Lets talk about Chainrings for Road Racing.

[flux]

Is it silly for me to be using a 39 tooth inner ring?

I run 175 cranks and have a saddle height of 76cm with a setback of 8cm. I prefer torque over speed. On almost all courses save flat races, I run the 11-26 so I can stay in the big ring longer or sometimes, always.

39 just seems like too small of a ring to me and I am wondering if the advent of the 39 simply came as a market driven thing at some point on the timeline?


Perhaps running a 54/42 or would be a more useful combination for the competitive cyclist with the advent of the 10sp 11-26's?

[stevep]

the long held rumor flux was that eddy merckx* wanted the cranks redesigned to take a 39. if i were you i'd use a 42 unless it was big hilly.


* he was a bike racer years ago.

ps, you use a 26?
you freakin child..i use a flippin 23...

[maunahaole]

I will preface/disclaim by stating that I have a laughably miniscule race pedigree.

I made the switch from 39 to 42 several years ago while rehabbing some knee problems. The small jump in size on the front ring makes for a much more usable spread of gears on the small ring. The 42/15 or 42/14 is pretty versatile and a good cruising gear and allows a pretty fast dump into a low gear for a climb.

[saab2000]

Is it silly for me to be using a 39 tooth inner ring?

I run 175 cranks and have a saddle height of 76cm with a setback of 8cm. I prefer torque over speed. On almost all courses save flat races, I run the 11-26 so I can stay in the big ring longer or sometimes, always.

39 just seems like too small of a ring to me and I am wondering if the advent of the 39 simply came as a market driven thing at some point on the timeline?


Perhaps running a 54/42 or would be a more useful combination for the competitive cyclist with the advent of the 10sp 11-26's?


You're effin' kidding right? Who doesn't prefer the 42? I prefer torque over speed any day too. Your day is coming young man!! Like you, I used to be able to turn the 12 at will. Really. Ride folks right off my wheel and laugh as they wheezed. Thought I was cool. If you can turn the 42 up the Alps, go ahead.

The 39 was introduced in 1986 by Campagnolo because the 7- and 8-speed cassettes of the day would allow a 39x23 or 39x24 instead of a 26. With a 10-speed drive system it could be argued that the 39 is not as needed. But with a 39x23 or 25 you can pretty much climb most passes you need too. Anyway, without the usual BS rambling and stream of consciousness, the 39 was the compact of its day, the mid '80s.

[J.Greene]

Ha! you asking us for advice.

I have no idea, but Dominguez used a bike with a 38 for today's Georgia stage.

JG

[saab2000]

run what you brung.

Race with a 39 on the hills in Georgia. I'll think about that when I am flying tomorrow....

BTW, I would love to see Flux win one this season. Some of us do actually sorta live vicariously through what you are still doing.

[avalonracing]

My racing specialty was climbing. No one noticed but I liked using a T/A Specialties 38 front ring. It gave me a little edge physically and mentally. Not just for my own piece of mind but when guys thought that I was riding a tougher rear cog than they were, I was actually splitting the difference.
Of course this was more fun with a 21 or 23 large cog in the back, now that everyone is running a 25 it doesn't seem as necessary.

[regularguy412]

the long held rumor flux was that eddy merckx* wanted the cranks redesigned to take a 39. if i were you i'd use a 42 unless it was big hilly.


* he was a bike racer years ago.

ps, you use a 26?
you freakin child..i use a flippin 23...

I'm certainly not the racer that you are, flux; never was -- never will be. I have a 73 cm measure from spindle to top of saddle, on 172.5s with 5 cm of setback. I tend to prefer a bit less spin.

I agree with Stevep. In my area, I prefer to ride the bike I have set up with a 42/53 combination and a 12-21 rear cog setup. My local area is flat to rolling with some steep climbs not generally longer than 1/2 mile. If I'm in a hilly road race or going on a hilly training ride, I use the bike I have set up with the 39/53 and the 13-26 cog set. I like the 39 because it puts the jumps between gears closer together and I can fine tune my climbing cadence easier without having to get out of the saddle so much. The 42 makes the flats and rollers much easier to manage,, not as much shifting.

