# Big ring vs little ring



## berty bassett (18 Oct 2015)

Could anyone help me with this question please and i will apologise now as it might well be a silly question ! 
If i am in lets say gear 14 - big chain ring and 3 , or in the similar cadence/speed gear in the small chainring about 8 or 9 . are my legs working harder because i am in the big chain ring . It even sounds a stupid question as i am typing ! maybe its all in my head but it seems like it tires me quicker in the big ring . Quite prepared for a barrage of sarcasm but would be nice to be told if there is any difference eventually as well - thanks


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Oct 2015)

If the gear ratio is the same there will be no difference in effort required. I think you're suffering from "If I'm on the big ring it must be harder" syndrome.

Happens to us all. Now be quiet and finish your dinner.


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Oct 2015)

It totally depends on your exact gearing. There are plenty of gears that are the same/similar depending on big/small ring and in theory if the gearing is exactly the same then big/small should not matter unless you have friction from cross chaining or rubbing on a mech.


----------



## Venod (18 Oct 2015)

Some interesting reading here.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2010/04/the-big-ring-mechanical-or-psychological-advantage/


----------



## Hip Priest (18 Oct 2015)

You only need to put it in the big ring when you're taking photos of your bike.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (18 Oct 2015)

Sur la plaque!


----------



## Hacienda71 (18 Oct 2015)

You should consider which ring to use by which gives you the best chain line. Unfortunately compacts have a big jump from large to small so can encourage staying in the big ring even if your chainline is not good.


----------



## berty bassett (18 Oct 2015)

thanks for quick replies - and some were even helpful !! but are you definitly sure ? i've been thinking of this while i have been having my dinner and i know little demons can creep in when your trying hard and i might be finding excuses - any chance of a scientific formula


----------



## Citius (18 Oct 2015)

berty bassett said:


> any chance of a scientific formula



Just consult one of the many gear tables available on the internet.


----------



## Dan B (18 Oct 2015)

berty bassett said:


> any chance of a scientific formula


Divide the number of teeth on the chainring by the number on the sprocket (higher numbers are harder to push, but will make you go further). If you have more than one bike with different wheel sizes, multiply by wheel size (radius, diameter, circumference, whatever)


----------



## dave r (18 Oct 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> You only need to put it in the big ring when you're taking photos of your bike.



My big ring is only a 44, so I need to use it.


----------



## Lonestar (18 Oct 2015)

dave r said:


> My big ring is only a 44, so I need to use it.



My small ring is 46 and my big ring is 52.Think I need to redo it.


----------



## dave r (18 Oct 2015)

Lonestar said:


> My small ring is 46 and my big ring is 52.Think I need to redo it.



Only if it doesn't suit you. I'm running 44/38 with 10 speed 12-27 on the back, suits my legs.


----------



## Lonestar (18 Oct 2015)

dave r said:


> Only if it doesn't suit you. I'm running 44/38 with 10 speed 12-27 on the back, suit my legs.



Yup im sure I have similar on back.On the fixie im running a 50/15.


----------



## dave r (18 Oct 2015)

Lonestar said:


> Yup im sure I have similar on back.On the fixie im running a 50/15.



I'm running 46x18 68 inch gear on my fixed.


----------



## earlestownflya (18 Oct 2015)

i never have my chain off the 53 ring.i can get all the range on the back with just a small amount of chain tinkle on front mech on the extreme crossover.i only have a short 100m ramp on my cycle to work,which i get out of the saddle for.try keeping it on the big ring all the time for a while it will transform your cycling experience...i believe...


----------



## Lonestar (18 Oct 2015)

Actually I've got a knee injury at the moment.Not sure if it's caused by high gears and the fact I had a hell of a lot of weight in the backpack on the last commute back.(including 2 bottles of Wine/2 bottles of Gin/Bike tools and three locks)...Im on holiday now so no commutes till next month.Out on the bike tomorrow (non fixie) for blood test tomorrow.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Oct 2015)

Recently, most of my miles have been in very flat parts of London. I lost the use of my front derailleur a month ago so the bike is stuck on the 34T small ring until I get round to fixing it. I've always been a bit of a gear masher, living on the big ring for most of the time. It's been quite an education to be riding with a much higher cadence, and I really quite like it. It's worth trying for a bit.


----------



## Sharky (19 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Recently, most of my miles have been in very flat parts of London. I lost the use of my front derailleur a month ago so the bike is stuck on the 34T small ring until I get round to fixing it. I've always been a bit of a gear masher, living on the big ring for most of the time. It's been quite an education to be riding with a much higher cadence, and I really quite like it. It's worth trying for a bit.



