Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > Bike Racing > Track Racing
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


47x14 vs 50x15

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-12.-2004, 10:49 AM   #1
kula2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3
Default 47x14 vs 50x15

I'm new to track racing and I'm slowly adding to my gear collection. I currently have 48 & 49 rings and 15 & 16 cogs, but I want to add a new gear ratio. Either a 50 ring or a 47x14 to get me into the 90+ range.

I primarily would be racing mass start events like Scratch, Points, etc, but also events like Sprint, Keirin, and chariot.

I'm just wondering what other experienced trackies out there would recommend between a 47x14 and a 50x15 (if you could only purchase one combo) and why.

The other issue that comes up is going to the smaller rings gives me too much chain slack to deal with.

Advice please
kula2000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12.-2004, 05:18 PM   #2
RSD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 13
Default Re: 47x14 vs 50x15

In my experience (10 years of racing on the track), the 50x15 just feels faster than a 47x14. It's totally subjective and based on nothing scientific, but hey, your psychological state has an impact on your performance . Actually, there was a study done by a university engineering class about just this question. They found that larger chainrings created less friction in the drivetrain. I think I read it in Velo News, but it was several years ago.

Also, your chain length and rear dropout length can be a factor. If either or both are on the short side you'll have to go with the smaller combo, and the opposite if they are longer. Unless of course you want to start with a new chain and cut it to length.

One last thing to consider: Cogs are a lot cheaper than chainrings. If you already have a 48 and 49, all you need is a 14t cog and you're set. I rode a 48x14 for 2 or 3 years and had good results before I could afford to buy 50 and 51t rings, you'll do fine with the same.
RSD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12.-2004, 04:14 PM   #3
otherworld
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 142
Default Re: 47x14 vs 50x15

Using larger combinations IS more efficient as the study quoted by RSD suggests. More friction is generated by pulling the chain around smaller sprockets and relates far more to the sprocket than the chainring. (chain deflection is much higher as it goes around the smaller sprocket).

I'd go 50x15 even though it's a wee bit lower than 47x14. (gives you a bit shorter wheel base as well) If your chain gets too short and is still in good condition just add a link. That's the beauty of chains.

Kind Regards Jay.
(Six years track racing as a kid, just started up again as a veteran - 30+ years in manufacturing and automotive engineering)
otherworld is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12.-2004, 01:33 PM   #4
Lasalles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 221
Default Re: 47x14 vs 50x15

Give me 47 x 14 anyday,its an awesome gear.
__________________
Hillbrick Zona Track
Felt CA1(Road Hack)
Lasalles is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13-12.-2004, 06:26 AM   #5
VeloFlash
Registered User
 
VeloFlash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
Default Re: 47x14 vs 50x15

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSD
<snip> Actually, there was a study done by a university engineering class about just this question. They found that larger chainrings created less friction in the drivetrain. I think I read it in Velo News, but it was several years ago. <snip>



I recall, if it was the same study (MIT?), the conclusion was drawn from rear cogs not chainrings.

Something like a 1% increment between cogs with the 12t being 92% efficient and the 18t being 98% efficient.

About a 60x18 would be your optimum choice
__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"
VeloFlash is offline  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet