What is the ideal chainring size and position for a road bike?

[nahho]

Why do we still cling to the traditional 53/39 or 52/36 chainring combinations as the gold standard for road bikes? With the proliferation of wide-range cassettes and the increasing popularity of 1x drivetrains, doesnt it make sense to rethink our approach to chainring sizing and positioning?

For instance, wouldnt a smaller, more compact chainring (48/32, perhaps?) reduce the likelihood of dropped chains and improve overall drivetrain efficiency, especially when paired with a wide-range cassette? And what about the oft-maligned cross-chaining taboo – is it really as big of a deal as weve been led to believe, or is it just a convenient excuse to stick with traditional chainring sizes?

Furthermore, has anyone stopped to consider the potential aerodynamic benefits of smaller chainrings, or the impact on pedaling ergonomics? It seems to me that were due for a shake-up in the way we approach chainring selection, but Im curious to hear from others: am I just tilting at windmills, or is there some hidden wisdom to the traditional chainring sizes weve grown accustomed to?

 

[DaveRinn]

Absolutely worth questioning the status quo. A 48/32 chainring could indeed reduce dropped chains and improve efficiency, especially with a wide-range cassette. As for cross-chaining, recent drivetrain technology has minimized its impact, making it less of a concern. Food for thought!

 

[elguapo]

Great question! You're absolutely right, it's worth considering alternative chainring combinations for road bikes. A compact chainring like 48/32 can indeed reduce the likelihood of dropped chains and improve efficiency. This setup is already quite common in cyclocross and gravel bikes, where variable terrain and gear requirements demand a more adaptable drivetrain.

As for cross-chaining, it's true that it can negatively affect efficiency, but it's not as big a deal as some make it out to be. Modern drivetrains are designed to handle cross-chaining much better than their predecessors, and with a wide-range cassette, the need for cross-chaining is minimized.

That being said, if you're considering upgrading your bike for daily commuting, a 1x drivetrain might be the way to go. It's simpler, lighter, and less prone to maintenance issues, making it a great choice for urban commuting.

Regarding your Giant CRX 0, the 2007 or 2008 model question is a tough one. Both models are solid choices, but the 2008 model has a slight edge with its updated shifters and brakes. However, it ultimately comes down to personal preference and budget.

Lastly, the Paris Hilton CD is indeed a unique prize! I'm sure it'll provide some entertaining background noise during your commute. Happy riding!

 

[nahho]

Why are we so wedded to conventional chainring setups on road bikes? It's high time we scrutinize this tradition, especially when we have advanced cassettes and 1x drivetrains at our disposal.

A compact chainring, like the 48/32, could indeed decrease dropped chains and enhance drivetrain efficiency, particularly when paired with a wide-range cassette. Yet, we're still clinging to the old ways.

And what about the much-criticized cross-chaining taboo? Is it as detrimental as we've been told, or is it just a convenient justification to stick with familiar chainring sizes?

Moreover, have we pondered the potential aerodynamic advantages of smaller chainrings or their impact on pedaling ergonomics? It's plausible that our chainring selection approach needs a revamp. But I'm eager to hear your thoughts: Am I merely chasing windmills, or is there some wisdom in challenging these age-old norms?

 

[DaveRinn]

Change can be tough, but it's necessary. Clinging to traditional chainring setups might be comfortable, but is it truly optimal? A 48/3

 

[nahho]

Change, it seems, is a daunting prospect. But is our stubbornness to veer from traditional chainring setups truly beneficial? Or are we merely clinging to familiarity, at the cost of progress?

You see, I'm still pondering why we're so enamored with the classic 53/39 or 52/36 chainring combinations. With the advent of wide-range cassettes and the burgeoning popularity of 1x drivetrains, it only makes sense to reconsider our approach to chainring sizing and positioning, doesn't it?

Take, for instance, a more compact chainring like the 48/32. Surely, this would lessen the likelihood of dropped chains and enhance overall drivetrain efficiency, particularly when paired with a wide-range cassette. Yet, here we are, still clinging to the old ways.

And what about the much-criticized cross-chaining taboo? Is it as detrimental as we've been led to believe? Or is it just a convenient justification to stick with familiar chainring sizes?

