Question: is a 34/50 compact crank to small to work well on flats using a nine speed 12/26 cog?

[Doug Taylor]

On 18 May 2006 12:02:46 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I think I'm sold on a 50/34 using a 12-26 cog. Best of both worlds...

Actually, you might want to check out an 11-28 as sold by IRD.

http://www.interlocracing.com/cassettes_steel.html

I too have a compact 50/34 up front but usually ride with people who
use 53/39. Since they all have 53:12 as their high gear, before I
switched my cassette from 12-27 to 11-28, there were enough instances
when the going would get hard over a long ride that spinning a 50:12
would tire me out. 50:11 gives me virtually the same gearing as
53:12. Meantime, I still have the 2 super low gears to keep me
spinning and seated when the others are grinding and standing on the
climbs.

Trade off is that you necessarily have to contend with six 2 teeth
jumps in the block and one 3 tooth at the high end.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Actually 80rpm is where I can hold it for as long as I'm awake. I've
> > tree trunk legs...low rpms seems to make me more efficent. So, to hold
> > 30mph for an hour I need something like 52/11? Wish I had a flat track
> > to see how long I could hold it.
> >
> > Randolf
>
> 30 MPH for an hour? Oh my! Jan Ullrich raced the 50 km flat time
> trial in the Giro today at 51.02 kmh (31.8 mph), 58 minutes, 48
> seconds. Pretty close to an hour.
>
> 30 MPH * 336.3 constant / 80 RPM = 126.11 Gear Inches
>
> 52x11 = 125.27 gear inches
> 53x11 = 127.68 gear inches

Der Kaiser was running a 13 too!

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> I think I'm sold on a 50/34 using a 12-26 cog. Best of both worlds...a
> little lower gear for those mean hills and a little more high for
> coming down the backside. Unfortunelately I never get to pedal down
> hill cause there are always stop lights at the bottom of each hill
>
> Now if I could only find a XL compact frame with 50/34 chain wheel and
> a 12-26 cog with at least a 105 derailure. I'd be in hog heaven

My highest gear is 48/13, and I run some fast descents. I
go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
gear. As for the technical descents, 70 km / hour is out
of the question.

--
Michael Press

 

[Ron Ruff]

[email protected] wrote:
> I think I'm sold on a 50/34 using a 12-26 cog. Best of both worlds...a
> little lower gear for those mean hills and a little more high for
> coming down the backside.

One thing to consider is the amount of gear ratio change between rings.
12-26 is a good range in the back, but you might still find yourself
shifting the front a lot if you are at a normal cruising speed of 16-20
mph. That's why I'm riding a 13-25 with a 48/36... works for me. I
think you'd be happier with at least a 50/36 or 48/34, rather than a
50/34.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 18 May 2006 08:11:44 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Anything bigger than 50-12 would only be needed were you a fast
>sprinter who lost races because you didn't have a big enough gear.

Please. There are plenty of racing circumstances where gear like
that are larger is needed, not just sprinting.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Jay Beattie]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I think I'm sold on a 50/34 using a 12-26 cog. Best of both worlds...a
> > little lower gear for those mean hills and a little more high for
> > coming down the backside. Unfortunelately I never get to pedal down
> > hill cause there are always stop lights at the bottom of each hill
> >
> > Now if I could only find a XL compact frame with 50/34 chain wheel and
> > a 12-26 cog with at least a 105 derailure. I'd be in hog heaven
>
> My highest gear is 48/13, and I run some fast descents. I
> go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
> gear. As for the technical descents, 70 km / hour is out
> of the question.

It really just comes down to how fast you like to spin. I commute on a
cross bike with a big gear of 46/12, and it drives me nuts. I want
something bigger for the gentle down grade in to town. The rings are
38/46, with a 9sp 12-26 cassette. I'm going to swap out the big ring
for a 53, or whatever I have hanging around -- assuming there is no
problem with raising the FD. If I race cross next year, I'll throw the
little big ring back on. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 18 May 2006 08:11:44 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Anything bigger than 50-12 would only be needed were you a fast
> >sprinter who lost races because you didn't have a big enough gear.
>
> Please. There are plenty of racing circumstances where gear like
> that are larger is needed, not just sprinting.

