Chainring sizes

Julian said:

Hi

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

No, your a fairly normal person, cycling at your comfort level.

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised that on many new bikes with doubles, the smallest ring
is 39! Whilst my bike is a bit on the heavy side, I don't think I
could possibly live with a double like that even on a lighter bike.

Most road bike mimic the gears used by professional athletes who race for 5
or so hours, then spend the rest of the day resting, eating, having massage
and sleeping. They may well average 30 mph.

Most people cycle (on the flat) at somewhere between 12 and 17 mph, for them
a 53-12 top gear is way to high and a 39-25 is not low enough to cope with
anything but small hills.

All in my opinion.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Andy Morris said:

Julian said:

Hi

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

No, your a fairly normal person, cycling at your comfort level.

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised that on many new bikes with doubles, the smallest ring
is 39! Whilst my bike is a bit on the heavy side, I don't think I
could possibly live with a double like that even on a lighter bike.

Most road bike mimic the gears used by professional athletes who race for 5
or so hours, then spend the rest of the day resting, eating, having massage
and sleeping. They may well average 30 mph.

Most people cycle (on the flat) at somewhere between 12 and 17 mph, for them
a 53-12 top gear is way to high and a 39-25 is not low enough to cope with
anything but small hills.

All in my opinion.

Too true - hence the trend for compact chainsets

Sounds perfectly normal and fine to me.

When I used to race (sometime go ahem...) virtually all of my non-specific
training (i.e. just getting the miles in...) was done on my inner (42) ring.

Cheers,
Graham

"Julian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

I'm surprised that on many new bikes with doubles, the smallest ring is
39! Whilst my bike is a bit on the heavy side, I don't think I could
possibly live with a double like that even on a lighter bike.
--
Julian

Graham Dean said:

Sounds perfectly normal and fine to me.

When I used to race (sometime go ahem...) virtually all of my non-specific
training (i.e. just getting the miles in...) was done on my inner (42) ring.

Cheers,
Graham

"Julian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

I'm surprised that on many new bikes with doubles, the smallest ring is
39! Whilst my bike is a bit on the heavy side, I don't think I could
possibly live with a double like that even on a lighter bike.
--
Julian

ISTR 52-42 with a 12-21 cog - 12-17 when I was *really* fit and 6 speed
blocks were the norm.

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised that on many new bikes with doubles, the smallest ring is
39! Whilst my bike is a bit on the heavy side, I don't think I could
possibly live with a double like that even on a lighter bike.

You can get up pretty much anything on a light bike with a 39x26/8 IMX, but
for long distances there is no substitute for a triple IMO

Julian of said:

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

Being a wimp I'd never had any use for my largest front ring - too high for
on the flat, and if I'm going downhill then I'm freewheeling. However,
enlightenment arrived in the form of Norfolk. Norfolk is low, but most
decidedly not flat. Norfolk specialises in gentle inclines of a sort not
encountered where I live up north. My large front ring is for the gentle
downward inclines of Norfolk, where the slope isn't steep enough to
freewheel, but I can bomb along at twice my normal speed.
--
In the fight between you and the world, back the world. - Frank Zappa
Steph Peters delete invalid from [email hidden]
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>

Julian said:

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

Absolutely not!

You might want to consider changing the cassette for something with a
smallest cog of maybe 14 teeth.

There are two reasons for this:
Firstly, what is the point in having a top gear that you hardly ever use?
Secondly, a cassette with 9 gears in the range 14-28 is obviously going
to give closer spacing between gears than a cassette with 9 gears in the
range 11-28, so you can fine tune your gear selection more precisely.

I speak from experience!

d.

davek said:

You might want to consider changing the cassette for something with a
smallest cog of maybe 14 teeth.

There are two reasons for this:
Firstly, what is the point in having a top gear that you hardly ever
use? Secondly, a cassette with 9 gears in the range 14-28 is
obviously going to give closer spacing between gears than a cassette
with 9 gears in the range 11-28, so you can fine tune your gear
selection more precisely.

