Comparing 50/34 to 53/39

Hello,

I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact crankset. This crankset comes
with a large chainring of 50 and a small chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23 in the
back with this setup, depending on the race.

With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the race. I enjoy the 25 because it
gives me an extra gear when I'm getting desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the big
ring on some hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually will shift up to the
second-smallest gear while in the big ring).

Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than 39x25.
It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The only two I've figured so far
aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

Eric Lambi

> I'm trying to figure out what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any.

The only disadvantag that I see is that there is a 6 tooth difference between large and small vs a 4
tooth difference.

B

(remove clothes to reply)

Can the 34 be used with a short cage derailler?

"Eric Lambi" <eric.lambi@lmscae.com> a écrit dans le message news:
7054b10.0309150734.7f3429a7@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact crankset. This crankset
> comes with a large chainring of 50 and a small chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23
> in the back with this setup, depending on the race.
>
> With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the race. I enjoy the 25 because it
> gives me an extra gear when I'm getting desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the
> big ring on some hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually will shift up to the
> second-smallest gear while in the big ring).
>
> Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than
> 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out
> what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The only two I've figured
> so far aren't that big of a deal:
>
> A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.
>
> B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Eric Lambi

"Eric Lambi" <eric.lambi@lmscae.com> wrote in message
news:7054b10.0309150734.7f3429a7@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
>
> Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than
> 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out
> what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The only two I've figured
> so far aren't that big of a deal:
>
> A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.
>
> B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.
>
> Any thoughts?

I am interested in this as well. I am beginning the planning for building a new bike for my wife. I
am trying to convince her that a 50/34 is the way to go.

"But I *need* a triple" she keeps saying. But I think this is a superior set-up as she often has
problems shifting into that little chainring anyway, and I hate working on triples.

I noticed yesterday, on a ride that averaged 20mph in rolling hills, that I never got into the 53x12
at all, and maybe not even the 13. Granted, I was alone, and I would have been going faster had I
been in a group, but my wife does not do that kind of riding. If a person is averaging 14-15mph on a
ride, how often would they even get enough speed to get in to the 52
(52/42/32) and anything smaller than the 15 on the back? When I'm cleaning her bike, the 52 always
looks pretty clean, like it never gets used.

Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask
them what kinds of gears they're running on their bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell
me the cassette they have or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure out they
'need' a triple?

I think that a 50/34 is a more realistic set-up on a bike than a triple. I tried to thing of a case
where a triple makes more sense. A touring bike came to mind. However, a 50/34 touring bike with
maybe a 11-32 in the back would work pretty well. I know you need more gear inch for the extra
weight of loaded touring. Who wants to descend in a 53x12 with fully loaded panniers on the front
and back anyway? :-)

"Eric Lambi" <eric.lambi@lmscae.com> wrote in message
news:7054b10.0309150734.7f3429a7@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact crankset. This crankset
> comes with a large chainring of 50 and a small chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23
> in the back with this setup, depending on the race.
>
> With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the race. I enjoy the 25 because it
> gives me an extra gear when I'm getting desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the
> big ring on some hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually will shift up to the
> second-smallest gear while in the big ring).
>
> Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than
> 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out
> what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The only two I've figured
> so far aren't that big of a deal:
>
> A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.
>
> B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Eric Lambi

The 50t is going to be about 1 tooth smaller in the back. ie: the 50x12 will feel about like the
53x13, etc. The 34t is not quite 2 teeth smaller in the back. A 34x24 is going to feel about like
a 39x26/7.

Generations of trackies have achieved very fast speeds with a 50t big ring... just spin faster!

As an added benefit, the equipment you're about to run is a little smaller and therefore lighter
than "standard."

I have a 50t big ring on my 'cross bike for summertime use. Except for riding one cog bigger in the
rear, there isn't too much difference... For springtime, I'm going to go back to it for road
intervals to equal my track gear.

The only disadvantage comes when/if you start racing and "need" that last big gear...

Mike

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:34:02 +0000, Eric Lambi wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact crankset. This crankset
> comes with a large chainring of 50 and a small chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23
> in the back with this setup, depending on the race.
>
> With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the race. I enjoy the 25 because it
> gives me an extra gear when I'm getting desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the
> big ring on some hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually will shift up to the
> second-smallest gear while in the big ring).
>
> Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than
> 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination.

I would agree with that. The smaller chainring puts typical cruising gears more towards the center
of the cassette. You really lose nothing this way, and you do get a lower low, without having to
spread out the cassette.

> A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.