True. They just don't apply to 99% of cyclists. The OP hasn't said
he's racing with these bikes.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 07:38:39 -0700, randolf_scott wrote:

> Guys,
>
> Question is a 34/50 compact crank to small to work well on flats using
> a nine speed 12/26 cog?

For high gears, a 52/12, a 50/12, or even a 48/12 should be plenty.

> We have healthy hills in the Ozarks, but certainly not "Alpine"
> inclines.

For me, the 34-50 (or even the standard 39-53) requires too many double
shifts in the middle of the normal speed range, and has too big a cadence
gap between chainrings. I prefer the 42-52 on my triple.

Unless you really need those lower gears, I'd stick with a 42-52, or at
least a similar gap. If you do need the low gears occasionally, but most
of your riding is on the flats or rolling terrain, get a triple.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:58:38 +0000, Michael Press wrote:

> I
> go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
> gear.

This is true. I gain on others when I tuck and they're pedaling,
even if they're much stronger than I, and better bike handlers. Even some
Cat II's haven't figured this out!

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:41:45 -0700, randolf_scott wrote:

> Actually 80rpm is where I can hold it for as long as I'm awake. I've
> tree trunk legs...low rpms seems to make me more efficent. So, to hold
> 30mph for an hour I need something like 52/11? Wish I had a flat track
> to see how long I could hold it.

You can hold 30 MPH for an hour by yourself? Wow.

Matt O.

 

[John Thompson]

On 2006-05-18, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> Question is a 34/50 compact crank to small to work well on flats using
> a nine speed 12/26 cog?
>
> We have healthy hills in the Ozarks, but certainly not "Alpine"
> inclines.

Figure out which gears you use the most and pick the chainrings and rear
cogs to provide them. I use a 43/30 crank and 13-24 6-speed freewheel
for early season riding and work up to a 48-49/36-39 crank as the season
progresses. It's been years since I've found a ring larger than 50T to
be useful for my riding, but I like to spin.

--

John ([email protected])

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:49:37 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2006 08:11:44 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Anything bigger than 50-12 would only be needed were you a fast
>> >sprinter who lost races because you didn't have a big enough gear.
>>
>> Please. There are plenty of racing circumstances where gear like
>> that are larger is needed, not just sprinting.
>
>True. They just don't apply to 99% of cyclists.

[about]
>The OP hasn't said
>he's racing with these bikes.

True. I was commenting on previous post I quoted. That's why I
quoted it, as you know. The OP hasn't said he's racing with these
bikes and I have no comment on his needs.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:37 -0400, Matt O'Toole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:58:38 +0000, Michael Press wrote:
>
>> I
>> go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
>> gear.
>
>This is true. I gain on others when I tuck and they're pedaling,
>even if they're much stronger than I,

Even on the flats and in a tailwind? Wow.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:58:38 +0000, Michael Press wrote:

> > My highest gear is 48/13 and I run some fast descents.
> > I go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
> > gear.
>
> This is true. I gain on others when I tuck and they're pedaling,
> even if they're much stronger than I, and better bike handlers. Even some
> Cat II's haven't figured this out!
>
>

Sure, but tucking isn't "macho". Have your testosterone levels checked.
;-)

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

[email protected] wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Question is a 34/50 compact crank to small to work well on flats using
> a nine speed 12/26 cog?
>
> We have healthy hills in the Ozarks, but certainly not "Alpine"
> inclines.
>
> Randolf

Well, gearing is really 'personal' but I use a 50/39 with a 13-23 rear
and ride around on the flats in the 14/15/17 cog most of the time.
50/12 is a gigantic gear and most cannot ride on the flats in a 53/12,
at say 90 rpm, anyway....so the 50t should be fine..

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 19 May 2006 05:27:57 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:58:38 +0000, Michael Press wrote:
>
>> > My highest gear is 48/13 and I run some fast descents.
>> > I go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
>> > gear.
>>
>> This is true. I gain on others when I tuck and they're pedaling,
>> even if they're much stronger than I, and better bike handlers. Even some
>> Cat II's haven't figured this out!
>
>Sure, but tucking isn't "macho".