MIke in AR:beer:

[J.Greene]

Some of us do actually sorta live vicariously through what you are still doing.

absoeffinlutely

JG

[flux]

slight thread drift.

whatever happened to the UK time trialist theory of big ring to big cog equals more torque? I feel I have more torque and sustained wattage when I am romping up some climb/canyon in the 53 (or 55 on my tt bike) while keeping it in the 19, 21, 23, 26* in the rear. Is this cerebral? To me it just feels good.

*i need it to give stevep a fair shot when we do downhill sprint practice

[junior2189]

i run 52/42. i can not spin a 39. i can not see how anyone can spin it. a 42 is the way to go. flux even better is 45/55. :banana:
JUNIOR

[Too Tall]

...and risk the wrath of all around you as they try to fgure out what gear you are in???

Call me if you need to make bail.

[Brian Smith]

For non-race riding, the drop from the 53/4 to the 42 would be a lot more friendly.

For racing, perhaps shift performance under load is more important than friendliness. If you're running a ring set from a manufacturer with serious engineering staff (read Shimano/Campag) then stick with a set they mean to go with each other. If you're already dealing with Front Shift Abnormalities or some such, then playing with someone else's rings in various sizes means less of a compromise by straying from their "set."

My favorite combo is a 53/44, but these days, "what comes on the crank" works so well together (from the aforementioned seriously engineered pieces) that I won't swap anything until it doesn't work (right.)

Using the 26 indicates that you're not a gearing copycat, I dig that.
With a bigger inner chainring, you'd probably avoid it less.

[flux]

For non-race riding, the drop from the 53/4 to the 42 would be a lot more friendly.

For racing, perhaps shift performance under load is more important than friendliness. If you're running a ring set from a manufacturer with serious engineering staff (read Shimano/Campag) then stick with a set they mean to go with each other. If you're already dealing with Front Shift Abnormalities or some such, then playing with someone else's rings in various sizes means less of a compromise by straying from their "set."

My favorite combo is a 53/44, but these days, "what comes on the crank" works so well together (from the aforementioned seriously engineered pieces) that I won't swap anything until it doesn't work (right.)

Using the 26 indicates that you're not a gearing copycat, I dig that.
With a bigger inner chainring, you'd probably avoid it less.

Thank You for the advice.

My question now seems to be morphing into an issue of torque. I run the 26 so I can stay in the big ring longer or not be totally crossed over when stomping up some climb in the 23.
I think what I really want to know is if there is any sort of perceived torque euporia if you will by running a larger inner ring if the course dictates it possible? This going under the pretense that you are running the 42/26 as opposed to the 39/23.

------In my eyes its all a matter of circles. bigger circle, more torque, more power to the bigger circle being the rear wheel.------

[saab2000]

Thank You for the advice.

My question now seems to be morphing into an issue of torque. I run the 26 so I can stay in the big ring longer or not be totally crossed over when stomping up some climb in the 23.
I think what I really want to know is if there is any sort of perceived torque euporia if you will by running a larger inner ring if the course dictates it possible? This going under the pretense that you are running the 42/26 as opposed to the 39/23.

------In my eyes its all a matter of circles. bigger circle, more torque, more power to the bigger circle being the rear wheel.------


I don't think there is actlually more torque in the big ring, though I do know what you mean. It is mostly mental/emotional.

However....... I have heard that there is less drag in a big/big combination. Less wear. If there is not too much friction from the crossover, then there may be less drag, ergo, a feeling of more torque.

[stevep]

flux,
anything from the british tt lunatics is by definition- loony.
forget you ever read it...

[swoop]

personal theory:

this is what happens to perfectly smart bike racers when they have a week or two off during the season.
next he'll start to redecorate and then be gone for 4 more months....

please start ordering stuff from sveltecycles.com before he puts his mind to tampons and how he can make a better one. not for flux but for his girl and any properties currently in his possession. too much brain in a bike racer and some rest = mess.


(its a joke. i kid you).

