Big ring vs little ring

[Racing roadkill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Where exactly did I use the word discriminate?

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]

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]

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]

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'?

while i push the peddles round

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

 

[nickyboy]

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]

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.