you can delete those teeny end cogs and get either closer spacing or much more range at the low-speed end. On my commuter/gravel bike which also sees the occasional group road ride, I use this setup. Take the second position 13T from the 12-25 as the top gear on the 13-32. I get one tooth steps from 13-18 then 20,22,25,28 and 32. As a long time track rider and with 165mm cranks I can keep up on the descents no problem but also can go off road and climb until losing traction on the rear wheel before even reaching the granny. Mainly the lowest gearing is there for towing my biggest bike trailer which can carry hundreds of pounds and weighs almost 100 pounds empty. If there wasn't the need to occasionally tow with this bike, I would find a 12-25 to be comfortable for the terrain we have which is fairly mountainous, on Vancouver Island. That's what my TT bike has - which uses track cranks and a track 52T ring (1x)
Great show as usual guys. I can remember fitting a 14-24 6sp with my 52/40 back in 1978 and everyone was amazed at the range that gave at a time when a 13-18 straight through got used for everything! My default set up for road bikes has always been 52 something, usually 36 currently although it has been 34 with 11-29 at the rear for alpine riding🙃
50/34 compact with 12-28 cassette on my 10 speed (old Tiagra shifters with Ultegra 6600 derailleur). Works really well for me and I make use of all the range (I’d rarely, if ever use an 11t cog)
I run a 50/34 front, 12-25 10sp cassette, which is fine for the gently rolling terrain I ride over. If/whenI upgrade to Campag 12sp, I’d probably use a 48/32 crank and a 11-29 cassette. I don’t need a 50/11 gear, so a smaller crankset would give a little more at the low end.
I think the biggest drivers in the increased TDF/Grand Tour "average" speeds are: 1) the increase in the speed of the peloton in the beginning of the race where the time to establish the break is longer and much harder (faster speeds for longer). Where as in the past, the break tended to go sooner and the peloton went into cruise mode sooner. 2) The end of sprint stages is not driven by just one or two teams with everyone else just following, now there are multiple teams who drive the final 10-15kms with the intention of staying on the front in position.
BIgger chainrings allow to use bigger cassette cogs. On 12 speed it goes to 33 otr 36 or so. Bigger rings run more silently and are more efficient. Anything below 13T on a cassette is for sprinting. Frankly - with the ranges now available, it is pretty much trivial to run 1x on the road with medium sized chainring and 11-36 cassette.
I've always wondered about the viability of building a mini dynamo into one of the rear derailleur pulleys to trickle charge the system. Could maybe have an on/off switch or an auto disconnect to remove drag when its not needed
Started on 53/42 in the 80s, moved to 53/39 in the 90s. Cassettes for the non-pros don't need to go smaller than 12 Teeth, so there would be more room at the other end to go 36+ for climbing. More teeth equals more chain efficiency. Why throw away watts with a silly 10/11 tooth cog...
Problem is if you start a 12 speed cassette with a 14 you will end up with a 14-42 cassette and 60-46 up front. Throw in a freehub that would be considerably chunkier the added weight would be significant. The smallest sprockets are rarely used but with current front gearing it is possible for some people to be in those gears. My local club TT circuit has a slight downhill finish and if you have saved enough for a sprint finish you could be in your biggest gear if you have a standard/compact chainset option.
Post -COVID recovery: Prices for bikes need to come WAY down. If someone even shelled out $5-10K for a bike, they aren't going to let it go any time soon, if at all.
There are still plenty of people going for expensive bikes. People wanting budget bikes need to stop imagining they're going to get $5k features for $2k. There are $2k bikes, but they have different features
@@davemoss6976 Nothing to stop anyone from getting a bike with an OEM SA three speed, a Brompton for example. Nothing to stop anyone installing one on any bike.
In the days when I was racing (1960's) and training for those races I was on 54/42 x 13-26 and that was generally fine on of the hills. Still use a 54 on one of my bikes just to get that edge on speed.
I'm glad you said something, I raced in USCF sanctioned races in the 80s and standard gearing was 42/53 , if we were racing a crit we might run a 7 speed strait block but for everyday riding we ran 12/21 in back or you could get away with a 12/23 anything larger you would be considered a tourist.
roadbike: 50/34x 34/11 gravel: 48/32x 34/11 love to have easy gears to keep spining while climbing. i dont need harder gears for downhills so i am happy.
I recently purchased an endurance road bike after having riden a more aggressive crit bike with 52/39 x 11/21. At first, I hated the look of the new bike's 46/33 x 10/36 Sram drivetrain. It just didn't look like the bikes I have always riden nor the pro bikes seen on GCN. But I have to admit that it is way more suitable for the riding this 65 y.o .does each week.. Sometimes it's best to just swallow your pride and go have fun.
52/36 with an 11/34 cassette. I have this on 2 bikes a 2x11 and 2x12. I’m 66 yo. As my power curve has been dropping from my crit days in my 30s until now 😢🤬 I’ve reluctantly but gratefully made my hearing easier. 11-36 hopefully a couple more years away to help get up those 18+ % sections …I’ve already confirmed with my local bike shop that 34/52 can be done for when I hit 70 yo 🤪
My Canyon Endurace came with the standard 50/34 and 11/34 ranges with 105. Where we are in Sweden is fairly hilly, but the asphalt is rarely more than 8-10%. As I've gotten stronger, I've found those ranges aren't ideal, so switched to an 11-25 on the back, and will by going 52/36 on the front too. I wouldn't entertain using that ratio in the parts of the UK that we used to live though. I remember as a kid grinding up hills with my smallest gear being 42 to 23 and it was awful.