I'll second that, I swaped from a 13-25 (13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25) to a
14-25 (14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25) and found the extra 18 made it a lot
easier to keep a good rythm up.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

in message <[email hidden]>, Steph Peters

(') said:

Julian of said:

My road bike is equipped with a 46-36-26 chainwheel and an 11 to 28
cassette. I only use the 46 on the dead level or downhill and average
15-20 mph depending on terrain - am I a wimp/granny?

Being a wimp I'd never had any use for my largest front ring - too
high for on the flat, and if I'm going downhill then I'm freewheeling.
However, enlightenment arrived in the form of Norfolk. Norfolk is
low, but most decidedly not flat. Norfolk specialises in gentle
inclines of a sort not encountered where I live up north. My large
front ring is for the gentle downward inclines of Norfolk, where the
slope isn't steep enough to freewheel, but I can bomb along at twice
my normal speed.

Look, I had meant to keep out of this, but it's getting ridiculous. I
have 52-42 front and 12-24 rear on my old road bike, which is a bit
tough for some hills, and 53-39 and 13-26 on my new one, which is fine.
I'm not a big tough guy and never have been. I'm no athlete and don't
wish to become one. My best cadence is mid eighties, and although I can
spin at a hundred and ten for a little while I can't sustain it for
long. I'm an ordinary, slightly unfit, slightly flabby forty-nine year
old.

Where I live is not flat. The local hills are as big as the biggest
hills in England, and the longest continuous climb in Britain is less
than thirty miles away. I can climb 300 metres within two miles of my
front door.

I find I use my large and small chainrings about equally. I find I spin
out on downhills, even in my highest gears. I very, very rarely have to
get out of my saddle on climbs. I haven't had to get off and walk on a
hill since I got my new bike.

If you find 'compact' chainsets suit you, that's great - they suit you.
They wouldn't suit me, and I'm an ordinary person. It is simply not the
case that the 'standard' 53-39 chainsets are only for professionals or
athletes. There's no reason to intimidate people.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Where I live is not flat. The local hills are as big as the biggest
hills in England, and the longest continuous climb in Britain is less
than thirty miles away. I can climb 300 metres within two miles of my
front door.

I find I use my large and small chainrings about equally. I find I spin
out on downhills, even in my highest gears. I very, very rarely have to
get out of my saddle on climbs. I haven't had to get off and walk on a
hill since I got my new bike.

Come and visit here then! What the hills lack in length they make up for in
steepness. I've no doubt you'll be able to ride them, but you will be out of
the saddle.

cheers,
clive

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:

: tough for some hills, and 53-39 and 13-26 on my new one, which is fine.
: I'm not a big tough guy and never have been. I'm no athlete and don't
: wish to become one.

I'm lighter than you and (probably) fitter than you. Certainly my '10'
time is quicker for what it's worth. I run 38/48 12+25 normally (including
for racing). When I go for really hard days out though (e.g. the Fred
Whitton) I run 34/48. I find that turning big gears up the hills is
fine but starts to hurt after 5-6 hours riding.

It's horses for courses.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

Steve said:

ISTR 52-42 with a 12-21 cog - 12-17 when I was *really* fit and
6 speed blocks were the norm.

When I were a lad it was a 5 speed block. 52-46 and 13-17. The old
timers used to look at us in despair, shake their heads and ask, "What
is the world coming to? How can anyone possibly need 10 gears? We used
to manage with 3. These lads should all be riding fixed anyway."

--
Dave...

Simon Brooke said:

Look, I had meant to keep out of this, but it's getting ridiculous. I
have 52-42 front and 12-24 rear on my old road bike, which is a bit
tough for some hills, and 53-39 and 13-26 on my new one, which is
fine. I'm not a big tough guy and never have been. I'm no athlete and
don't wish to become one. My best cadence is mid eighties, and
although I can spin at a hundred and ten for a little while I can't
sustain it for long. I'm an ordinary, slightly unfit, slightly flabby
forty-nine year old.

Where I live is not flat. The local hills are as big as the biggest
hills in England, and the longest continuous climb in Britain is less
than thirty miles away. I can climb 300 metres within two miles of my
front door.

What is the /gradient/ of the steepest hill that you regularly climb?

Quoted message said:

I find I use my large and small chainrings about equally. I find I
spin out on downhills, even in my highest gears. I very, very rarely
have to get out of my saddle on climbs. I haven't had to get off and
walk on a hill since I got my new bike.

If you find 'compact' chainsets suit you, that's great - they suit
you. They wouldn't suit me, and I'm an ordinary person. It is simply
not the case that the 'standard' 53-39 chainsets are only for
professionals or athletes. There's no reason to intimidate people.

Is your cadence really in the mid eighties when you climb steep hills? If
so (in 39x26) , you have more than an average amount of power and are more
athletic than you think. Less powerful riders benefit from lower gears.
39/53 chainsets and similar are designed for racing and serious training.
Trouble is, road bikes are also nice for more casual recreational cycling.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Simon Brooke said:

Look, I had meant to keep out of this, but it's getting ridiculous. I
have 52-42 front and 12-24 rear on my old road bike, which is a bit
tough for some hills, and 53-39 and 13-26 on my new one, which is
fine. I'm not a big tough guy and never have been. I'm no athlete and
don't wish to become one. My best cadence is mid eighties, and
although I can spin at a hundred and ten for a little while I can't
sustain it for long. I'm an ordinary, slightly unfit, slightly flabby
forty-nine year old.

Where I live is not flat. The local hills are as big as the biggest
hills in England, and the longest continuous climb in Britain is less
than thirty miles away. I can climb 300 metres within two miles of my
front door.

What is the /gradient/ of the steepest hill that you regularly climb?

For me it would be about 1 in 10, 1 in 9 with that gearing. I have moved to
a compact double and not regretted it (yet, the credit card bill hasn't made
a dent int eh floor yet).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I find I use my large and small chainrings about equally. I find I
spin out on downhills, even in my highest gears. I very, very rarely
have to get out of my saddle on climbs. I haven't had to get off and
walk on a hill since I got my new bike.

If you find 'compact' chainsets suit you, that's great - they suit
you. They wouldn't suit me, and I'm an ordinary person. It is simply
not the case that the 'standard' 53-39 chainsets are only for
professionals or athletes. There's no reason to intimidate people.

Is your cadence really in the mid eighties when you climb steep hills? If
so (in 39x26) , you have more than an average amount of power and are more
athletic than you think. Less powerful riders benefit from lower gears.
39/53 chainsets and similar are designed for racing and serious training.
Trouble is, road bikes are also nice for more casual recreational cycling.

I climbed a 1 in 10 last weekend with a 34/21 gearing and a reasonable
cadence. There was a strong tailwind though ;-)

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Look, I had meant to keep out of this, but it's getting ridiculous. I
have 52-42 front and 12-24 rear on my old road bike, which is a bit
tough for some hills, and 53-39 and 13-26 on my new one, which is
fine. I'm not a big tough guy and never have been. I'm no athlete and
don't wish to become one. My best cadence is mid eighties, and
although I can spin at a hundred and ten for a little while I can't
sustain it for long. I'm an ordinary, slightly unfit, slightly flabby
forty-nine year old.

Where I live is not flat. The local hills are as big as the biggest
hills in England, and the longest continuous climb in Britain is less
than thirty miles away. I can climb 300 metres within two miles of my
front door.

What is the /gradient/ of the steepest hill that you regularly climb?

The steepest I regularly on the road bike, probably 20%. The things I
climb on mountain bikes don't count, because of course they do have
amazingly low gears.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you find 'compact' chainsets suit you, that's great - they suit
you. They wouldn't suit me, and I'm an ordinary person. It is simply
not the case that the 'standard' 53-39 chainsets are only for
professionals or athletes. There's no reason to intimidate people.

Is your cadence really in the mid eighties when you climb steep hills?

No, it tends to go down a bit, but not drastically.

Quoted message said:

Less powerful riders benefit from lower
gears. 39/53 chainsets and similar are designed for racing and serious
training.

Well, I simply disagree. I /am/ a less powerful rider, after all. My
mate Andrew-the-lurker talks about getting compact chainsets and rides
a triple - but then he manages to make his legs disappear into a blur,
with cadences which don't even bear thinking about. And he tends to
disappear over the horizon in a blur shortly thereafter. Of course, for
my other mate Dougie, it's a 60/something-or-other, where the precise
value of the something-or-other doesn't really matter because he never
uses it. But then he /is/ an athlete, and I don't expect to even try to
keep up with him.

