Good old West Virginia... We have a love-hate relationship, and I feel like I've finally found my sweet spot in terms of gearing.
Right now, I'm operating on SRAM Rival (grad student here, gimme a break~) with a 110 50/34, and a PG-1070 12-26
I found a really sweet deal for a 33t chainring for $35 and shipping (http://www.homebrewedcomponents.com/store.php/products/aluminum-110bcd-5-bolt-chainring
). I had some spare money from trading in textbooks back to Amazon, and I got a 48t SRAM chainring for zero out of pocket. (mostly to be sure there isn't a front derailleur issue with 17t shifting (50/33).
Now, I plan on changing my cassette soon to an 11-25 (the cassette has... 5k+ mi on it)
I know the differences aren't significant, but other than because the pros don't do it, and cycling culture, why aren't we utilizing smaller cassettes and chainrings that are (nearly) equivalent in gear inches, etc?
a 52-12 (114.0 g.i.) is nearly equivalent to a 48-11 (114.8 g.i.)
File comment: Big Rings (Theoretical Setup)
big.png [ 39.5 KiB | Viewed 3292 times ]
This way, one would lose 0.8 g.i. off the top, but gain 4.8 g.i. on the low end by having a 33-25 (34.7 g.i.) instead of 39-26 (39.5 g.i.) To get gearing as easy as the 33-25, I would need to have a 39-29 (35.4 g.i.) Eeek, that sounds heavy.
File comment: Small Rings (Future Setup)
small.png [ 38.39 KiB | Viewed 3292 times ]
This in also creates a wider range of gearing, no?
I'm a high cadence rider anyways, so this all seems win-win.
All while theoretically losing weight due to smaller chainrings and cassette sizes!
Are there any downsides to this?