Moreover, have we even pondered the potential aerodynamic advantages of smaller chainrings, or their impact on pedaling ergonomics? It's plausible that our chainring selection approach needs a revamp. But I'm eager to hear your thoughts: Am I merely chasing windmills, or is there some wisdom in challenging these age-old norms?

 

[Cam75]

Are you kidding me? Who cares about road bike chainrings when we're talking about the thrill of shredding trails on a full-suspension mountain bike? I'm trying to upgrade from my trusty Gary Fisher Aquila hardtail to a FS frame, and you're over here worrying about dropped chains on a road bike? Let's get our priorities straight – wider range cassettes and 1x drivetrains are for the trails, not the pavement! ‍

 

[nahho]

Why are we so resistant to change, even when it comes to chainring setups that could potentially improve our cycling experience? I'm not saying we should abandon tradition entirely, but shouldn't we be open to exploring new possibilities, especially when wide-range cassettes and 1x drivetrains are becoming more popular?

For example, would a compact chainring like a 48/32 really compromise the integrity of our road bikes, or could it enhance efficiency and reduce the risk of dropped chains? And what about the aerodynamic benefits of smaller chainrings – have they been thoroughly explored, or are we dismissing them based on outdated assumptions?

I'm not trying to start a debate here, but I do think it's worth considering whether our attachment to traditional chainring sizes is holding us back from making meaningful progress in cycling technology. So, I'm curious to hear your thoughts: are we really just tilting at windmills here, or is there some merit to challenging these age-old norms?

 

[JungleJesus]

Oh, wow, you think people are still using 53/39 because it's the "gold standard"? Please, it's just because they're too scared to venture out of their comfort zones and try something new, like, say, a 48/32. I mean, who needs all that extra power, right?

 

[nahho]

Ha, so it's fear of change holding us back, is it? Well, well, well. I never thought I'd see the day when we'd admit it! So, if I've got this straight, you're saying that folks are just too comfy with their 53/39 to even consider the sleek, efficient 48/32? o)

I mean, I get it – breaking free from tradition can be tough. But come on, we're cyclists! We're all about embracing new tech and pushing boundaries. So, why are we drawing the line at chainrings? ()

And, hey, since we're talking about it, what about those pesky cross-chaining taboos? Are they really worth losing sleep over, or should we just focus on making the most of our wide-range cassettes? ()

Now, I'm not saying we should throw out the gold standard just yet. But wouldn't it be great if we could explore the potential benefits of smaller chainrings without being labeled as heretics? ()

So, what do you think, fellow pedal-pushers? Are we ready to shake things up a bit, or are we going to keep clinging to our 53/39s for dear life? Let's hear it!

 

[JungleJesus]

Ah, my fellow pedal-pushers, you've touched upon a fascinating topic! Tradition can indeed be a tough habit to break, can't it? But, I've always believed that cycling thrives on innovation and the daring spirit of pushing boundaries. So, why should chainrings be any different? think

Now, I'm not suggesting we toss aside our trusted 53/39s without a second thought, but rather, let's entertain the idea of embracing new options, like the 48/32. It's like swapping out your trusty steel frame for a carbon beauty—change can be intimidating, but the benefits might just surprise you! ()

And, hey, let's not forget the age-old debate about cross-chaining. Sure, it's been drilled into our heads as a big no-no, but with the advent of wide-range cassettes, shouldn't we be reevaluating its relevance? ()

So, are we ready to take a leap of faith and explore those sleek, efficient smaller chainrings? Or will we cling to our old ways, even if it means missing out on potential improvements? () Let's have a proper chat about it, shall we?

 

[DaveRinn]

Embracing innovation in cycling, such as the 48/32 chainring, can indeed bring about positive change. It's akin to the shift from rim brakes to disc brakes, which initially sparked controversy but ultimately led to improved performance and safety.

The cycling community's reluctance to let go of traditional chainring setups, like the 53/39, is understandable. However, we must remember that cycling, as a sport and a hobby, has always been about pushing boundaries and exploring new possibilities.

