Comparing 50/34 to 53/39

John summed up well save one point. Some racers balk at the "back shift"
required to keep R's up on the 34-50 shift. I personally use a 34-48 to
minimise this and still get 118 gear inches on 48/11.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
John Rees wrote in message
...
"Eric Lambi" wrote in message
m...
Hello,


Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23
is a smaller gear than 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a
superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The
only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

I am interested in this as well. I am beginning the planning for building
a
new bike for my wife. I am trying to convince her that a 50/34 is the way
to
go.

"But I *need* a triple" she keeps saying. But I think this is a superior
set-up as she often has problems shifting into that little chainring
anyway,
and I hate working on triples.

I noticed yesterday, on a ride that averaged 20mph in rolling hills, that
I
never got into the 53x12 at all, and maybe not even the 13. Granted, I
was
alone, and I would have been going faster had I been in a group, but my
wife does not do that kind of riding. If a person is averaging 14-15mph on
a
ride, how often would they even get enough speed to get in to the 52
(52/42/32) and anything smaller than the 15 on the back? When I'm
cleaning
her bike, the 52 always looks pretty clean, like it never gets used.

Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who
ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask them what kinds of gears they're running on
their
bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell me the cassette they
have
or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure out
they
'need' a triple?

I think that a 50/34 is a more realistic set-up on a bike than a triple.
I
tried to thing of a case where a triple makes more sense. A touring bike
came to mind. However, a 50/34 touring bike with maybe a 11-32 in the
back
would work pretty well. I know you need more gear inch for the extra
weight
of loaded touring. Who wants to descend in a 53x12 with fully loaded
panniers on the front and back anyway? :-)

Hello,

I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact
crankset. This crankset comes with a large chainring of 50 and a
small chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23 in the back
with this setup, depending on the race.

With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the
race. I enjoy the 25 because it gives me an extra gear when I'm
getting desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the big
ring on some hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually
will shift up to the second-smallest gear while in the big ring).

Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23
is a smaller gear than 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a
superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The
only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

Eric Lambi

I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any.

The only disadvantag that I see is that there is a 6 tooth difference between
large and small vs a 4 tooth difference.

B

(remove clothes to reply)

"Eric Lambi" wrote in message
m...
Hello,


Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23
is a smaller gear than 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a
superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The
only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

I am interested in this as well. I am beginning the planning for building a
new bike for my wife. I am trying to convince her that a 50/34 is the way to
go.

"But I *need* a triple" she keeps saying. But I think this is a superior
set-up as she often has problems shifting into that little chainring anyway,
and I hate working on triples.

I noticed yesterday, on a ride that averaged 20mph in rolling hills, that I
never got into the 53x12 at all, and maybe not even the 13. Granted, I was
alone, and I would have been going faster had I been in a group, but my
wife does not do that kind of riding. If a person is averaging 14-15mph on a
ride, how often would they even get enough speed to get in to the 52
(52/42/32) and anything smaller than the 15 on the back? When I'm cleaning
her bike, the 52 always looks pretty clean, like it never gets used.

Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who
ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask them what kinds of gears they're running on their
bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell me the cassette they have
or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure out they
'need' a triple?

I think that a 50/34 is a more realistic set-up on a bike than a triple. I
tried to thing of a case where a triple makes more sense. A touring bike
came to mind. However, a 50/34 touring bike with maybe a 11-32 in the back
would work pretty well. I know you need more gear inch for the extra weight
of loaded touring. Who wants to descend in a 53x12 with fully loaded
panniers on the front and back anyway? :-)

"Eric Lambi" wrote in message
m...
Hello,

I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact
crankset. This crankset comes with a large chainring of 50 and a
small chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23 in the back
with this setup, depending on the race.

With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the
race. I enjoy the 25 because it gives me an extra gear when I'm
getting desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the big
ring on some hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually
will shift up to the second-smallest gear while in the big ring).

Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23
is a smaller gear than 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a
superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The
only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

Eric Lambi

The 50t is going to be about 1 tooth smaller in the back. ie: the 50x12
will feel about like the 53x13, etc. The 34t is not quite 2 teeth smaller
in the back. A 34x24 is going to feel about like a 39x26/7.

Generations of trackies have achieved very fast speeds with a 50t big
ring... just spin faster!

As an added benefit, the equipment you're about to run is a little smaller
and therefore lighter than "standard."

I have a 50t big ring on my 'cross bike for summertime use. Except for
riding one cog bigger in the rear, there isn't too much difference... For
springtime, I'm going to go back to it for road intervals to equal my track
gear.

