48/36 vs 48/34 vs 46/34

(B) said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real reason to prefer one of the above over the
other two? B

(remove clothes to reply)

need more info... or else I say 48/36 because they both divide evenly by twelve.... (better karma)

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real

reason to prefer one of

Quoted message said:

the above over the other two? B

(remove clothes to reply)

What cassette are you planning to use?

And what gearing do you WANT?

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real reason to prefer

one of

Quoted message said:

the above over the other two?

Mmmkay...is your project a piece of furniture, or a bike? What is the intended purpose of the bike?
What kind of terrain will you be riding? Will you also have a granny ring?

In general, for mountain bikes that double as commuter/street bikes, I prefer 46/34/24 on standard
110/74mm RaceFace Turbine LP's with an 11/32 cassette.

Cyclocrossers seem to prefer the 48/36 combo, AFAICT.

B^2

This will be a road bike - double. Used primarily for flat to hilly terrain, but would like the
ability to put on a 32 or 34 low gear in back for cc type tours and hills, etc. B

(remove clothes to reply)

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This will be a road bike - double. Used primarily for flat to hilly terrain, but would like the
ability to

put on

Quoted message said:

a 32 or 34 low gear in back for cc type tours and hills, etc.

Hmm. I think 34T is too small, personally; but I guess a 48/34 would work. Haven't tried it.
Shifting to the big ring could be rather challenging.

Why not make it easy on yourself and just go with a standard 52/42/30 triple? Problem solved. Don't
want to pony-up for the new triple-compatible STI levers? Get Dura-Ace (9spd) or Ultegra (8spd)
bar-end shifters (barcons) from Nashbar.com for ~$50. Get 'em before they're gone if you're an
8-speed holdout...

Barry

"B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wT8xa.863158$L1.249607@sccrnsc02...

Quoted message said:

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This will be a road bike - double. Used primarily for flat to hilly terrain, but would like

the ability to

Quoted message said:

put on

Quoted message said:

a 32 or 34 low gear in back for cc type tours and hills,

etc.

Quoted message said:

Hmm. I think 34T is too small, personally; but I guess a

48/34 would work.

Quoted message said:

Haven't tried it. Shifting to the big ring could be

rather challenging.

I ran a 34 middle and 48 outer on my mountain bike for awhile. It shifted fine.

Matt O.

It's easier to find a road shifter that will work well with the 48 than one that will work
with the 46.

I'd recommend the 34. If all you go for is the 36, you might as well stay with more
conventional 38/39t 130 rings and go for a 13/? rear cassette. My wife uses a 13/30 or 32 with
53/39. With a 110 bolt,
48/36 I'd have to get her 12/27. Her 13/32 is a modified 12/27 with the 12 off and a 32 on anyway.

(B) said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real reason to prefer one of the above over the
other two? B

(remove clothes to reply)

B. Sanders said:

Hmm. I think 34T is too small, personally; but I guess a 48/34 would work. Haven't tried it.
Shifting to the big ring could be rather challenging.

Why would going from 34 to 48 be any different than going from 39 to 53? With the proper derailleur,
the chain jumps right up w/o a problem.

I ran a 26/34/50 on my loaded tourer for a couple of years, no problems shifting.

-pete

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a 48/34 would work. Haven't tried it. Shifting to the big ring could be rather challenging.

That is my only worry about the 48/34. Otherwise, it would be the clear

choice.

Quoted message said:

Would a 48/36 or 46/34 shift noticably better? B

(remove clothes to reply)

B said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real reason to prefer one of the above over the
other two? B

(remove clothes to reply)

To see the overlap of the gears for different sets of cogs you can use

home.t-online.degearcalc.htmlOpen ↗

It's a Java applet.

Dirk

"Dirk Feeken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real

reason to prefer one of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the above over the other two? B

(remove clothes to reply)

To see the overlap of the gears for different sets of cogs

you can use

Quoted message said:

home.t-online.degearcalc.htmlOpen ↗

It's a Java applet.

Dirk

Or try this one.....

bellsouthpwp.netGearing.htmOpen ↗

"B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<wT8xa.863158$L1.249607@sccrnsc02>...

Quoted message said:

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<cut>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a 32 or 34 low gear in back for cc type tours and hills, etc.

Hmm. I think 34T is too small, personally; but I guess a 48/34 would work. Haven't tried it.
Shifting to the big ring could be rather challenging. <cut> Barry

I have a bike with 48/34 on the front (plain stronglight rings) which shifts perfectly.

I put the 34 on to cope with a 1 in 4 (25%) gradient on my daily commute.

I chose 34T as it was the smallest 110 BCD ring available.

"Dirk Feeken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B said:

I am putting together a new project. Is there any real

reason to prefer one of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the above over the other two? B

(remove clothes to reply)

To see the overlap of the gears for different sets of cogs

you can use

Quoted message said:

home.t-online.degearcalc.htmlOpen ↗

It's a Java applet.

Interesting program design -- unconventional, but elegant once you get used to it. The
unconventional part is selecting *and* deselecting things from the drop-down/scrolling list.

Matt O.