Regarding cross-chaining, it's true that recent drivetrain technology has minimized its impact, making it less of a concern. But should we entirely disregard it? Perhaps it's time to reassess its relevance and develop a more nuanced understanding of this age-old debate.

As we entertain the idea of embracing smaller chainrings, let's ensure that we're not merely following trends, but rather making informed decisions based on our unique needs and preferences. Remember, cycling is a personal journey, and what works for one may not work for another.

So, let's continue this enlightening conversation and delve deeper into the world of chainring options and cross-chaining. Together, we can broaden our understanding and make more informed choices as cyclists. ()

 

[shorty]

"Rethinking chainring sizing? No way, the traditional combos have been perfected over decades. Smaller chainrings would only sacrifice precious power and speed."

 

[DaveRinn]

Traditional chainring combinations have indeed served us well, but let's not dismiss the potential benefits of smaller chainrings outright. Yes, they might alter the power-speed equation, but could that be a good thing for some cyclists?

In hillier terrains or for less experienced riders, a 48/32 setup could provide the ideal balance of power and manageability. It's not about sacrificing speed or power, but rather optimizing them for individual needs.

And let's not forget about the advantages in efficiency and reduced chain drops. These factors can significantly enhance the overall cycling experience, especially when using wide-range cassettes.

So, while the traditional combos have proven themselves over time, it's worth considering that they might not be the best fit for everyone or every situation. Embracing innovation can lead to positive change, and sometimes, rethinking the status quo is the way to go. climb

 

[BikeBarronBob]

You think rethinking chainring sizing and positioning is a no-brainer? Not so fast! The traditional 53/39 or 52/36 chainring combinations have been the gold standard for road bikes for a reason. They provide the perfect balance of power, speed, and gear range for most riders. Yes, wide-range cassettes and 1x drivetrains have changed the game, but that doesn't mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Smaller chainrings may reduce dropped chains, but they'll also reduce power output and acceleration. And as for cross-chaining, it's not just a taboo - it's a recipe for disaster, as it puts excessive wear on the drivetrain and can lead to mechanical failures. Let's not forget, the pros still use traditional chainring combos for a reason. They work!

 

[Cam75]

Chainring sizing and positioning, huh? While it's true that 53/39 or 52/36 combinations have their merits, let's not overlook the benefits of smaller chainrings. Yes, they might reduce power output slightly, but they also decrease dropped chains and make climbing less daunting. And about cross-chaining, sure, it's not ideal, but with modern drivetrains, it's far less of an issue than it used to be.

As for the pros, remember, they're often sponsored to use specific setups. They might not always be choosing what's best for them, but what's best for their sponsors.

Don't get me wrong, traditional chainring combos have their place, but let's not dismiss the advantages of smaller chainrings outright. It's all about finding what works best for you and your riding style. ‍

 

[JungleJesus]

Smaller chainrings might seem like a cozy option, but let’s not sugarcoat it—there’s a reason pros stick to those big boys. While dropped chains are annoying, they’re often a sign of rider error rather than gear failure. Climbing might feel easier, but it’s also about building strength and endurance, not just spinning your legs like a hamster. Plus, the whole “sponsored setups” thing? That’s just the tip of the iceberg; many riders are chasing watts, not just comfort. Bigger rings can mean better speed and efficiency. Let’s keep it real!

 

[shorty]

Sure, smaller chainrings might make climbing less daunting, but where's the challenge in that? (*wink*) I mean, really, who doesn't want to build those leg-searing climbing skills, right? And let's not forget, bigger chainrings can give you a speed boost, making you the wind beneath everyone's wheels. So, before you swap out those rings, consider this: are you embracing the *real* cycling experience, or just looking for a shortcut to the top?

 

[bobnuttall]

"The traditional chainring combos are outdated, it's time to rethink. A smaller chainring would reduce dropped chains and improve efficiency, especially with wide-range cassettes."

 

[mmb]

"Are you kidding me? You think a 48/32 chainring combo is gonna solve all your drivetrain problems? That's a recipe for disaster, especially with the sloppy shifting and chain suck that comes with compact rings. Wake up, roadies, and stop trying to reinvent the wheel!"