The other thing is what's the point of the ride? Is it to get
somewehre as fast as possible with least energy? Then maybe a tuck is
appropriate. Is it to just get there, like on an easy commute? Then
I'd just coast and not bother tucking. Is it basic endurance training
for an objective/event later in the year? Then maybe it's appropriate
to *never* coast, even if coasting is faster. Is it focused on skill?
Then maybe learning to hold a tuck comfortably and safely is
important.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

> You can hold 30 MPH for an hour by yourself? Wow.
>
> Matt O.

I have no idea...I haven't tried...but as I mentioned else where if I
could dope for a year or two who knows what's possible

Randolf

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> > You can hold 30 MPH for an hour by yourself? Wow.
> >
> > Matt O.
>
> I have no idea...I haven't tried...but as I mentioned else where if I
> could dope for a year or two who knows what's possible
>

Ride like a Pro - use EPO ;-)

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 May 2006 07:38:39 -0700, randolf_scott wrote:
>
> > Question is a 34/50 compact crank to small to work well on flats
> > using a nine speed 12/26 cog?
>
> For high gears, a 52/12, a 50/12, or even a 48/12 should be plenty.
>
> > We have healthy hills in the Ozarks, but certainly not "Alpine"
> > inclines.
>
> For me, the 34-50 (or even the standard 39-53) requires too many
> double shifts in the middle of the normal speed range, and has too
> big a cadence gap between chainrings. I prefer the 42-52 on my
> triple.
>
> Unless you really need those lower gears, I'd stick with a 42-52, or
> at least a similar gap. If you do need the low gears occasionally,
> but most of your riding is on the flats or rolling terrain, get a
> triple.

My 48/34 x 11-28 setup allows me to ride in the big ring almost all the
time, except on the steepest grades. On Tuesday I rode 100 km all in
the big ring, which would have sounded impressive if I hadn't told you
what my gearing is. A couple of weeks ago on the 200K brevet I only
used the small ring twice, for about a mile each time up a couple of
steep hills.

The point of such gearing is to eliminate front shifts as much as
possible, using the granny gear as the bailout for really steep hills or
really tired legs. With a wide range 8/9/10 speed cassette, a "big"
ring of 46 or 48 is very practical for most riding, and pretty much
eliminates shifting the front derailleur almost all the time.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 19 May 2006 05:27:57 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:58:38 +0000, Michael Press wrote:
> >
> >> > My highest gear is 48/13 and I run some fast descents.
> >> > I go faster by tucking than I could turning a higher high
> >> > gear.
> >>
> >> This is true. I gain on others when I tuck and they're pedaling,
> >> even if they're much stronger than I, and better bike handlers. Even some
> >> Cat II's haven't figured this out!
> >
> >Sure, but tucking isn't "macho".
>
> The other thing is what's the point of the ride? Is it to get
> somewehre as fast as possible with least energy? Then maybe a tuck is
> appropriate. Is it to just get there, like on an easy commute? Then
> I'd just coast and not bother tucking. Is it basic endurance training
> for an objective/event later in the year? Then maybe it's appropriate
> to *never* coast, even if coasting is faster. Is it focused on skill?
> Then maybe learning to hold a tuck comfortably and safely is
> important.

Part of my fun bicycling is experimenting, and developing
skill. I traverse some descents, and portions of some
descents faster in a tuck, than pedaling. By checking
speeds I see that even if I were turning a higher gear
than I have, I would not go faster than tucking.
Sometimes on a fast descent I sit up and let the wind blow
into me. On shallower descents sometimes I pedal hard,
sometimes I coast. The discussion began for me when I
responded to a non-racer considering his gearing
suggesting that a higher gear might not make him faster.
Of course anyone who wants to will pedal hard downhill for
whatever marginal benefit in speed there is to be had, and
for the pleasure of it. John, you may have read too much
into what I wrote.

--
Michael Press