Similar experiences. The front changer was playing up, plus was getting fed up with the wide spread between the 34 & 50, so ended up ditching the front changer and switching to a single 40t chainwheel. Now have range from 40" to 81" and I too enjoy the higher cadence you develop.


----------



## berty bassett (19 Oct 2015)

i run 50 36 on all bikes and find if i change from big to little then 2 clicks on cassette i am in a ery similar gear to what i was before i touched the gears , but if i was in the fens in big cog and do that , it does seem very slightly easier - quite willing to accept its all in my head but i just wondered if a bloke would jump up spouting calculus that would say there is 0.0000001 kj more effort due to friction on the ferlangee


----------



## screenman (19 Oct 2015)

berty bassett said:


> i run 50 36 on all bikes and find if i change from big to little then 2 clicks on cassette i am in a ery similar gear to what i was before i touched the gears , but if i was in the fens in big cog and do that , it does seem very slightly easier - quite willing to accept its all in my head but i just wondered if a bloke would jump up spouting calculus that would say there is 0.0000001 kj more effort due to friction on the ferlangee



Very or in the case above ery being the big word in the post above, it is likely a lower gear.


----------



## mustang1 (19 Oct 2015)

Actually I'm the opposite.

My head tells me its easier being in the large ring and large cog rather than small ring and small cog.

I've always wondered because if I ever bought a single speed, I wasn't sure if I should buy one with large ring plus small cog or smaller ring but larger cog. Mathematically I guess (I really don't know) that you're applying the same power and getting the same speed. I also wondering in terms of how quickly the chain and cog wear when they are of different sizes.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Oct 2015)

I would imagine that a 22 tooth sprocket would wear 50% less than an 11 tooth sprocket @mustang1.


----------



## Dan B (19 Oct 2015)

bigger cogs => less wear on each tooth, less chain friction (wider turn radius)
smaller cogs => lighter

Take your pick

(Also I think, but have not checked, that there is quite a high lower bound on the size of a freewheel, so if you wanted something you could flip to SS you would want to check there's a freewheel in the size you'd need)


----------



## nickyboy (19 Oct 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> try keeping it on the big ring all the time for a while it will transform your cycling experience...i believe...



I look forward to enjoying the "experience"of walking up the hills if I keep it in the big ring around here


----------



## Cubist (19 Oct 2015)

Anyone got any links to physics leverage calculations based on the length of the crank arms and the position of the chain relative to the fulcrum? Does it make a difference in two gears of the same tooth to tooth ratio? For instance, if a 70 inch gear combination is selected using small front and small rear, is the leverage force required to turn the cranks the same as a 70 inch gear using large front and large rear?


----------



## Globalti (19 Oct 2015)

This chart shows the overlap:







All you need to do is make sure the chain line isn't too "bent" by shifting the chainring in good time.


----------



## nickyboy (19 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> Anyone got any links to physics leverage calculations based on the length of the crank arms and the position of the chain relative to the fulcrum? Does it make a difference in two gears of the same tooth to tooth ratio? For instance, if a 70 inch gear combination is selected using small front and small rear, is the leverage force required to turn the cranks the same as a 70 inch gear using large front and large rear?



Putting to one side the fact that there may be different mechanical inefficiencies small/small v large/large there will be no difference in the force required for the same number of gear inches.

What you have to consider is the forces being overcome in moving the bicycle forward by 70 inches. You've got air resistance, rolling resistance, mechanical inefficiencies and gravity (if you're ascending). With the mechanical efficiencies proviso above, all these resistive forces are the same small/small or large/large. I suppose you could raise an argument that the air resistance may change very slightly but I can't believe the effect will be measurable

I don't know what work's been done on mechanical efficiencies but it feels that large/large will be more efficient as the angle of incidence between the chain link and the sprocket tooth is less acute


----------



## earlestownflya (19 Oct 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I look forward to enjoying the "experience"of walking up the hills if I keep it in the big ring around here


don't walk..drop it to the small ring..obviously there are circumstances were you can't push a big ring. unless you've got legs like an ostrich,i used to use my smaller 39 ring all the time,until i switched to the 53,it's easier to get up good speed and maintain it and cycling to me,seems to take less effort than if you were switching between rings...similar to the enjoyment of riding a single speed bike,which are so popular now,and as we all know a single speed will smash most multi speed carbon bikes on the flat


----------



## Drago (19 Oct 2015)

I'm gonna sit on the fence. Obviously the big ring is harder but it also feels smoother, more natural, somehow easier to find a rhythm so where I can do so without having a hernia I tend to use the big.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> Some interesting reading here.
> 
> http://cyclingtips.com.au/2010/04/the-big-ring-mechanical-or-psychological-advantage/



Fascinating.