I run SRAM Force on my bikes and have a 48/35 crank with 12spd 11/34 on the back. I'm not a strong rider and I rarely find myself at the top of the block unless I'm going downhill, but even then I just freewheel. I find myself in the middle of the block most of the time running between gears 6-8. Putting it into 9 on the flats would definitely bring my cadence down and feels more like pushing gears like I did in the 80s.
With a really low cadence (Bert-Grabsch-style), I switched from 56/43 to 59/45 in 2022 up to 61/46 last year - all for a really fast descend, where I want(ed) to smash the 60 mph-mark. Maybe to some people it seems childish, but a fast descend is my personal kick I need. On the back I have 11-23 11speed, uphill I commonly ride with a cadence between 50 and 60 rpm. I tried lighter gears, but only got slower, and I felt losing power, so riding uphill with alow cadence offers me a kind of weight-training substitute.
Started cycling on 50/34 to 11-25 Cassette. Madness for a beginner in a hilly region. Had 50/34 to 11-32 later which was always great. Now 52/36 and 11-32 in the training and 11-36 in the alps (SRAM 11s 11-36 with the 105 r7000 rear derailleur is slightly Out of supported Specs but works fine in my Setup) . Going for gravel cranks will be an option to me If i head for the mortirolo one day. Smaller gears in general have the advantage that i can decide how hard i want to train even on 7-8% gradient. Not having to Go into survival mode is great 😅
Back in the '80s we trained up to handle 52/42 and 13-21 or 22, and wimps had 28s for the hills, on those resilient steel wonders that weighed 22#. The younger riders climbed the short hills around DC in their large rings. Middle aged riders like me struggled in 42-21 and got stronger. I raced with a 50 tooth chain ring once and got dropped. In a draft, 52 or 53 was insurance as well as it provided moderate cadence recovery. As a side note, the Paris-Roubaix riders still use big rings [55t!] on those cobble. Slower cadences stick the wheels on the cobbles better than fast cadences. Now, 50-11 is about the same as 52-13, but the larger gears provided slightly better leverage and wore longer. When spinning became the holy grail, riders seem to have gone overboard. But what goes around comes around. 54-11? Give me a break. Pedaling downhill at 45 mph is a waste of strength. Going into a full tuck is faster. I think races have gotten faster mainly because the bikes are 5# lighter and compact gearing is just not necessary.
Surprised you guys didn't mention the reduced internal friction in the chain with larger gears/cogs - due to less articulation of the links. I think this is a big part of why the Pros are moving bigger.
@@gcntech In a way the whole system is a compromise. Because if you took articulation efficiency to the extreme, extra large cassettes and chainrings combined would add significant weigt, and ither areas would be impacted. For the same speed/cadence as a 54/11, a 70 or an 80 tooth chainring would need a much bigger smallest sprocket, which in turn would need a much fatter freehub body. And this would present a larger frontal area, and impact bike design in a way as to require a much higher fitment of a front derailleur hanger than we see now.
I'm using Wickwerks ultrawide chain rings...53-34, with 11-34 on the back, giving as much as I can get for both uphill and down. I'd gladly change it for a 54-35 if they did one! I don't know why everyone isn't aiming at getting as wide a range as possible with as many gears in between as they can. 1x is only any good for CX! 😉
The overall spread of gears might be wider, but I was missing the physical aspect in the discussion. With a 54t chainring, you ride above the claimed average speeds (40+) in the first 4 cogs of a typical cassette, all through 11-14 tooth. You gotta be able to physically pedal that, power calculations might be misleading because most of the people sit in somebody's back most of the time, but that wasn't any difference 10 years ago...
I run 50/34 : 11/32 10s can be a little low in a fast flatter race, but gets me up even the hardest climbs when I'm bike packing - if I upgraded to 12s would probably keep the bottom of range ratio and increase size of everything
I want bigger chain rings on my bike, because I like the gear ratios at the back to be closer together, I worry about my pedal cadence, so keep it smooth and keep those gear ratios closer together. I don't have the cash to splash on all new chain rings and sprockets, but I want dinner plate size chain rings. If you have a 10 sprocket on the back, then the next gear ration up is the 11, that is a 10% jump. If your minimum sprocket was a 13, and the next one was a 14 that is more like a 7% jump. I just like closer gear ratios at the back. Back 25 years ago, you would buy cassettes with a minimum sprocket of 12 or 13, it was really a big deal when the 11 sprockets came out and now you have 10 sprockets. There were 53-39 chainsets but I always through of the standard being 52-42. When I have the cash to splash, I want to have a 13-23, straight through, with a 54-42 chainset, or even a triple chainset at the front.
I’m running 50/34 11-30 ultegra 6800 at the moment snd quite seriously considering a 1by 48 or 50T 10-52 setup for my next bike. I like the simplicity of 1by but I’m not so sure about the jumps between gears.
Once you mentioned 54-40, I looked at the NOS mirror-finished Dura ace 7800 (53-39) I just bought and thought "all I want for Xmas is my 2 front teeth"!!!
I remember Victor Campenaerts from a few years ago using the monster chainring, seems like if anyone tries something different and gets results, the following season they’re all doing it.
Road bike is a common 52/38 with 11/34 cassette, TT bike has either 50, 52, 58, or 60t chainring depending on terrain and length of race and either 10/28 or 10/33 cassette.
I do wish bike companies would offer a bigger selection of gearing and crank lengths. At 6ft 2 I generally ride an XL this means I'll get 175 cranks with no option. At 54 years old with joint issues I'd like to have the option of easier gearing with shorter cranks but I have to change these things after paying out expensive money for a new bike. That's not cool!