[flux]

personal theory:

this is what happens to perfectly smart bike racers when they have a week or two off during the season.
next he'll start to redecorate and then be gone for 4 more months....

please start ordering stuff from sveltecycles.com before he puts his mind to tampons and how he can make a better one. not for flux but for his girl and any properties currently in his possession. too much brain in a bike racer and some rest = mess.


ok i'm busted. you got me.

still trying the 42 though. bigger circles.

[swoop]

i'm busted.

still trying the 42 though.

go easy on the tupperware. if it starts reaching outside of your suitcase and closets we need to get you some medical pot and cheetos.
resist the urge.

[flux]

this is calling my name (http://www.sveltecycles.com/catalog/FSAneopro2.gif)

[72gmc]

flux, I am woefully unqualified to advise you on anything bicyclic. But I'm shopping for a 42 because I want a more useful small ring. And I'm a skinny geek. Give it a shot.

[Fixed]

my late dad use to say this to me when i thought i needed a leg up
good luck be safe
cheers
imho

[musgravecycles]

http://serotta.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44162&highlight=ih8

Justin I'm no pro racer, but I'd think you'd be much better off with a 42. The 39 really blows for anything but several mile climbs above 7.397%...

[vaxn8r]

42 feels better most times. Occasionally I do several hard days climbing in a row with extended 8-12% sections. On day 1 and 2 I'm torquing the 53x17-23, by day 4 I'm in the 39x25 and trying to keep 'em turning. Beat into submission.

I've never been a stage racer. I get worse the more days in a row it goes. Maybe my size catches up with me.

[RPS]

What's the point of having a 39T if you hardly ever use it?

Comment below from Cyclingnews.com about Paris-Roubaix typical gearing suggests to me that most racers will go with as close ratios as possible.

"Boonen's gearing was along the lines of most of the other riders in the field with a 53/46T combination up front and a tight 11-23T cassette."

Low gear of 46/23 is the same as 42/21 which was typical in my area up to a few years ago.

[Louis]

I don't think there is actlually more torque in the big ring, though I do know what you mean. It is mostly mental/emotional.

However....... I have heard that there is less drag in a big/big combination. Less wear. If there is not too much friction from the crossover, then there may be less drag, ergo, a feeling of more torque.

As usual, S2k is correct.

In theory, 52:26 is identical to 44:22. It all comes down to the ratio of motion of your foot to the motion of the rear wheel, and for constant crank length and wheel/tire size, it's just the ratio of the front teeth to the rear teeth. No torque vs speed stuff. Ratio is ratio. Except, as mentioned, there are some numbers out there that say that big:big has slightly less drivetrain frictional losses than small:small, presumably because of way the chain goes round the ring or cog. Anything else is probably just in your head, and in a blind taste test I bet you would not be able to tell the difference between 52:26 and 44:22.

Good luck.
Louis

PS

If you're not using the little ring, then the stages are too flat. They need to find something a bit more challenging for you guys. Maybe up and down Mt Washington 10 times, or something like that.

[RudAwkning]

I don't think there is actlually more torque in the big ring, though I do know what you mean. It is mostly mental/emotional.

However....... I have heard that there is less drag in a big/big combination. Less wear. If there is not too much friction from the crossover, then there may be less drag, ergo, a feeling of more torque.

I've noticed this too. On my fixed gear as well. I could be running the same ratio, but it always feels like I have more "torque" with the big ring/cog combo. Perhaps it's a flywheel effect of some sort? Whatever it is, their definitely is a sensation or power transfer when more teeth are interacting with the chain.

[RPS]

I've noticed this too. On my fixed gear as well. I could be running the same ratio, but it always feels like I have more "torque" with the big ring/cog combo. Perhaps it's a flywheel effect of some sort? Whatever it is, their definitely is a sensation or power transfer when more teeth are interacting with the chain.Everything else being equal, big-big should:

Feel incrementally smoother.
Reduce chain tension.
Reduce BBKT and wheel bearing loads – less bearing friction.
Increase chain speed – more chain friction.

The above are all so small I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference.

BTW, torque is about ratios and flywheel effect is insignificant. IMO it’s safe to rule those two out.