----------



## Lonestar (19 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Actually I'm the opposite.
> 
> My head tells me its easier being in the large ring and large cog rather than small ring and small cog.
> 
> I've always wondered because if I ever bought a single speed, I wasn't sure if I should buy one with large ring plus small cog or smaller ring but larger cog. Mathematically I guess (I really don't know) that you're applying the same power and getting the same speed. I also wondering in terms of how quickly the chain and cog wear when they are of different sizes.



I have found (on the fixie) by fitting a large cog on the front the chain has become more stable even with slackness.It wasn't before.42 teeth apparently and now it's 50.


----------



## si_c (19 Oct 2015)

Drago said:


> I'm gonna sit on the fence. Obviously the big ring is harder but it also feels smoother, more natural, somehow easier to find a rhythm so where I can do so without having a hernia I tend to use the big.



I find the same, I prefer the feel of the big ring. The length of the crankarm may make a difference here too.


----------



## MichaelW2 (19 Oct 2015)

Assuming identical gear ratios, a large ring/large sprocket combo will have lower friction losses than small ring/small sprocket because each link rotates less as it passes the teeth.
You also need to factor chainline.

MTBs of 1990s used small/small in preference to big/big for greater ground-clearance and lower weight, but you are assuming that both options are on the same bike.


----------



## berty bassett (19 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> Anyone got any links to physics leverage calculations based on the length of the crank arms and the position of the chain relative to the fulcrum? Does it make a difference in two gears of the same tooth to tooth ratio? For instance, if a 70 inch gear combination is selected using small front and small rear, is the leverage force required to turn the cranks the same as a 70 inch gear using large front and large rear?


now thats what i was trying to say !


----------



## mythste (19 Oct 2015)

Weirdly, I feel it's easier and smoothe in my little ring more often than not. There's a bit of a commuting sweet spot for me (with panniers fully laden) that if I notch down two gears on the rear and switch from big ring to little, my cadence and speed stay the same but it feels easier. 

All in me head probably.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> Just consult one of the many gear tables available on the internet.


But that doesn't take into account the chain friction.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Oct 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> i never have my chain off the 53 ring.i can get all the range on the back with just a small amount of chain tinkle on front mech on the extreme crossover.i only have a short 100m ramp on my cycle to work,which i get out of the saddle for.try keeping it on the big ring all the time for a while it will transform your cycling experience...i believe...


There's a hill that I always use the small ring but I've tried it with the large ring a couple of times and it feels better. And faster too. But I'm quite wiling to accept I might have been having a powerful day at the time.

Soon I will change my username to megapower.

I'll try that hill again tonight and report back.

Edit:
As mentioned above, I tried that hill again in the large chainring but this time I went to the 2nd and third largest cogs at the back (instead of just sticking to the 1st largest).

It felt good but I wish I powered thru even harder and didn't pace myself because eindont think I needed to. So, idk which is scientifically better, the small ring or the large one, but the large one FELT better. Not only that, but I wasnt going tontackle the hill tonight, its just car drivers really bugged me off so I was in the mood to let off some steam.


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> But that doesn't take into account the chain friction.



It's a gear inch table. Why should it account for something that has such little relevance?


----------



## mustang1 (20 Oct 2015)

How do you mean "stable", like it doesn't flop around when it has stretched?



Lonestar said:


> I have found (on the fixie) by fitting a large cog on the front the chain has become more stable even with slackness.It wasn't before.42 teeth apparently and now it's 50.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Oct 2015)

How do you mean "stable", like it doesn't flop around when it has stretched?



Lonestar said:


> I have found (on the fixie) by fitting a large cog on the front the chain has become more stable even with slackness.It wasn't before.42 teeth apparently and now it's 50.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> It's a gear inch table. Why should it account for something that has such little relevance?


Good point, but the point I was making that it may not just be about gear inches. For example if I submerge the cassette in honey, the gear inches table would still be correct, but performance still altered. So I figured the friction in the chain (cross chaining, dirt, even honey) may be relevant when describing the feel.


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Good point, but the point I was making that it may not just be about gear inches. For example if I submerge the cassette in honey, the gear inches table would still be correct, but performance still altered. So I figured the friction in the chain (cross chaining, dirt, even honey) may be relevant when describing the feel.