What size chainrings do you have on your bike? let us know 👇
first like
@@HaPpyYDiNnoSauR what do you think of big chainrings?!
Ultegra 50/34 with a SRAM 11-36 and Ultegra medium cage derailleur. Great to have a genuine bailout gear.
Rotor 54/42 with Ultegra 11-30 😬
46/30 with 11-36 :-D
I'll be the peasant in the room. 50/39/30 chainrings with an 11-32 8-speed cassette. Perfect for scooting around town even when loaded up with my work stuff
There's nothing wrong with it. I have plenty of fancy bikes but ride a cheap and reliable Shimano triple on my commuter. Works great!
Edit: mines a 48/38/28 with 11-28 cassette (9 SPD)
Triple mafia checking in
@@zogworth long live the 3x
All the range you’ll ever need. Love it.
I bought a new endurance bike last year. It came with 12-speed Shimano 105 with 50/34 chainrings and an 11-34 cassette. Before collecting the bike I sold the 11-34 to the dealer and had them put an 11-36 on instead, so it only cost me about £15 to have the exchange done and, living in a very hilly part of Wales, I think that is a fantastic combo for the hilly terrain I live in.
That 36 is so useful
@@gurinderkular7209 Even if it is 'just' two extra teeth it allows me to get up even the steepest hills where I live, mostly without tears in my eyes 😄
Great. Most bikes seem to get sold overgeared, because the general population pedals at too low a cadence. I won't even consider a bicycle without atleast a 1:1 granny gear.
When I started cycling, around 1970, I used a 52/42. I changed to 53/39 around 2010. Still using that with Ultegra 6800 set.
The Ultegra 6800 is a modern classic 👌
You’re an absolute tank!💪 Hats off to you scchua!
About 17 years ago, I tried moving my then Grandpa’s De Bernadi that had dura ace 7400 groupset on it, he ran 55/41! In short, I can’t move anything over 51😭
Same here !
When I started racing in the mid-70’s I also had a 42/52, used a 14-22 5 speed freewheel for road races and 14-18 for crits. Can’t imagine using those gears today!
EVERYONE had 52/42 in the 70s and 80s....
The trick with larger chainrings is the low end on the cassettes has gotten much lower. The increase in chainring probably just offsets the reduction in the rear so their climbing is exactly the same as it was prior, but the top end is MUCH higher.
It's in both directions but mostly toward smaller overall gear ratios/larger cogs for easier climbing. 56t has been around for a long time. 10t cogs on the small end and anything larger than 27t is what's new.
hmm, smaller cogs plus larger chainring equals larger gear inches, there's no offset. A 56 chainring and 10 cog gives a massive 149 gear inches. You just need to be massively strong to make use of such a gear, end of story.
In the early 90's when i was racing, a 52t chainring was standard (even for pros), and a 13-18 freewheel. 12t cogs were starting to appear, and sometimes you'd read about a top sprinter using a 54t chainring for a sprint stage. 54-12 is 120 inches, 52-13 is 107.
The only difference is a massive increase in rider strength amongst the pros.
Ollie, we were waxing our chains and changing grease in our bearings for oil in the 80's. rim brakes would have also thrown you over the handlebars if you pulled them too much. Nutrition and training is the difference
The increased range of the cassettes is defintely one of the biggest reasons for larger chainrings. My older bike is 105 with an 11-28 10-cog cassette and 50/34 chainrings. My new bike is Ultegra with an 11-30 11-speed cassette and 52/36 chainrings. The larger range in the back allows me to be able to ride with the larger chainrings while still maintaining a similar gear ratio (34/28 vs. 36/30) at the bottom end.
do you find that you use the bigger gears you gained on the top end?
@@raycath0de Only downhill in a tailwind ;)
@@darrylhuculak4996 hell yeah hahaha
For my hilly city, 34:34 is a minimum.....
I had a 52/36 with a 11/25 years ago. It's not the adoption of bigger fear ratios, it's the move to "bigger" tyres that can facilitate bigger gears. However, the average chainrings went from 53/39 to 50/34 or smaller as my Grevil has 48/35 with an 11/28 or 11/33.
My guess is the move in the pro Peloton to 54/40 or higher is because they are producing more power.
Don't see any comments along the lines of how big your "motor" is that's driving the chainring/transmission so-to-speak. Cutting to the chase, how many watts of power we all have at a particular moment available determines how tall of a gear we can push. I've noticed over the years, that early season when I'm at a lower level of fitness I tend to be in the lower gears more. Whereas later in the season, over those same roads/trails, that I will constantly find myself in the higher/taller gears and not using the lower gears as much. To turn taller gears you need more watts (bigger motor)! Pros can turn a 54+ chainring. At 67 years old, I'm now finding the compact crank to be more along my liking.
To turn larger gears you can alternatively get away with more strength. Because I lift weights I find that I can push the big gears even when I'm not as fit. I just push them more slowly in that case.
Finally doubles are getting wide ranges with tight cadence steps to match 52/39/26 triples I’ve been using for the last 30+ years - setups that give me even straighter chainlines, smaller steps, and huge range, with minimal weight penalty. Progress!
Triples are underrated, ride one, for 90% of the time, in the middle chaining with good chain angles.
I've been riding 52-42 chain rings with a 6-speed 14-24 freewheel for about 20 years. Typically end up cross chaining to avoid the small chain ring, so now I'm upgrading to 46-34 chainrings with an 8-speed 13-32 cassette...
