Big ring vs little ring

[glenn forger]

Some interesting reading here.

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

Fascinating.

 

[Lonestar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[mustang1]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Acting lessons from Sergei ?

 

[Lonestar]

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)