----------



## raleighnut (20 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


>



Acting lessons from Sergei ?


----------



## Lonestar (20 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> How do you mean "stable", like it doesn't flop around when it has stretched?



Well in a way.I mean I don't have to keep tightening it up because of jumping or slipping.(so much)


----------



## jowwy (20 Oct 2015)

Thats like saying the friction caused from a slight brake block rub has no reference - all friction is relevant no matter how minimal.........

i always find my cadence better in the middle 39 ring and using the full rear cassette.....but then again i do have a 52 tooth big ring, which is awesome when on flatish rolling terrain


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

minimal friction has minimal relevance.


----------



## Venod (20 Oct 2015)

Back when 52/42 was the common chainring choice with a 13-28 freewheel, most people on a club run would be in 52-19 rather than 42-15, I suspect this was more to do with chainline than thinking about friction losses, but the result would be less friction.


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> I suspect this was more to do with chainline than thinking about friction losses, but the result would be less friction.



Chainline is all about minimising friction losses (and being kinder to the chain) in any case, so you're kind of arguing against yourself there. Anyway, as above, friction losses even from cross-chaining can be filed in the 'minimal' category.


----------



## berty bassett (20 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> minimal friction has minimal relevance.


but a relevance all the same ?


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

berty bassett said:


> but a relevance all the same ?



A minimal one. Have you ever weighed your valve caps? Well, it's less of an issue than that.


----------



## Venod (20 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> A minimal one. Have you ever weighed your valve caps? Well, it's less of an issue than that.



Have you read the article I linked to in post #4, its suggested that by using bigger sprockets a 6 sec advantage is possible over 25 miles, not so minimal compared to the fration of a second penalty picked up by the extra weight of the sprockets over the same 25 miles.


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> Have you read the article I linked to in post #4, its suggested that by using bigger sprockets a 6 sec advantage is possible over 25 miles, not so minimal compared to the fration of a second penalty picked up by the extra weight of the sprockets over the same 25 miles.


Unless you are riding a 25 mile TT that is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Venod (20 Oct 2015)

Smokin Joe said:


> Unless you are riding a 25 mile TT that is completely irrelevant.



It is completely relevant to the OP, it shows using bigger sprockets as opposed to smaller sprockets for the same gear ratio causes less friction.


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> Have you read the article I linked to in post #4, its suggested that by using bigger sprockets a 6 sec advantage is possible over 25 miles, not so minimal compared to the fration of a second penalty picked up by the extra weight of the sprockets over the same 25 miles.



That's not relevant to chainline. I think it's already accepted that big/big combinations are more mechanically efficient that the equivalent small/small.


----------



## jowwy (20 Oct 2015)

Who?what? And how do you measure the relevance...........and on whos scale of irrelevant is the irrevelance measured

As one persons irrelevant maybe another persons relevant...........


----------



## Citius (20 Oct 2015)

jowwy said:


> Who?what? And how do you measure the relevance...........and on whos scale of irrelevant is the irrevelance measured
> 
> As one persons irrelevant maybe another persons relevant...........



None of that is relevant...


----------



## berty bassett (21 Oct 2015)

Thank you for all responces - i read the article and willing to accept that if i was an athelete then it would make quite a difference as if i was the same time as another athelete the last time i raced , i would be six seconds faster using correct gearing - a difference of gold or silver if it was the olymics so quite relevant ! 
how ever i am not a budding olympian and should shut up and peddle ! maybe good advice for some others who seem to be living proof that it is possible to have an argument in an empty room !


----------



## blackgoff (22 Oct 2015)

When I'm in the big ring - 53 - I'm really shifting... mostly I'm in the 42 tho I'm thinking of putting on a 39/50 and trying that re: spinning LOTS lol


----------



## totallyfixed (22 Oct 2015)

The advent of the 34 inner chainring coincided with the new mamils who could ride a bike reasonably well on the flat but not so well when the road went in an upward direction. Bike manufacturers spotted an opportunity to supply a mechanism that would, in one fell swoop solve the problem of both making a cheaper chainset by losing the granny ring on the triple, yet at the same time allowing the newbie [in the male case] to still feel macho because they're riding a "double" and not a perceived softy triple. Many of these new cyclists have a 28 cog or more on the rear which in effect of course is a granny gear when coupled with the 34 chainring. Nothing wrong with that, but, and it is a big but, the new compact that was now becoming ubiquitous on road bikes was causing it's own problems, namely the big drop from 50 to 34 resulting in a lot of cross chaining. Watch any sportive and you will see riders in 50x28. 
Things are beginning to change, 50/36 is becoming more common which is fractionally better but personally I prefer 52/42 on a double [as others have said]. The triple is really no more difficult to set up and provides a better [imo] riding experience because 90% is done in the middle chainring. Added to this you can easily tailor the chainring sizes to fit your ability.
There is a whole generation out there who think the compact chainset is normal and consequently have never ridden anything else.


