Compact 50/36 chainring combination

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
konky
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:26 pm

by konky

Thinking of trying a 50/36 compact chainring combination. Does a 11-27T cassette with a 50/36 chainring give you a similar range to a 11-25T cassette with 50/34 chainring?

Any comments would be much appreciated.

by Weenie


sungod
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:37 pm
Location: it's raining, it must be uk

by sungod

36/27 is slightly higher (harder) than 34/25, and will have wider spacing on the larger sprockets, i'd prefer the 34/25 combo

basilic
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

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.

MagnusH
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:02 pm

by MagnusH

sungod wrote:36/27 is slightly higher (harder) than 34/25, and will have wider spacing on the larger sprockets, i'd prefer the 34/25 combo

This is wrong.

34/25=1.36>1.33=36/27

sungod
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:37 pm
Location: it's raining, it must be uk

by sungod

^^^this

oops!

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

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.

CarpetFibre
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:24 am

by CarpetFibre

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.

MileHighMark
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:50 pm

by MileHighMark

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

addictR1
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:11 am

by addictR1

glad i found this post...

would these type of combo be good for climbing only or even on the flats? cuz i thought 53/11 would be quick, but this weekend, i found my legs weren't all there to ride fast enough.

by Weenie


Guyeclipse
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:20 am

by Guyeclipse

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.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post