As I get older ( almost 65) my gears are closer and lower. I can climb anything in 39x30, and I don't need anything harder than 39x13. So I have one chainring and if the wind is at my back or it's downhill, I coast. I love retro. I love 5 and 6 and 7 speed freewheels. My latest project is a 5-speed. I crossed Canada on an 8-speed. But each to their own.
A couple things;
Larger diameter chainrings and cassettes are theoretically more efficient as there should be less frictional loss from chain link articulation. (Same concept as what is claimed with the Ceramic Speed OSPW.)
Pros consistently using an 11-34 cassette, they are likely taking advantage of an improved chainline by keeping the chain more central on the cassette for more of the time. (This has been the case in time trials for a while with the massive 60+ tooth setups)
Alex is owning this episode! Way to go!
Alex is in his happy place 🙌
Bigger is better as far as easier also in front chain rings. One of your wattage test said that the small cog in the back uses/looses/waste/takes more watts to turn so why not go bigger in the front to stay in the bigger in the rear. Testing has proved bigger trying to rear is better
Not only that but using more teeth = less wear on chain and cogs
Ollie, I was figuring the large chainrings were a marginal gain w/respect to chain friction. Larger ring reduces tension on the chain, reducing friction.
This is the correct answer. Can't believe they missed it.
Got a SRAM force etap with 48/35 in the front and 10-33 on the back and absolutely love the wide range of gearing.
Ultegra cyclocross gearing with an even smaller small ring is the bees knees! 46/34. GRX 810 derailleur allows for an 11-34 cassette on the road setup, with 11-42 (separate chain) on the gravel wheels.
I live in a very flat area, not a single climb longer than 2-4 minutes anywhere I ride. I mainly race very flat criteriums and the occasional road race, along with a lot of club group rides on the weekends in the summer. I have no problems running my 53/39 chain-set with an 11 speed 11/32 cassette. I could probly even run an 11/28 if i wanted most of the time, but im a bit of a heavier rider (95kg) so its nice to have that 32 in back when I want to take it super easy up a hill. I have found that when i do adventure somewhere with longer/steeper climbs though this setup is not ideal.
I know this makes me sound old, but my first real road bike in the 70s came with "criterium" gearing: Campagnolo Record with a 44-54 chainring and 13-18 "straight block" freewheel. I rode that on the flat and on hills, including a 2-day double century, until I could afford a 42-52 chainring and a 13-21 freewheel. A different time.
1960s used to race on 44/52 with14-23.44 was the smallest on Campagnolo at the time with151 BCD. Latter changed to 144 BCD allowing a 42T. Now ride 1980s steely, the same Record 42T with Di2 Shimano 11 speed Alfine gear hub (409% range). Reduced winter cleaning by 90% Now 77 and noticed bottom gear needed reduces at about 1" per cycling year!
On my old 1982 Reynolds steel tubing Puch bike, I have a 52/43 Shimano Biopace Oval Chainrings. On my newer S Works SL6, I use a Spanish Rotor Oval chainrings 52/34. Been riding oval rings all my life!
Instead of 11/34 I’d really welcome something like 12/34 or even larger as the default cassette for anything less than 12-speed. I use the 50-11 combo only in rare descending occasions and would be more than happy to trade it for smaller gaps between gears.
I ride Shimano 105 11speed - 50/34 with 11-34 cassette. I live in an area that is primarily hilly with some flats and a variety of climbs, short and long. This set up is fantastic for every terrain in my experience.
My first, very cheap ten-speed back in the early '80s had a 52-42 in front and a 14-22 in the back (on the plus side, it was Campagnolo). I for one welcome the very short gearings of today (I have a touring bike with Deore 2x10, 40-28 in the front and 11-34 in the back, and it's fine like that).
I see Nigel Tufnel helped with the script at 7:16
Regarding gearing. I just picked up a 63 Bianchi Specialissima. The thing is a perfect time capsule, right down to the factory installed cable crimps. Anyway, gearing? 54/46 in the front and 13-24 5sp in the rear. The last part of my typical ride is a mile long drag of average 7%. Half way home I'm standing on the pedals imagining I'm Fausto.
On my racing tandem I run 44T-56T chainrings and 11-34 cassette for both ITT & Road Racing. Been running this set up for 3.5 years.
My first racing gears as a Junior in the late 80's...52/42 chainrings with 15-19 5-speed freewheel. 12-23 tooth cassette with a 39-tooth chainring a few years later was considered "mountain" gearing. Oh, my, how times have changed.
When I started racing in the mid 80s I ran a 53/42 chainset with a 13 -21 cassette. I now run a 52/36 with a 11-30 cassette.
As a youth I ran 42/52 with either an 11/18 or 12/26 7 speed freewheel. This was the standard set up of the day. Now running compact 34/50 with 13/29 cassette. Much easier on the knees!
Spinning is winning! Were you faster on the old gears?
I moved to a hilly area 2 years ago and also added some 5-10kg luggage to my bike. This forced me to find a peculiar chainring combination of 48-32 for 110 BCD spider! Even with 2 teeth difference, it's noticeably easier to climb :)
How come you've added the weight? Sounds like you might be going bike packing 👀
In my 60th year, I decided to upgrade to a new Cannondale Quick 1 Hybrid….50/34, 11-32 Cassette. Its still going to be about 8 weeks until all the snow melts, but I am eager to feel the difference my new gearing makes on my rides.
I rode a 53x39 with a 12x21 cassette back in the day. 8 speed. I can not imagine riding a 53 today. Of course, I am 57 now ...
At slightly older than you, I'm happy I can still turn the 53t though it's more little work than it was when I was in my twenties and thirties.