[J.Greene]

Comment below from Cyclingnews.com about Paris-Roubaix typical gearing suggests to me that most racers will go with as close ratios as possible.

"Boonen's gearing was along the lines of most of the other riders in the field with a 53/46T combination up front and a tight 11-23T cassette."


RPS,

it's my understanding that the pros ride a 44 inner for PR to lessen the chance of problems if the chain jumps. It's not a ratio choice.

JG

[stevep]

pr is a bad choice for comparison. its very flat.
they probably never leave the big ring from start to finish.
lbl or amstel or lombardy, etc might need a 39.

[Peter P.]

The 39T phenomenon was definitely market driven. The claim of a lighter drivetrain due to a smaller ring AND a smaller cogset is specious at best. While the numbers won't lie, in real life it's irrelevent.

The big drawback to the 39-whatever is the large jump from ring to ring and the poor shifting up AND down, hence the cottage industry in little devices you can mount on your seat tube to keep the chain behaving properly.

Yes, a 42T small ring makes much more sense; standing alone and paired with the cogset in back, you'll have a wider range of gearing available. Add in the large ring, and the transition to the big ring and back isn't quite as drastic, not just mechanically, but in resistance/feel. Shifting is much more pleasant, too.

During my racing days, I ran a 43T (that's not a typo). I didn't care about duplicate gear ratios; I just wanted to be able to choose the next gear up OR down without a drastic change in resistance. It made for a very simple shift pattern and comfortable changes from gear to gear. For any of you old timers who remember, it's called crossover gearing.

[sspielman]

As I remember it, the 39 came about when freewheels and cassettes started getting more cogs...with something like a 12 or 13 -21, there was getting to be a decent amount of overlap with 8 cogs and a 42/52. The firts thing to happen was to extend the range upward...and the 53 became standard....and then Shimano started fitting 39's because their bolt circle allowed it. Campy followed suit soon after. All that being said, I think the whole idea of duplicated ratios is a bunch of crap. I just want to be able to get to gear that I can use.....and I also think that the big chainring feels better (all else being equal)

[Mud]

except my own embarrassment. I think Musgrave has it right in that run what you are used to. Working in a shop I am always surprised at the combos people run. They have been doing that way there whole lives and it is a 42/21 forever.

I came to road very late and have been at it for about 10 years, seriously the last 3. I have been using a 50/34 with a 12/27 cassette. Surgery recovery prevented me from using the big ring for quite a while and fell into the habit of using the 34 almost exclusively. And the AMPH kept going down even though we were climbing well.

I decided that I would try to ride in the 50 for everything I could. My cadence is down a bit but the speed has gone up. Now I am working on finding the right combo to keep the cadence up in the 50 thereby increasing the speed.

I realize I am not going to race or win the Tour but I do get tired of being passed all the time. But it is very hard, at least for me, to think about changing to a 53/39. More ideally would be a triple with 52/42/30 but I am not ready to make the concession. :crap:

[William]

I’ve run both. I never had any issues running a 53/39 chain ring. In crits we were always in the big ring. For the Oregon hills I had no problem spinning my 180’s up the climbs faster than all but the really good climbers. 39 or 42? It doesn’t matter, I’ll run it.

Run what ya brung…or what you know.


William

[caleb]

Give it a try and report back.

I'm currently going to 50/39 to reduce the gap between rings.

[Dave]

What a long thread over something so simple. Using a 42 instead of a 39 is just like using one cog smaller. The other thing it does is reduce the cog shifting after a chainring shift, from two cogs to one. The 39T was introduced after indexed shifting, since it then became simple to accurately shift through 2-3 cogs. These days, 50/34 compacts are becoming popular, even though they require one more cog to be shifted, compared to a 53/39.

If you ride flat/rolling terrain, decide whether to use an 11-21 with a 53/39 or a 53/42 with an 11-23 (losing the 18T cog). If you don't need the 11T top gear, then the choices go to a 12-23 or 12-25. Of course it you're a real masher, maybe a 54/42 with an 11-21 would do the trick.