----------



## Racing roadkill (22 Oct 2015)

The inertia of the big ring is greater, to get up to the same speed / cadence as the same ratio using the small ring, you will have to put more effort in initially. When you reach the speed / cadence, there will be no difference, as long as the chain line is the same, and you aren't fouling the mech.


----------



## Citius (22 Oct 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> The advent of the 34 inner chainring coincided with the new mamils who could ride a bike reasonably well on the flat but not so well when the road went in an upward direction. Bike manufacturers spotted an opportunity to supply a mechanism that would, in one fell swoop solve the problem of both making a cheaper chainset by losing the granny ring on the triple, yet at the same time allowing the newbie [in the male case] to still feel macho because they're riding a "double" and not a perceived softy triple. Many of these new cyclists have a 28 cog or more on the rear which in effect of course is a granny gear when coupled with the 34 chainring. Nothing wrong with that, but, and it is a big but, the new compact that was now becoming ubiquitous on road bikes was causing it's own problems, namely the big drop from 50 to 34 resulting in a lot of cross chaining. Watch any sportive and you will see riders in 50x28.
> Things are beginning to change, 50/36 is becoming more common which is fractionally better but personally I prefer 52/42 on a double [as others have said]. The triple is really no more difficult to set up and provides a better [imo] riding experience because 90% is done in the middle chainring. Added to this you can easily tailor the chainring sizes to fit your ability.
> There is a whole generation out there who think the compact chainset is normal and consequently have never ridden anything else.



Is this one of those _"compacts are only for newbies and mamils"_ type of posts? I thought that kind of arrogance had died out, but it seems not.

I've been cycling competitively and with clubs for over 25 years, initially on 52/42 and now on 50/36 or 50/38. I've had some good results while racing on a 50t outer and I used to consider myself a good, competitive roadman. The idea that chainset choice is related to ability is utter nonsense.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> Is this one of those _"compacts are only for newbies and mamils"_ type of posts? I thought that kind of arrogance had died out, but it seems not.
> 
> I've been cycling competitively and with clubs for over 25 years, initially on 52/42 and now on 50/36 or 50/38. I've had some good results while racing on a 50t outer and I used to consider myself a good, competitive roadman. The idea that chainset choice is related to ability is utter nonsense.



Horses for courses innit? Around here practically everyone rides a compact except the really fit skinny guys who use a standard 39. If I lived in Cheshire or somewhere similarly rolling/flattish then I would ditch the compact. Interestingly my bike came from Decathlon which supplies a standard spec all over the country. 50/34 with a 12-25 cassette. Fine for most places, not so fine for Peak District

Anyway back to the original posts; the additional frictional losses associated with using small/small v big/big are tiny enough for all but competitive TTers to forget about. Whilst it might "feel" faster to go big/big, the reality is that this is in the rider's head and nowhere else


----------



## si_c (22 Oct 2015)

I think the rise of the compact has also resulted in part from the use of cassettes rather than freewheels. The former can have smaller sprockets on the back, 11 compared with 13 (I think), the ratio for a compact is therefore 4.5:1, where for an old double the ratio is 4:1 (using a 50t and 52t front chainwheel respectively).

Because of this you can have a higher top gear and a lower bottom gear using a compact than a double using a freewheel. Given this wider range, I think the compact makes more sense for more people, but nothing is stopping those those who want a standard double or a triple from doing so if they want.


----------



## bpsmith (22 Oct 2015)

I can definitely notice a difference when using the same gear ratio but comparing big or small ring in combination with the corresponding change at the rear. It totally depends on which ratio it is though, as sometimes it just 'feels' more efficient in the big ring and sometimes in the small ring.

I have a Compact with an 11:28 cassette. A ratio of 2.62 can be achieved using the 34:13 combination and 2.63 can be achieved using the 50:19 combination. I find the big ring gives a more efficient feeling that the small ring here. Conversely a ratio of 2.00 can be achieved using either the 34:17 or the 50:25 combination. I find the inner ring feels nicer this time.