I believe these are 110mm bolt pattern. Millions -- well, thousands -- of rings available from
various manufacturers.
>
> B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Of course you can. You can run the 53 with the 34 if you want, though with a large jump like that
I'd recommend a chain watcher to make sure that downshifts don't miss the inner ring. Fredly, but
not very noticable, and it works wonders. I bet that even FSA markets a 53 for that crank. Lots of
others do.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. _`\(,_ | What are you on?"
--Lance Armstrong (_)/ (_) |

> I'm trying to figure out what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any.
> The only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:
>
>A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.
>
>B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.
>
>Any thoughts?

The chainrings are prob. 110mm bolt circle, standard non compact mountail bike rings or 94mm mt.
bikes rings. In either case thy're easier to find than road rings. And if you can roll 53/11 more
power to you. Phil Brown

Eric Lambi wrote:
> The only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:
>
> A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.

Actually, 110 BCD has been around for a very long time and there are more sizes of chainrings
available for it than any other BCD. Check out Sheldon's parts section for chainrings. 110/74 was
the standard for MTB triples for many years before the more recent "compact" triples. There's still
tons of them out there. Several companies still make 110 BCD triples.

> B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Not true. You can get a 110 BCD 53T if you want one--even if FSA doesn't make them. T.A. and
Willow do.

The only possible problem is deraileur capacity. Check the capacity on the deraileurs you're
considering and think about how you might want to change the gearing in the future. If you don't
have enough capacity, you may need to go to a medium or long cage rear deraileur or a front made for
a triple or both.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

Eric Lambi <eric.lambi@lmscae.com> wrote:

> A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.

110 mm bolt-circle diameter isn't any less "standard" than 130 or 135 millimetres. At least TA makes
suitable chainrings in any size up to 56 or so.

> B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Not true, see above. In any case, extremely few individuals "need"
53/11. The highest gear on my own road bike is 48/13, which is high enough for pedaling at about 40
mph. Very few cyclists generate enough power to make it sensible to pedal at all at speeds
higher than that - They would go faster if they just coasted and concentrated on
aerodynamics.

-as

John summed up well save one point. Some racers balk at the "back shift" required to keep R's up
on the 34-50 shift. I personally use a 34-48 to minimise this and still get 118 gear inches on
48/11. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 John Rees <junk@jrees.net> wrote in message news:3f65e386_3@news3.prserv.net...
> "Eric Lambi" <eric.lambi@lmscae.com> wrote in message
> news:7054b10.0309150734.7f3429a7@posting.google.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than
> > 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure
> > out what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The only two I've
> > figured so far aren't that big of a deal:
> >
> > A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.
> >
> > B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I am interested in this as well. I am beginning the planning for building
a
> new bike for my wife. I am trying to convince her that a 50/34 is the way
to
> go.
>
> "But I *need* a triple" she keeps saying. But I think this is a superior set-up as she often has
> problems shifting into that little chainring
anyway,
> and I hate working on triples.
>
> I noticed yesterday, on a ride that averaged 20mph in rolling hills, that
I
> never got into the 53x12 at all, and maybe not even the 13. Granted, I
was
> alone, and I would have been going faster had I been in a group, but my wife does not do that kind
> of riding. If a person is averaging 14-15mph on
a
> ride, how often would they even get enough speed to get in to the 52
> (52/42/32) and anything smaller than the 15 on the back? When I'm
cleaning
> her bike, the 52 always looks pretty clean, like it never gets used.
>
> Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask
> them what kinds of gears they're running on
their
> bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell me the cassette they
have
> or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure out
they
> 'need' a triple?
>
> I think that a 50/34 is a more realistic set-up on a bike than a triple.
I
> tried to thing of a case where a triple makes more sense. A touring bike came to mind. However, a
> 50/34 touring bike with maybe a 11-32 in the
back
> would work pretty well. I know you need more gear inch for the extra
weight
> of loaded touring. Who wants to descend in a 53x12 with fully loaded panniers on the front and
> back anyway? :-)

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:08:37 +0000, John Rees wrote:

> Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask
> them what kinds of gears they're running on their bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even
> tell me the cassette they have or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure
> out they 'need' a triple?

Simple -- though this was rhetorical. They need lower gears. We all know what that feels like. Few
think about ways to achieve that without a triple -- and the 39 minimum inner ring on road doubles
does not help.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored _`\(,_ | by little statesmen
and philosophers and divines. --Ralph Waldo (_)/ (_) | Emerson

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:52:38 +0000, B wrote:

>> I'm trying to figure out what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any.
>
> The only disadvantag that I see is that there is a 6 tooth difference between large and small vs a
> 4 tooth difference.