The only disadvantage comes when/if you start racing and "need" that last
big gear...

Mike

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:34:02 +0000, Eric Lambi wrote:

Hello,

I am considering buying a bike equipped with an FSA Carbon Pro Compact
crankset. This crankset comes with a large chainring of 50 and a small
chainring of 34. I will most likely run an 11-21/23 in the back with this
setup, depending on the race.

With my current bike I run 53/39 with a 12-23/25, depending on the race.
I enjoy the 25 because it gives me an extra gear when I'm getting
desparate (Snake Alley), and it allows me to ride in the big ring on some
hills where I might not with the 23 cassette (I usually will shift up to
the second-smallest gear while in the big ring).

Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23 is a
smaller gear than 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a superior
gearing combination.

I would agree with that. The smaller chainring puts typical cruising
gears more towards the center of the cassette. You really lose nothing
this way, and you do get a lower low, without having to spread out the
cassette.

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

I believe these are 110mm bolt pattern. Millions -- well, thousands -- of
rings available from various manufacturers.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Of course you can. You can run the 53 with the 34 if you want, though
with a large jump like that I'd recommend a chain watcher to make sure
that downshifts don't miss the inner ring. Fredly, but not very
noticable, and it works wonders. I bet that even FSA markets a 53 for
that crank. Lots of others do.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass.
_`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance Armstrong
(_)/ (_) |

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:08:37 +0000, John Rees wrote:

Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who
ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask them what kinds of gears they're running on
their bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell me the cassette
they have or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they
figure out they 'need' a triple?

Simple -- though this was rhetorical. They need lower gears. We all know
what that feels like. Few think about ways to achieve that without a
triple -- and the 39 minimum inner ring on road doubles does not help.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:03:30 +0200, trg wrote:

Can the 34 be used with a short cage derailler?

Sure. The 50/34 is 16 teeth. An 11/23 cassette is 12, giving a total of
28. Any derailleur can handle that fine.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
_`\(,_ | That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
(_)/ (_) | attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country. -- Hermann Goering

"John Rees" wrote in message
...
"Eric Lambi" wrote in message
m...
Hello,


Just doing the math, the 50x11 is a bigger gear than 53x12, and 34x23
is a smaller gear than 39x25. It appears then that the 50/34 is a
superior gearing combination. I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The
only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

I am interested in this as well. I am beginning the planning for building
a
new bike for my wife. I am trying to convince her that a 50/34 is the way
to
go.

"But I *need* a triple" she keeps saying. But I think this is a superior
set-up as she often has problems shifting into that little chainring
anyway,
and I hate working on triples.

I noticed yesterday, on a ride that averaged 20mph in rolling hills, that
I
never got into the 53x12 at all, and maybe not even the 13. Granted, I
was
alone, and I would have been going faster had I been in a group, but my
wife does not do that kind of riding. If a person is averaging 14-15mph on
a
ride, how often would they even get enough speed to get in to the 52
(52/42/32) and anything smaller than the 15 on the back? When I'm
cleaning
her bike, the 52 always looks pretty clean, like it never gets used.

Why do so many people insists they 'need' a triple? Especially people who
ride 12-14 mph? I'll ask them what kinds of gears they're running on
their
bike, front or back. Often, they cannot even tell me the cassette they
have
or the size of any of their front chainrings. How did they figure out
they
'need' a triple?

I think that a 50/34 is a more realistic set-up on a bike than a triple.
I
tried to thing of a case where a triple makes more sense. A touring bike
came to mind. However, a 50/34 touring bike with maybe a 11-32 in the
back
would work pretty well. I know you need more gear inch for the extra
weight
of loaded touring. Who wants to descend in a 53x12 with fully loaded
panniers on the front and back anyway? :-)


Been using a 50/38 set up for a while now, not racing though. I use a
13-21 rear on one bike and a 13-23 on the other. I find a 50 tooth front
fine and a 38 tooth inner ring more than adequate, though I could use a 23
rear cog on some occasions.

Graham

I'm trying to figure out what the
disadvantages of the 50/34 combination are, if there are any. The
only two I've figured so far aren't that big of a deal:

A) Non-standard equipment. Can't readily change chainrings if one is
broken, etc.

B) No ability to run 53x11, if desired.

Any thoughts?

The chainrings are prob. 110mm bolt circle, standard non compact mountail bike
rings or 94mm mt. bikes rings. In either case thy're easier to find than road
rings.
And if you can roll 53/11 more power to you.
Phil Brown