I can probably still turn it ... on the descent, off a big climb.@@christopheroliver148
Fast gearing
My first bike in the 90s was a 52/42 with 7 speed cassette 12-28.
Now a 50/34 with 11 speed 11-34 cassette.
Chainrings have been the most important thing for sure ever since your average high end TT bike started being sold with enough gearing to hike up Mount Everest while towing a trailer and still spinning out at 4 mph.
I ride 58 and it’s beautiful on a flat ride. I don’t particularly enjoy going uphill.
we imagine it must be a bit of a grind going uphill!
Two additional angles on the gearing topic: 1) clued in pro teams are trying to avoid using 10t cogs as much as possible, and hopefully, 11t too. No question, the 10t bleeds watts. So the ‘actual’ versus ‘nominal’ high gear in the back is 11 or 12, and it’s even better to stay in the middle of the cassette most of the time. Thus: bigger chain ring/s. 2) I suspect average cadences are actually down from the Lance era. EPO was great for high cadence outputs, but now it’s more economical to run closer to what, 85-90rpm? If I’m right, bigger rings also make more sense.
Campagnolo found that the difference 1 tooth makes it 0.1 watt for the same chainline, hence they moved to 10t small sprocket on their latest Super Record wireless. SRAM gives away 5 Watts because their chain and tooth profiles on their 12 speed system is less efficient.
Maximal efficiency comes from a straight chain line - so your optimal gear ratio has to be in the sprocket on the cassette that is directly behind the chainring. Less of an issue with 6 or 7 speed as a wide chain would not need to articulate much in extreme gears. 11 and 12 speed pitches a much narrower chain to a tighter angle because the block is wider at the rear.
Cadence is based on personal preference, and for the most part settling on a happy medium. The Armstrong era came about because sports scientists realised that ultra low cadence could cause damage, as ex-pros suffered with knee problems when races started going up harder climbs. With more gears starting to appear at the back wider ratios meant you had the opportunity to run easier gears for climbing without sacrificing the high gear close ratios for flatter racing. Froome spins at high cadence, and so do many climbers now. Being able to start an attack from a comfortable cadence is much more decisive than trying to get on top of a big gear.
@@matt_acton-varian I’m with you, except on the 11 versus 10t efficiency loss. I’ve never heard anywhere else that the loss with a 10 is near as low as 0.1 watt. That’s so small that it would tend to be considered statistically insignificant, no?
@@ChlorophyllCrusher That was according to Campagnolo press release based on research for their Super Record Wireless groupset - which utilises a 10-29 cassette and smaller front chainrings. Unlike SRAM with their 12 speed concept, Campagnolo have kept the standard roller and pin size as opposed to SRAM'S slightly oversized system.
By the time an amateur reaches speeds requiring such a gear either you are going downhill so are barely pedalling, or are sprinting at full gas by which time your losses will be a very small percentage of your output.
As a non-racing bicycle commuter and A to B up to 100 miles, I found 52*13 was not enough. I'd spin out on the level with a following breeze or even slightly downhill. But, back then, you had to compromise coping with 42*28 (could get up a 25% gradient with difficulty) as the lowest you could go with a Suntour Ultra6 and the gear mechs of the time.
What's your cadence though? With a cadence of 85 to 90, you should be moving in the region of 45 to 50 kph on 52*13.
40 tooth inner ring fits a 130 BCD, there were a lot of racing cranks back then with 52/40 rings. 40x28 was a pretty good bailout gear for a race bike if you were in any sort of shape.
Back home in Finland I use the 39-53 chainrings and 11-25 casette. When I Travel to south (Dolomites, Italy, Mallorca, Spain etc) I change for 36-50 chainrings and 11-30 casette.
"It looks like a WW2 photo." 🤣
When I bought my Specialized Allez it came with 3x9 Shimano Sora gears - 50/39/30 chainrings and 12-25 cassette. It still has the same chainrings (for the time being) but I recently changed the cassette for an 11-32. The plan is to change the chainrings to a 2x setup with 50/34T as I find the middle ring too big and the small ring to small for the hills where I live.
I went from a 52/42 to a 50/39/30. As an over 100 kilo rider, the new gears are heaven in the hills!
I am about to try a 60t front 1x with a 11-46 rear
60-11 is 146 gear inches. You're either an olympic sportsmen, or you ride only downhill
Running Garbaruk 48 Oval chainring and 12 speed 11-52 cassette with Force1 with ratiotech 12 speed ratchet upgrade. Only losing ~ 2kph with 48/11 at 95rpm compared to 50/11 ratio. I’m not a strong enough cyclist to pull max speeds on flats anyway, so the delta is imperceptible to me. The biggest benefit is the climbing with 48/52 ratio; plenty of hills where I live. It’s truly amazing what the pros are doing on those massive ratios, particularly climbing (42/34, etc..)
My 2003 Giant road bike came with 50/34 carbon front and rear forks , always found hills a challenge until I got bike fit each year … now 68 almost 69 , and still ride this bike as it’s so expensive getting new ones .. will see how this year pans out too on that front …
Like the chat on chainring size, I just wish, for the everyday person, that the compact Chainset be made just that, ie a 46/30 as in the current gravel combo. For most, unless you race, this is a really good combo with an 11-34 cassette, covers pretty much most needs.
For a vintage steel bike, with a nice Campy 53/39, I just ordered a Miche 13-29 ten speed cassette. I can't really use the smallest cogs, so ditch them. The modern road bike for endurance rides has a 46/34 paired with an 11-32 cassette. And finally, for light touring I like 44/28 paired with an 11-32 cassette.