If I'm really in doubt whether a new gearing setup will work, I just try it, but give it several rides before making up my mind.

[soulspinner]

prefer the 42-52 gearing on the beater to my 39-53 on the other bike.

[EDS]

Is it silly for me to be using a 39 tooth inner ring?

I run 175 cranks and have a saddle height of 76cm with a setback of 8cm. I prefer torque over speed. On almost all courses save flat races, I run the 11-26 so I can stay in the big ring longer or sometimes, always.

39 just seems like too small of a ring to me and I am wondering if the advent of the 39 simply came as a market driven thing at some point on the timeline?


Perhaps running a 54/42 or would be a more useful combination for the competitive cyclist with the advent of the 10sp 11-26's?

Just out of curiousity, what type of cadence to you typically like to spin at or average during a race?

[Ti Designs]

Market driven...

Shimano and Campagnolo know very well that racing gives them the image but they aren't the ones shelling out the cash for their bikes. There's a huge difference between what the average rider can turn and what a pro can turn, and the gap seems to be getting larger all the time, as seen by the smaller and smaller crank bolt circles. In the days of Nuovo Record campy's smallest chainring was 42 with a 144mm bolt circle. With the 135 and 130mm bolt circle came the 39T chainring and renaming the old touring standard 110 to "compact" people could use the 34T inner. Let's face it, the people with the money to buy nice bikes are getting older, and the gearing is getting lower.

That said, the law of supply and demand could be used to work for those of us who can push the larger gears. Supply is the problem, finding a "B" series chainring set (42/53) from Shimano almost takes an act of god. But there are always people who are convinced that nobody could ever push anything larger than a 34T on a hill that requires a bubble level to figure out which way it slopes, and for some reason those are the people who own all the 42T chainrings. I was handed an FSA 44/55 set 'cause the guy who had them said no human could push that large a gear. Being sub-human and in need of chainrings, I put 'em on my bike and they work just fine.

I'm running a 44/55 with an 11-21, and I spin faster than most - what's wrong with me???

[benb]

The 39 chainring allows you to go ~21-23mph while staying under 100rpm with a 13 or 14 cog.. I understand the "gap" idea and I can see going to the 42 for a flat race on occassion but I'm not sure why you would complain about the 39 so much for every day use or why it would seem odd the industry has moved towards the 39 as the most common small ring.

50/34 is a little weird though.. seems like too low for most fit cyclists to put up with for anything but hill climb events.

Where you live is obviously going to have a huge effect..

[Mud]

I don't quite need a bubble level, I have got my Garmin for that. But you speak the truth on the market. There seem to be Triathlons springing up all over the place for women and the 50/34 fits right into the 45 and up set who seem to be the base for these.

Last night we got passed by a father and son. We have seen them before and they seem to be training. I decided to see if I could keep pace over about 2.5 miles of good pavement with some small moguls that require out of the saddle or shifting.

I am in the 50 and could keep up at 18mph but they upped the speed to about 24mph and I could not keep up partly because of not being able to maintain the cadence in the 50 on the hills and mostly because I could not keep up.

I actually can spin pretty well. I work all winter on a SS on the Computrainer and find the 38/17 fine for most of the course we ride but I do limit the grades to about 4%. I think a 38 would work well for me but I could not climb the biggest hills in my area with it.

For those who race I am amazed what they can turn for gears but they also have a million miles in their legs to fall back on. Many of us have come to cycling because it seems to cross generations. Golf is too slow and the 110mph serve is just a tennis memory. We can have our moments on a bike.

Your point is excellent because this is the Serotta site and it tends to be a little more affluent and companies follow the money.

Market driven...

Shimano and Campagnolo know very well that racing gives them the image but they aren't the ones shelling out the cash for their bikes. There's a huge difference between what the average rider can turn and what a pro can turn, and the gap seems to be getting larger all the time, as seen by the smaller and smaller crank bolt circles. In the days of Nuovo Record campy's smallest chainring was 42 with a 144mm bolt circle. With the 135 and 130mm bolt circle came the 39T chainring and renaming the old touring standard 110 to "compact" people could use the 34T inner. Let's face it, the people with the money to buy nice bikes are getting older, and the gearing is getting lower.