*It is only a feeling when riding and I doubt it equates to anything in real term measurability, but it certain feels different.*

Personally, I think this is down to the fact that the chain is obviously straighter on the big ring in the first example and similarly on the small ring in the latter.


----------



## totallyfixed (22 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> Is this one of those _"compacts are only for newbies and mamils"_ type of posts? I thought that kind of arrogance had died out, but it seems not.
> 
> I've been cycling competitively and with clubs for over 25 years, initially on 52/42 and now on 50/36 or 50/38. I've had some good results while racing on a 50t outer and I used to consider myself a good, competitive roadman. The idea that chainset choice is related to ability is utter nonsense.


No arrogance intended, so climb down off your high horse, it's why I said "nothing wrong with that", just the opposite, in fact I am championing triples with their granny gear. The only arrogance I have encountered is from some sportive, and increasingly club riders on their bling carbon compacts who openly sneer at someone who rides a steel fixed bike with mudguards, doesn't wear trade team kit or a helmet, the desire to look like a pro is sad. Congratulations that you have been riding competitively so long, if that was to indicate in some way that you have more experience, it doesn't. 
You say that chainset choice and related ability is utter nonsense, what an odd thing to say, it is why [along with terrain], among fixed and single speed riders there is such a range in gear inches, you ride what you are comfortable with, the same applies to a geared bike.


----------



## Citius (22 Oct 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> Congratulations that you have been riding competitively so long, if that was to indicate in some way that you have more experience, it doesn't.



It was said to counter your implication that compacts are for mamils and newbies, by their conventional definitions. The actual experience is irrelevant. I think what you said was pretty clear, whether intentional or not - and you're now complaining about being discriminated against on a fixed, so you clearly have some kind of chip...


----------



## totallyfixed (22 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> It was said to counter your implication that compacts are for mamils and newbies, by their conventional definitions. The actual experience is irrelevant. I think what you said was pretty clear, whether intentional or not - and you're now complaining about being discriminated against on a fixed, so you clearly have some kind of chip...


Where exactly did I use the word discriminate? You obviously have no idea about the person you are talking to, always easy to use inflammatory words on an internet forum, not so easy in real life.
Apologies to the op for this slight derailment of the thread, something I particularly dislike.
As far as the efficiency of small rings / cogs vs larger ones with a similar ratio, I doubt very much that anyone could detect a difference of 6 seconds or so over 25 miles, I even have some doubts that this is measurable in a replicable way in real world cycling.


----------



## Citius (22 Oct 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> Where exactly did I use the word discriminate?





totallyfixed said:


> The only arrogance I have encountered is from some sportive, and increasingly club riders on their bling carbon compacts who openly sneer at someone who rides a steel fixed bike with mudguards, doesn't wear trade team kit or a helmet, the desire to look like a pro is sad



You didn't use the word 'discriminate' - but once again, the inference seems reasonably clear.


----------



## berty bassett (22 Oct 2015)

the sky is mostly blue
the grass is mostly green
tarmac is mostly black 
- just trying to give you more things to argue about while i push the peddles round - enjoy


----------



## mpre53 (22 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> Just consult one of the many gear tables available on the internet.



Or use the calculator app on your smart phone. Divide the number of teeth on your big ring by the number of teeth on any or all of your rear cogs to find ratios.

Before long cage RDs and wide range cassettes were popular on entry level bikes, a compact 50/34 crank and a 12-25 cassette were commonly found on entry level bikes that used 2300 or Sora groups. Your 50/25 big/big combo was the exact gear ratio as your 34/17 combo. 2:1. But you were in a good chain line on your small ring, and badly cross chained on your big.


----------



## Citius (22 Oct 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> The inertia of the big ring is greater, to get up to the same speed / cadence as the same ratio using the small ring, you will have to put more effort in initially. When you reach the speed / cadence, there will be no difference, as long as the chain line is the same, and you aren't fouling the mech.



Can't believe I missed this earlier. Seriously, what 'inertia'?



berty bassett said:


> while i push the peddles round



Or even 'pedals'. Might as well get the spelling right while we're here.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Oct 2015)

Citius said:


> Can't believe I missed this earlier. Seriously, what 'inertia'?
> 
> 
> 
> Or even 'pedals'. Might as well get the spelling right while we're here.



FFS, give it a rest. I agree with much of what you post but even I've had enough


----------



## Citius (22 Oct 2015)

I have too, to be honest. This is all just the same old bullshit going round and round. Give it another few weeks and it will all come back round again. I do believe I will give it a rest.


----------

