52/42/30 or 50/39/30?

[raggydoll]

What's the diff?
The 52/42/30 is on last years giant rapid.
The 50/39/30 is on this years.

Any advantages or disadvantages to either?

Cheers.

 

[HLaB]

Based on my old Sirrus I'd go for the 52/42/30 and have a higher top end and cruising speed but the choice is yours if you cant turn the larger rings they are a detriment.

 

[raggydoll]

So the 52/42/30 will be harder to turn but will let me go faster at top speeds?

 

[Rob3rt]

Yes in an ideal situation, but the limiting factor is whether you can push that gear.

 

[jowwy]

I switched out my 52/42/30 for a 50/39/30 easier to turn the gears over and better cruising speeds in the welsh valleys in the middle 39 ring

but each to their own - don't get me started on compacts cause i hated mine

 

[Beebo]

You need to factor in the cassette too.
Have they changed the cassette ratios?

 

[ColinJ]

For most people, a 39 is a better middle ring than a 42 because they can probably spend more time on it without having to go up or down a ring. Similarly, most people don't really need a ring bigger than a 50 because they are not fit enough to spin out a 50/12 gear (say).

(If you were very a fit, strong, racing cyclist then you wouldn't need a triple in the first place, and you wouldn't be asking the question! )

So - my vote is for the 50/39/30.

Oh, and the steps between the rings are more equal on the 50/39/30 (50 = 1.28 x 39; 39 = 1.30 x 30 whereas 52 = 1.24 x 42; 42 = 1.40 x 30)

 

[Gravity Aided]

All depends on the cassette gearing. Seems like a good change to me. A fit strong racing cyclist could appreciate a triple in the mountains. Especially loaded for touring.

 

[ColinJ]

All depends on the cassette gearing. Seems like a good change to me. A fit strong racing cyclist could appreciate a triple in the mountains. Especially loaded for touring.

True, but by the time you had become a fit, strong racing cyclist, you would already have made up your mind what you needed, so you wouldn't need to ask!

 

[Nigelnaturist]

For most people, a 39 is a better middle ring than a 42 because they can probably spend more time on it without having to go up or down a ring. Similarly, most people don't really need a ring bigger than a 50 because they are not fit enough to spin out a 50/12 gear (say).

(If you were very a fit, strong, racing cyclist then you wouldn't need a triple in the first place, and you wouldn't be asking the question! )

So - my vote is for the 50/39/30.

Oh, and the steps between the rings are more equal on the 50/39/30 (50 = 1.28 x 39; 39 = 1.30 x 30 whereas 52 = 1.24 x 42; 42 = 1.40 x 30)

So how about a 52/40/30, I can spin out most of the 40 range given conditions, 52x13 I spin out down a small incline sometimes.

 

[ColinJ]

So how about a 52/40/30, I can spin out most of the 40 range given conditions, 52x13 I spin out down a small incline sometimes.

I think the 40 would be more useful than a 42 for most people.

The top gear on my Basso is currently a 52/14. That is high enough for my purposes on the flat. I can pedal that up to about 35 mph on descents, but I usually just get my head down and freewheel if I want to go fast.

When I had a 42 middle ring, I found that I was having to drop down to the granny ring more often. With a 39, I can get up steeper slopes before having to do that.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I think the 40 would be more useful than a 42 for most people.

The top gear on my Basso is currently a 52/14. That is high enough for my purposes on the flat. I can pedal that up to about 35 mph on descents, but I usually just get my head down and freewheel if I want to go fast.

When I had a 42 middle ring, I found that I was having to drop down to the granny ring more often. With a 39, I can get up steeper slopes before having to do that.

I rearranged me rear cassette last week for a 18-20% climb i as going to do, not very long but steep for me, it was a standed 13-15-17-19-21-23-26 but changed the 23-26 to a 24-28, I have found may cadence has risen, but that could be due to the amount i am doing at the moment, and also my avg speed (though only marginal), I have thought about a 39 replacement as my middle ring is due to be replaced, but would it be better to do that and bring the 28-24 back to the 26-23 is the dilemma, I am still trying to safe for an 8sp shifter that would help, I do feel however on the whole it may be to low for general riding.

 

[dan_bo]

True, but by the time you had become a fit, strong racing cyclist, you would already have made up your mind what you needed, so you wouldn't need to ask!

Word.

 

[Gravity Aided]

True, but by the time you had become a fit, strong racing cyclist, you would already have made up your mind what you needed, so you wouldn't need to ask!

Good point.

 

[helston90]

I ride last years rapid with the 52 set up, and found it almost a waste until my legs got up to strength- you'll find yourself sticking it into 52: 11 and can't turn it, so you move the back to 52:12 still too hard, then 52:13 (?) is the only comfortable one- at which point the gearing is no different to 50:11 and you only use the two smallest for long down hills as you can't use them on the flat.
As mentioned above your leg strength will increase meaning you can use the large ring more and more, I wouldn't get too caught up on top end gear for the sake of a greater choice the rest of the time.