One major difference you didn't mention that helps increase descent speeds is tires. I rode 19mm 110 psi tires in the 70's & 80's and there is just no comparison to the improved handling, traction, and comfort of my current 32mm 50 psi tubeless setup.
They had a subjective test with 50mm tyres, I think something like Schwalbe Supermoto, winning out. I honestly suspect the uci is holding Roadbikes back from being as good as can be on that. Motorbikes are way longer Slacker and weigh180+ kg more n handle fine. Maybe a light XC MTB frame with rigid fork would be a better roadbike if descending matters.
I always used a 53x39 until 2 years ago and went with compact, best move ever, don’t race anymore and can now climb hills but also older
People criticized me some ~7 years ago when i was racing. Because i had a 9 speed group set but had Shimano 600 54-42 crank set but i compensated in Hill climb with a 11-32 cassette.
Miss that gearing so much
New bike equipped with Ultegra 53/39 front, 11-30 out back. For mere mortal me, on steep climbs, that left me looking for at least another click down. Thus, swapped out the cassette for 11-34, and I was back in business. The bigger back cassette seems like a no-brainer with the wider chainring.
I usually ride a 50-36, but I will have a hill climb race in several month, this is my "big event of the year" on the Mt Fuji, the course is 24km with a 5.1% average gradient so not a very steep climb. I plane to go with a 48-43 for this race to keep the best chain line everytime with the best efficiency (bigger chainring =better efficiency because of less chain friction where it matter the most so that make sens with the 34t cassette becoming the standard, pros ride bigger chainrings).
I have just switched out my 11/28 for a 11/34 with a 50/34 chainring. I was expecting more of a difference. While each individual rotation of the crank is easier it takes more of them to climb a hill so the overall effort is about the same. It was recently explained to me that the higher RPMs taxes the cardiovascular system more and the lower RPMs taxes the skeletal-muscular system more. I think it just depends on the individual.
My gearing is 50/46/24 with an 8 speed 11-32 cassette (606% range)
Cobbled it all together from different parts.
Downshift to 24 ring is tricky, but it works.
That's what I got, 8 speed 11-32 cassette. It does 99% of everything. I am happy with it.
you nailed it when you said road bikes of 15 years ago. I ride a 2009 Ridley and its 53-39. I upgraded the cassette to 11-28, it came 11-26. Fun bike to ride, but not up hill. I'd rather ride my mtn bike w a 1x wide range cassette.
Went from a 50/34 with 11-32 cassette (Ultegra 6800) to a 48/35 10-36 (SRAM Red). I like the 48-10 and the 35-36 which are additions to the Ultegra range. Especially that low gear.
I don't mind the smaller gears: I now use a 30/46 chainring with an 11-34 cassette. It's not a very fast setup, but most days I never need or want to exceed 30km, for any reason. At this point in my life, I'm much more interested in injury prevention than in riding fast.
48-36-30 sugino 165 triple, 11-36 xt 10 SPD cassette, ene barcons, campy trp fder, Xtr rapid rise rder. Amazing setup for being old, in the way, and in the mts.
I run 53/39 chain rings and 36/11 cassette as a bike messenger / courier in Edinburgh. Gets me up the steepest hills in the city and I can keep up with the flow of traffic everywhere. I used to run a 1x but I felt the chain wore out quicker cause of an inefficient chainline.
Converted my 53/39 to a 53 1X setup with a 12-25 cassette as I'm living in a superflat area where Strava congratulates me when I do 10meters of elevation on a 60Km ride.
Way easier to clean around the front chainring area when there is no front mech in place :D
When I had Shimano 11spd, I ran 52/36 and 11-30. Now with Sram, I run 48/35 and 10-33.
I use a 52/36 up front with a hybrid 11 spd cluster "custom" built using two stock 11 spd Shimano clusters, 11-32 and 12-25, resulting in 13-32. If you can spin well, then you can delete those teeny end cogs and get either closer spacing or much more range at the low-speed end. On my commuter/gravel bike which also sees the occasional group road ride, I use this setup. Take the second position 13T from the 12-25 as the top gear on the 13-32. I get one tooth steps from 13-18 then 20,22,25,28 and 32. As a long time track rider and with 165mm cranks I can keep up on the descents no problem but also can go off road and climb until losing traction on the rear wheel before even reaching the granny. Mainly the lowest gearing is there for towing my biggest bike trailer which can carry hundreds of pounds and weighs almost 100 pounds empty. If there wasn't the need to occasionally tow with this bike, I would find a 12-25 to be comfortable for the terrain we have which is fairly mountainous, on Vancouver Island. That's what my TT bike has - which uses track cranks and a track 52T ring (1x)
1x with a 44T chainring and an 11-42 cassette. Front derailleurs are terrible - 1x for life!
I've never had a front derailleur that worked right.
Two is better for efficiency
Great show as usual guys.
I can remember fitting a 14-24 6sp with my 52/40 back in 1978 and everyone was amazed at the range that gave at a time when a 13-18 straight through got used for everything! My default set up for road bikes has always been 52 something, usually 36 currently although it has been 34 with 11-29 at the rear for alpine riding🙃
50/34 compact with 12-28 cassette on my 10 speed (old Tiagra shifters with Ultegra 6600 derailleur). Works really well for me and I make use of all the range (I’d rarely, if ever use an 11t cog)
I run a 50/34 front, 12-25 10sp cassette, which is fine for the gently rolling terrain I ride over. If/whenI upgrade to Campag 12sp, I’d probably use a 48/32 crank and a 11-29 cassette. I don’t need a 50/11 gear, so a smaller crankset would give a little more at the low end.
