Compact 50/36 chainring combination
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Try this
http://www.ritzelrechner.de
it's very close. But the 36 will be more usable at the high end (36/13-14-15), I find one shifts the chainrings a bit less.
http://www.ritzelrechner.de
it's very close. But the 36 will be more usable at the high end (36/13-14-15), I find one shifts the chainrings a bit less.
I like one better: 46-36. The front shift is much closer to what I want with a front shift. 46-34 is also very good. I really don't miss a 50-11 except in extreme cases. 46-11 is still quite big for my girly-legs.
-
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:24 am
Yeah djconnel has the right idea. Very few people need the big large chainring unless you nail it down hills or you're a fast sprinter. I run 48/38 or 49/39 at the front and the shifting is superb. It gives me an advantage in that I can very quickly change down into the smaller chainring without spinning out and losing power while I find the right gear at the back - I just flick it one gear down at the back and I've got pretty much the same gear as before.
I never find I run out of gears with 48 x 11, however I do prefer climbing where I'm not using the big ring much. When I'm riding on the flat I find the gears I use most of the time are nicely in the middle of the cassette.
And sorry for going off topic, but I'd say to OP that the 50/36 would be better as there's less of a jump at the front - 50/34 is a huge jump (the most that most derailleurs can take), and the shifting will suffer when it matters. Even better would be 48/36.
I never find I run out of gears with 48 x 11, however I do prefer climbing where I'm not using the big ring much. When I'm riding on the flat I find the gears I use most of the time are nicely in the middle of the cassette.
And sorry for going off topic, but I'd say to OP that the 50/36 would be better as there's less of a jump at the front - 50/34 is a huge jump (the most that most derailleurs can take), and the shifting will suffer when it matters. Even better would be 48/36.
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:50 pm
djconnel wrote:I like one better: 46-36. The front shift is much closer to what I want with a front shift. 46-34 is also very good. I really don't miss a 50-11 except in extreme cases. 46-11 is still quite big for my girly-legs.
Yup. Me too. Currently running a 34/46 (because that's what I had), and you can go pretty darn fast in the 46/11.
GRAVELBIKE.COM - ride everything
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:20 am
A website I find really helpful is www.bikecalc.com and It is really good for any calculation you may have. You can find all the ratios, speeds, cadence at speed and it gives you a highly comprehensive table to sort it all out.