Different people have different needs and one size doesn't fit all, but
it just is not the case that 53-39 is only for athletes.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Look, I had meant to keep out of this, but it's getting ridiculous.
I have 52-42 front and 12-24 rear on my old road bike, which is a
bit tough for some hills, and 53-39 and 13-26 on my new one, which
is fine. I'm not a big tough guy and never have been. I'm no
athlete and don't wish to become one. My best cadence is mid
eighties, and although I can spin at a hundred and ten for a little
while I can't sustain it for long. I'm an ordinary, slightly unfit,
slightly flabby forty-nine year old.

Where I live is not flat. The local hills are as big as the biggest
hills in England, and the longest continuous climb in Britain is
less than thirty miles away. I can climb 300 metres within two
miles of my front door.

What is the /gradient/ of the steepest hill that you regularly climb?

The steepest I regularly on the road bike, probably 20%. The things I
climb on mountain bikes don't count, because of course they do have
amazingly low gears.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you find 'compact' chainsets suit you, that's great - they suit
you. They wouldn't suit me, and I'm an ordinary person. It is simply
not the case that the 'standard' 53-39 chainsets are only for
professionals or athletes. There's no reason to intimidate people.

Is your cadence really in the mid eighties when you climb steep
hills?

No, it tends to go down a bit, but not drastically.

I'm not sure what that means in terms of rpm, but I'll guess 70.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Less powerful riders benefit from lower
gears. 39/53 chainsets and similar are designed for racing and
serious training.

Well, I simply disagree. I /am/ a less powerful rider, after all.

I meant less powerful riders than you. My reply was based on the idea of
you climbing steep hills at 85 rpm in 39x26. Now you reveal that that is
not the case. But I'd still say you're quite powerful if you can climb a
20% at 70 rpm in 39x26 (700c).

/snip

Quoted message said:

Different people have different needs and one size doesn't fit all,
but it just is not the case that 53-39 is only for athletes.

That's not just what I meant. 53/39 is also fine for those who either
don't climb very steep hills or truly don't mind spinning at whatever
cadences you use up them. I still believe plenty of owners of 53/39 would
actually be happier with lower gears, especially (but not only) first-time
buyers of road bikes or cycling newbies.

The fact remains that 53/39's are designed for, and are suitable, for
racing, but not everyone is racing. Fine if you truly get on with them,
but they don't make sense for a significant proportion of UK cyclists,
IMO, hence the growing trend for compact doubles and triples on road
bikes.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

I meant less powerful riders than you. My reply was based on the

idea of

Quoted message said:

you climbing steep hills at 85 rpm in 39x26. Now you reveal that

that is

Quoted message said:

not the case. But I'd still say you're quite powerful if you can

climb a

Quoted message said:

20% at 70 rpm in 39x26 (700c).

I make that about 8W per kg bodyweight, which if sustained over any
distance would mean a seriously strong rider (I believe chris
boardman's hour record was 6.6W/kg). I suspect 50rpm would be nearer
the mark for such gearing and hill, for a normal rider. Some people may
be happy with this, I would not be.

Quoted message said:

The fact remains that 53/39's are designed for, and are suitable, for
racing, but not everyone is racing. Fine if you truly get on with

them,

Quoted message said:

but they don't make sense for a significant proportion of UK

cyclists,

Quoted message said:

IMO, hence the growing trend for compact doubles and triples on road
bikes.

Agree fully with this.

James

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Different people have different needs and one size doesn't fit all,
but it just is not the case that 53-39 is only for athletes.

That's not just what I meant.  53/39 is also fine for those who either
don't climb very steep hills or truly don't mind spinning at whatever
cadences you use up them.  I still believe plenty of owners of 53/39
would actually be happier with lower gears, especially (but not only)
first-time buyers of road bikes or cycling newbies.

In that case (as so often on Usenet) we don't really disagree at all.
Yup, plenty of people are better off with compacts or triples.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563