Is the rise and hype of 52/36 compact here to stay?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Zigmeister
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:09 pm

by Zigmeister

I run a 52T QRing on the big. I know, not a direct relation, but at points it is equivalent to a 52, then larger/smaller.

But, it will in general spin slightly faster than a 53T equivalent. I like it personally. Still run a 39T QRing on the inner.

KWalker
Posts: 5845
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

pawnii wrote:wish Shimano made 52/36 rings for 7900 compact crank.

Praxis will be releasing theirs shortly, but the problem is that 9000 is debuting in a month so I'm just going to wait for that SRM to come out.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

by Weenie


aeroslave
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:56 am

by aeroslave

Thanks gents! Its decided! 52/36 chainrings for my SRAM RED compact. Will buy the black ones as it looks great on my Project Black Venge :-)

Cheers for your feedback.
"Light bike? Its still about the engine!".

Hubert
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:47 pm
Location: TX

by Hubert

What crank are you on now?

As a long time use of the 53/39, I did not like the 52/36 when paired with a 11-28 CS.

Where I live however, there are lots of climbs that average 10-12% and while I appreciated the "easier" climbing gear, it truly felt less efficient because the 28 felt too easy while the 24 wasn't quite right either. What's more, on the flats the 52T made it difficult to find a good driving gear, especially on rolling, undulating terrain. Ultimately, I ended up going back to my 53/39.

Just the other day, I installed a 12-30 cassette in combination with my 53/39 and it's awesome. The 39/30 combination is just a bite "harder" than the 36/28 was, so it feels better on the climbs, while having the 53 with the 12/13/14 T ratios out back provide a great rolling gear that you're able to stay on top on the flatter, motorway type sections of road.

I will add that if you've been on a 50/34, the 52/36 is probably a good "gateway" setup; however, if you've spent any considerable time on a 53/39 (especially with an 11-25 CS), I believe you'll find the 52/36 awkward.

My two cents...
Turn down the suck knob.

Phill P
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

by Phill P

I'd be happy with 53/38. "Normal" FD are meant to have that range, and you can fit a 38 on a 130BCD, just not on a campy 135BCD. This could have been a way shimano could have had a one up on campy, but just taking one tooth off their inner ring isn't as big a selling point as thier fantastic shifting and cranks in general....

A 53/38 and 12-27 11spd cassette would give me all the gears I'd ever need. Never really liked 12-27 10spd cassettes as the jumps got too big too soon.

KWalker
Posts: 5845
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Gear inches are gear inches it doesn't matter how you get them just that you have the appropriate spacing and its high/low enough for your terrain.

A 39-30 would be horrible for me descending since I can spin out the 53-11 on lots of descents around here and the gaps are too big in the larger cogs. 36 with a 25 is basically as low as a 39-28 and you get 2 more cogs before 16 mph @85 RPM, my climbing cadence. I could give a shit less if I got the same result with a 34 or 39, just that it works. The difference at climbing speeds is usually only a few RPM between combinations so its not like there is some magical set that just works better.

These guys run the 52-36 in the Giro for the same reason I and many others run it- you can still descend just as fast with an 11-XX cassette and you have a tad more low end for the steep gradients. I've yet to have a single issue with it shifting with 7900
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

hansonator69
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by hansonator69

Rotor are making compact 52T aero Q rings now...

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... -in-34109/
Slam your stem.

aeroslave
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:56 am

by aeroslave

hansonator69 wrote:Rotor are making compact 52T aero Q rings now...

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... -in-34109/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Those 52T aero Q rings are like 54T round chainring equivalents right?
"Light bike? Its still about the engine!".

User avatar
kbbpll
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:56 am

by kbbpll

hansonator69 wrote:Rotor are making compact 52T aero Q rings now...

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... -in-34109/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Is this Biopace reborn, or the even older eliptical chainring idea?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21266731

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

From above, although we may be going off topic:
"Elliptical chainrings do not appear to provide a performance benefit over traditional circular chainrings during a mid-distance time trial."

Interesting!
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

notsoswift
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne

by notsoswift

I have one bike 53/39 and one 50/34 and I think 52/36 would be perfect in most every situation. I just wish my Campy bike (with 53/39) was a compact so I could have bought it in the new option.

aeroslave
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:56 am

by aeroslave

I race category 2 / B grade. Is 52X11 good enough for racing. I am waiting for my chainrings but wonder if I can use these gears too for racing.
"Light bike? Its still about the engine!".

mrfish
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:49 pm
Location: Near Horgen, Switzerland

by mrfish

This is silly. Choose bottom gears you're comfortable with, not because they're fashionable.

If you want to be analytical about it, Protour Pros do 160km over big hills at about 40kph+ average on maybe 53/39 and 12-25 for 'average' stages. This probably includes keeping the 25 as a bailout cog. So if you riding similar terrain at 30kph average, one might scale gears accordingly which puts one into a bottom gear of 34*29. For mountains if pros are riding 36*28 up the Stelvio for instance, then a similar speed ratio (actually probably worse) suggests that normal people should have a slightly lower gear than 34x34.

My experience on Saturday confirms this - I rode up the Stelvio on 34x25 and needed to ride hard to keep the gear turning over, and the legs were wasted by the end, whereas people on MTBs looked much more comfortable. Well, apart from a guy in trainers who had a 6-year-old in a child seat. I gave him a push for a few metres, but not sure how far he managed :D There was also a guy with a corncob cassette and Lightweights. He appeared to sprint one hairpin at a time, then take a break by the side of the road.

Regarding top gears, I think there's an argument to keep them similar to the pros, since 85kg desk jockies have a higher terminal velocity than 60kg Euskatel pros.

RTW
in the industry
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:32 pm

by RTW

MrFish, you are completely missing the point.

The point is that it is all about acceptance and posing. We are all sheep, and will follow the crowd, because not to would mean thinking for yourself and coming up with a valid argument. No one wants to do that. No one at all.

[/sarcasm]

bikedoc
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:16 pm

by bikedoc

48/34 for training and everyday use with 12/28
39/53 for flat racing with 11/25
44/56 for TT's with 11/23 or 11/25

Thats what works for me

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post