You mean 16, but: so? People have the expectation that the change in gearing shifting from a 53 to a
39 is somehow optimized. It isn't. It gave gears that had little overlap, but no gaps, with a
6-speed straight block freewheel back in the day it was designed. It just hasn't changed, and is
inappropriate for most riders now, I believe.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not _`\(,_ | certain, and as
far as they are certain, they do not refer to (_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:03:30 +0200, trg wrote:

> Can the 34 be used with a short cage derailler?

Sure. The 50/34 is 16 teeth. An 11/23 cassette is 12, giving a total of
28. Any derailleur can handle that fine.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. _`\(,_ | That is easy. All
you have to do is tell them they are being (_)/ (_) | attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any <country. --
Hermann Goering

I ride with a 50/36 front and 12/27 rear here in Marin County, where the hills can get steep, and I
find it a better way to go than the triple front (50/40/30) I was running before. Triples work fine,
of course, but I love the simplicity of the double (less to think about).

If you're not racing, the 50 tooth big ring is all you'll want or need (as has been stated in this
newsgroup countless times). 34x27 would get you up most any hill with reasonable comfort.

I've also used a 38/50 front ring combination on a 130BCD road crank, and I find it far more
practical than the standard 53/39 rings for recreational riding. On a cross bike, I ran 38/50
combined with an 8 speed 12/32, and that combination gave me a great range of gears with
decent spacing.

The FSA compact crank looks like a good way to go, and I'm surprised that other companies aren't
marketing 110 BCD double cranks for road use. To my taste, the look of the FSA is unappealing. I use
a Stronglight Granfondo, which looks better, costs less than half as much and as almost as light.

In article <Qsm9b.54816$cj1.28358@fed1read06>, Mike S. <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> The 50t is going to be about 1 tooth smaller in the back. ie: the 50x12 will feel about like the
> 53x13, etc. The 34t is not quite 2 teeth smaller in the back. A 34x24 is going to feel about like
> a 39x26/7.
>
> Generations of trackies have achieved very fast speeds with a 50t big ring... just spin faster!
>
> As an added benefit, the equipment you're about to run is a little smaller and therefore lighter
> than "standard."
>
> I have a 50t big ring on my 'cross bike for summertime use. Except for riding one cog bigger in
> the rear, there isn't too much difference... For springtime, I'm going to go back to it for road
> intervals to equal my track gear.
>
> The only disadvantage comes when/if you start racing and "need" that last big gear...
>
> Mike

"John Rees" <junk@jrees.net> wrote in message news:3f65e386_3@news3.prserv.net...
> "Eric Lambi" <eric.lambi@lmscae.com> wrote in message
> news:7054b10.0309150734.7f3429a7@posting.google.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a smaller gear than
> > 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure
> > out what the disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The only two I've
> > figured so far aren't that big of a deal:
> >
> > A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is broken, etc.
> >
> > B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I am interested in this as well. I am beginning the planning for building
a
> new bike for my wife. I am trying to convince her that a 50/34 is the way
to
> go.
>
> "But I *need* a triple" she keeps saying. But I think this is a superior set-up as she often has
> problems shifting into that little chainring
anyway,
> and I hate working on triples.
>
> I noticed yesterday, on a ride that averaged 20mph in rolling hills, that
I
> never got into the 53x12 at all, and maybe not even the 13. Granted, I
was
> alone, and I would have been going faster had I been in a group, but my wife does not do that kind
> of riding. If a person is averaging 14-15mph on
a
> ride, how often would they even get enough speed to get in to the 52
> (52/42/32) and anything smaller than the 15 on the back? When I'm
cleaning
> her bike, the 52 always looks pretty clean, like it never gets used.
>
> Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask
> them what kinds of gears they're running on
their
> bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell me the cassette they
have
> or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure out
they
> 'need' a triple?
>
> I think that a 50/34 is a more realistic set-up on a bike than a triple.
I
> tried to thing of a case where a triple makes more sense. A touring bike came to mind. However, a
> 50/34 touring bike with maybe a 11-32 in the
back
> would work pretty well. I know you need more gear inch for the extra
weight
> of loaded touring. Who wants to descend in a 53x12 with fully loaded panniers on the front and
> back anyway? :-)
>
>
> Been using a 50/38 set up for a while now, not racing though. I use a
13-21 rear on one bike and a 13-23 on the other. I find a 50 tooth front fine and a 38 tooth inner
ring more than adequate, though I could use a 23 rear cog on some occasions.

Graham