48/36 vs 48/34 vs 46/34

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by B, May 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. B

    B Guest

    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)
     
    Tags:


  2. Ajames54

    Ajames54 Guest

    On 16 May 2003 14:05:20 GMT, [email protected] (B) wrote:

    >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)
     
  3. Grenouil

    Grenouil Guest

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

    What cassette are you planning to use?

    And what gearing do you WANT?
     
  4. B. Sanders

    B. Sanders Guest

    "B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I am putting together a new project. Is there any real reason to prefer
    one of
    > 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
     
  5. B

    B Guest

    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)
     
  6. B. Sanders

    B. Sanders Guest

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

    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
     
  7. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

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

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

    > > 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.

    > 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.

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

    Matt O.
     
  8. Paul Kopit

    Paul Kopit Guest

    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.

    On 16 May 2003 14:05:20 GMT, [email protected] (B) wrote:

    >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)
     
  9. Paul Kopit

    Paul Kopit Guest

    On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:05:32 GMT, "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.
     
  10. Pete Grey

    Pete Grey Guest

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

    -pete

    "B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >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.
    > Would a 48/36 or 46/34 shift noticably better? B
    >
    > (remove clothes to reply)
     
  11. Dirk Feeken

    Dirk Feeken Guest

    B wrote:

    >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

    http://home.t-online.de/home/dirk.feeken/gearcalc.html

    It's a Java applet.

    Dirk
     
  12. Grenouil

    Grenouil Guest

  13. "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    <cut>
    > > 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.
     
  14. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Dirk Feeken" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > B wrote:
    >
    > >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
    >
    > http://home.t-online.de/home/dirk.feeken/gearcalc.html
    >
    > 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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...