I think the biggest drivers in the increased TDF/Grand Tour "average" speeds are:
1) the increase in the speed of the peloton in the beginning of the race where the time to establish the break is longer and much harder (faster speeds for longer). Where as in the past, the break tended to go sooner and the peloton went into cruise mode sooner.
2) The end of sprint stages is not driven by just one or two teams with everyone else just following, now there are multiple teams who drive the final 10-15kms with the intention of staying on the front in position.
BIgger chainrings allow to use bigger cassette cogs. On 12 speed it goes to 33 otr 36 or so. Bigger rings run more silently and are more efficient. Anything below 13T on a cassette is for sprinting. Frankly - with the ranges now available, it is pretty much trivial to run 1x on the road with medium sized chainring and 11-36 cassette.
I've always wondered about the viability of building a mini dynamo into one of the rear derailleur pulleys to trickle charge the system. Could maybe have an on/off switch or an auto disconnect to remove drag when its not needed
Started on 53/42 in the 80s, moved to 53/39 in the 90s. Cassettes for the non-pros don't need to go smaller than 12 Teeth, so there would be more room at the other end to go 36+ for climbing. More teeth equals more chain efficiency. Why throw away watts with a silly 10/11 tooth cog...
Problem is if you start a 12 speed cassette with a 14 you will end up with a 14-42 cassette and 60-46 up front. Throw in a freehub that would be considerably chunkier the added weight would be significant. The smallest sprockets are rarely used but with current front gearing it is possible for some people to be in those gears. My local club TT circuit has a slight downhill finish and if you have saved enough for a sprint finish you could be in your biggest gear if you have a standard/compact chainset option.
Post -COVID recovery: Prices for bikes need to come WAY down. If someone even shelled out $5-10K for a bike, they aren't going to let it go any time soon, if at all.
There are still plenty of people going for expensive bikes. People wanting budget bikes need to stop imagining they're going to get $5k features for $2k. There are $2k bikes, but they have different features
I run a 42/20 with a sturmy archer 3 speed hub. 😎
Truth be told, that would probably be an ideal low maintenance set up for most riders, but the industry won't allow it.
@@davemoss6976 Nothing to stop anyone from getting a bike with an OEM SA three speed, a Brompton for example. Nothing to stop anyone installing one on any bike.
In the days when I was racing (1960's) and training for those races I was on 54/42 x 13-26 and that was generally fine on of the hills. Still use a 54 on one of my bikes just to get that edge on speed.
That 42 ia sure a throwback to earlier times. That was when you ground/stomped your way up a climb!
watching the pro's climb on 42x23 make us drop our jaws!
I'm glad you said something, I raced in USCF sanctioned races in the 80s and standard gearing was 42/53 , if we were racing a crit we might run a 7 speed strait block but for everyday riding we ran 12/21 in back or you could get away with a 12/23 anything larger you would be considered a tourist.
roadbike: 50/34x 34/11
gravel: 48/32x 34/11
love to have easy gears to keep spining while climbing.
i dont need harder gears for downhills so i am happy.
I recently purchased an endurance road bike after having riden a more aggressive crit bike with 52/39 x 11/21. At first, I hated the look of the new bike's 46/33 x 10/36 Sram drivetrain. It just didn't look like the bikes I have always riden nor the pro bikes seen on GCN. But I have to admit that it is way more suitable for the riding this 65 y.o .does each week.. Sometimes it's best to just swallow your pride and go have fun.
52/36 with an 11/34 cassette. I have this on 2 bikes a 2x11 and 2x12. I’m 66 yo. As my power curve has been dropping from my crit days in my 30s until now 😢🤬 I’ve reluctantly but gratefully made my hearing easier. 11-36 hopefully a couple more years away to help get up those 18+ % sections …I’ve already confirmed with my local bike shop that 34/52 can be done for when I hit 70 yo 🤪
22:44 I searched for the Lord of Lube online, i didn’t find Adam but many disturbing photos 😅😂
My Canyon Endurace came with the standard 50/34 and 11/34 ranges with 105. Where we are in Sweden is fairly hilly, but the asphalt is rarely more than 8-10%. As I've gotten stronger, I've found those ranges aren't ideal, so switched to an 11-25 on the back, and will by going 52/36 on the front too.
I wouldn't entertain using that ratio in the parts of the UK that we used to live though. I remember as a kid grinding up hills with my smallest gear being 42 to 23 and it was awful.
I run SRAM Force on my bikes and have a 48/35 crank with 12spd 11/34 on the back. I'm not a strong rider and I rarely find myself at the top of the block unless I'm going downhill, but even then I just freewheel. I find myself in the middle of the block most of the time running between gears 6-8. Putting it into 9 on the flats would definitely bring my cadence down and feels more like pushing gears like I did in the 80s.
With a really low cadence (Bert-Grabsch-style), I switched from 56/43 to 59/45 in 2022 up to 61/46 last year - all for a really fast descend, where I want(ed) to smash the 60 mph-mark. Maybe to some people it seems childish, but a fast descend is my personal kick I need. On the back I have 11-23 11speed, uphill I commonly ride with a cadence between 50 and 60 rpm. I tried lighter gears, but only got slower, and I felt losing power, so riding uphill with alow cadence offers me a kind of weight-training substitute.
61/46 is a massive crank
In the past standard chainrings were 53-42 or 55-42
Started cycling on 50/34 to 11-25 Cassette. Madness for a beginner in a hilly region. Had 50/34 to 11-32 later which was always great. Now 52/36 and 11-32 in the training and 11-36 in the alps (SRAM 11s 11-36 with the 105 r7000 rear derailleur is slightly Out of supported Specs but works fine in my Setup) . Going for gravel cranks will be an option to me If i head for the mortirolo one day. Smaller gears in general have the advantage that i can decide how hard i want to train even on 7-8% gradient. Not having to Go into survival mode is great 😅
nobody wants to go into survival mode!
Back in the '80s we trained up to handle 52/42 and 13-21 or 22, and wimps had 28s for the hills, on those resilient steel wonders that weighed 22#. The younger riders climbed the short hills around DC in their large rings. Middle aged riders like me struggled in 42-21 and got stronger. I raced with a 50 tooth chain ring once and got dropped. In a draft, 52 or 53 was insurance as well as it provided moderate cadence recovery.
As a side note, the Paris-Roubaix riders still use big rings [55t!] on those cobble. Slower cadences stick the wheels on the cobbles better than fast cadences.
Now, 50-11 is about the same as 52-13, but the larger gears provided slightly better leverage and wore longer. When spinning became the holy grail, riders seem to have gone overboard. But what goes around comes around.
54-11? Give me a break. Pedaling downhill at 45 mph is a waste of strength. Going into a full tuck is faster.
I think races have gotten faster mainly because the bikes are 5# lighter and compact gearing is just not necessary.
Surprised you guys didn't mention the reduced internal friction in the chain with larger gears/cogs - due to less articulation of the links. I think this is a big part of why the Pros are moving bigger.
a bigger chainring does seem to "roll" better
@@gcntech In a way the whole system is a compromise. Because if you took articulation efficiency to the extreme, extra large cassettes and chainrings combined would add significant weigt, and ither areas would be impacted. For the same speed/cadence as a 54/11, a 70 or an 80 tooth chainring would need a much bigger smallest sprocket, which in turn would need a much fatter freehub body. And this would present a larger frontal area, and impact bike design in a way as to require a much higher fitment of a front derailleur hanger than we see now.
My bike came with Shimano 105 (group set of the people!!!) 50/34 chainring and 11/34 cassette. I’d love a 11/36 cassette
17hr road trip guys sounds fine! A farm I visit in Australia has a driveway that takes 8hrs to get from the front gate to the front door:) Toughen up.
I'm using Wickwerks ultrawide chain rings...53-34, with 11-34 on the back, giving as much as I can get for both uphill and down. I'd gladly change it for a 54-35 if they did one! I don't know why everyone isn't aiming at getting as wide a range as possible with as many gears in between as they can. 1x is only any good for CX! 😉
Awesome video. Thanks for sharing. It would be great to see more of these with natural sound and with and without commentary.
Music is not necessary.
The overall spread of gears might be wider, but I was missing the physical aspect in the discussion. With a 54t chainring, you ride above the claimed average speeds (40+) in the first 4 cogs of a typical cassette, all through 11-14 tooth. You gotta be able to physically pedal that, power calculations might be misleading because most of the people sit in somebody's back most of the time, but that wasn't any difference 10 years ago...
I run 50/34 : 11/32 10s can be a little low in a fast flatter race, but gets me up even the hardest climbs when I'm bike packing - if I upgraded to 12s would probably keep the bottom of range ratio and increase size of everything
I want bigger chain rings on my bike, because I like the gear ratios at the back to be closer together, I worry about my pedal cadence, so keep it smooth and keep those gear ratios closer together.
I don't have the cash to splash on all new chain rings and sprockets, but I want dinner plate size chain rings.
If you have a 10 sprocket on the back, then the next gear ration up is the 11, that is a 10% jump. If your minimum sprocket was a 13, and the next one was a 14 that is more like a 7% jump. I just like closer gear ratios at the back.
Back 25 years ago, you would buy cassettes with a minimum sprocket of 12 or 13, it was really a big deal when the 11 sprockets came out and now you have 10 sprockets. There were 53-39 chainsets but I always through of the standard being 52-42.
When I have the cash to splash, I want to have a 13-23, straight through, with a 54-42 chainset, or even a triple chainset at the front.
I’m running 50/34 11-30 ultegra 6800 at the moment snd quite seriously considering a 1by 48 or 50T 10-52 setup for my next bike. I like the simplicity of 1by but I’m not so sure about the jumps between gears.
Once you mentioned 54-40, I looked at the NOS mirror-finished Dura ace 7800 (53-39) I just bought and thought "all I want for Xmas is my 2 front teeth"!!!
I remember Victor Campenaerts from a few years ago using the monster chainring, seems like if anyone tries something different and gets results, the following season they’re all doing it.
Got myself a climber 11-46 cassette and 22-32-42 in front. MTB of course.
Simple - I live in Nepal, so……46/30 with an 11-40 cassette!
😂 understandable!
For that Cervelo R3 reupload, please reinstall one of those tires so that the logo pairings match.
Great show today guys. That Colnago cross bike was epic!
thanks!
Road bike is a common 52/38 with 11/34 cassette, TT bike has either 50, 52, 58, or 60t chainring depending on terrain and length of race and either 10/28 or 10/33 cassette.
60T 🤯
I do wish bike companies would offer a bigger selection of gearing and crank lengths. At 6ft 2 I generally ride an XL this means I'll get 175 cranks with no option. At 54 years old with joint issues I'd like to have the option of easier gearing with shorter cranks but I have to change these things after paying out expensive money for a new bike. That's not cool!
1980s. 54/39 with 177.5 cranks. The club stud ran a 56 up front!
My 2011 Ghost 7500 Cross bike has a Shimano XT 10-Speed 48-36-26 / 11-36 at 72yo it has all the range I need.