On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:29:10 -0500, catzz66 <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "catzz66" wrote: (clip) I guess what I am asking is how I could
>> mathematically come close to matching the 48/16 to see how it ought to
>> feel. I am trying to think through the logic of it.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 48/16=3. Whatever number of teeth you have on the chainring will determine
>> what is needed on the cog--simply divide by 3. If you use the 52 tooth
>> ring, 52/3= 17.3, so you will be pretty close with a 17 tooth cog.
>> Similarly, your 39 tooth ring will call for a 13 tooth cog.
>>
>>
>
>
>Thanks. That's simple enough. So, my 39 tooth ring and 12 tooth gear
>ought to be a little harder than 48/16 would be.
Yes, but by the same token, 52/17 will also be a trifle taller than
the 48/16 combo. If you have a 52 sprocket in front, it's essentially
certain that you've already got at least one rear that's 17 teeth or
less, so "taller than 48/16" is pretty much assured for some
combination that you have now. I'm borrowing the automotive use of
"taller" here, in which it implies a gear ratio that requires fewer
powerplant revs for a given number of wheel revs than for a ratio
that's not as tall. In a more bike-centric form of expression, the
discussion would be centered around gear-inches, which also takes into
account the wheel diameter...which is relevant, after all.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.