That said, the law of supply and demand could be used to work for those of us who can push the larger gears. Supply is the problem, finding a "B" series chainring set (42/53) from Shimano almost takes an act of god. But there are always people who are convinced that nobody could ever push anything larger than a 34T on a hill that requires a bubble level to figure out which way it slopes, and for some reason those are the people who own all the 42T chainrings. I was handed an FSA 44/55 set 'cause the guy who had them said no human could push that large a gear. Being sub-human and in need of chainrings, I put 'em on my bike and they work just fine.

I'm running a 44/55 with an 11-21, and I spin faster than most - what's wrong with me???

[Fat Robert]

What's the point of having a 39T if you hardly ever use it?
.

because I never use it

I run 52/39 -- around York Co, I never have to go lower than 52x21 (on a 11-25), and a good 85% of my riding is 52x16.

on the rare occasions when I need the 39, I really need it -- going up mountains. then I need the 39 so I can keep a high cadence....

I suck and I'm a loser, so take this for whatever its worth

[William]

Wuses. :p

I just set up a 54/53 with an 11-23 cog set. I'm going hill riding. Ride report to follow.



William :)

[fiamme red]

Wuses. :p

I just set up a 54/53 with an 11-23 cog set. I'm going hill riding. Ride report to follow.



William :)The proper way to roll is a custom 11/11/12/12/13/13/14/14/15/15 cassette. Anyone who needs a cog lower than 15t is a wimp. ;)

[William]

The proper way to roll is a custom 11/11/12/12/13/13/14/14/15/15 cassette. Anyone who needs a cog lower than 15t is a wimp. ;)



I've got an 11/11/11/11/11/11/11/11/12 on order for the big hills. It's a good ramp up for that big 12 tooth.





William

[Bob Ross]

If you're not using the little ring, then the stages are too flat.


+1

Course designer needs to HTFU, not the riders.

[jerk]

bro
big big is smoother, small small spins up quicker. I'm sure weve talked about it a couple of times. 42/54 for me, 44/56 with the rotor cranks.

jerk

[beungood]

Wuses. :p

I just set up a 54/53 with an 11-23 cog set. I'm going hill riding. Ride report to follow.



William :)

To qualify this statement I really think you should include a picture of your trash barrel sized quads..... :D

[flux]

Just out of curiousity, what type of cadence to you typically like to spin at or average during a race?

I can't really answer that question accurately. People tell me I am very "smooth" on the bike fwiw. What that translates to numbers wise I don't know.

[jerk]

I can't really answer that question accurately. People tell me I am very "smooth" on the bike fwiw. What that translates to numbers wise I don't know.


eleventeen.

jerk

[Acotts]

Market driven...

Shimano and Campagnolo know very well that racing gives them the image but they aren't the ones shelling out the cash for their bikes. There's a huge difference between what the average rider can turn and what a pro can turn, and the gap seems to be getting larger all the time, as seen by the smaller and smaller crank bolt circles. In the days of Nuovo Record campy's smallest chainring was 42 with a 144mm bolt circle. With the 135 and 130mm bolt circle came the 39T chainring and renaming the old touring standard 110 to "compact" people could use the 34T inner. Let's face it, the people with the money to buy nice bikes are getting older, and the gearing is getting lower.

That said, the law of supply and demand could be used to work for those of us who can push the larger gears. Supply is the problem, finding a "B" series chainring set (42/53) from Shimano almost takes an act of god. But there are always people who are convinced that nobody could ever push anything larger than a 34T on a hill that requires a bubble level to figure out which way it slopes, and for some reason those are the people who own all the 42T chainrings. I was handed an FSA 44/55 set 'cause the guy who had them said no human could push that large a gear. Being sub-human and in need of chainrings, I put 'em on my bike and they work just fine.

I'm running a 44/55 with an 11-21, and I spin faster than most - what's wrong with me???

In last year's Tour, I remember watching one of the sprints at the end of a stage and the commentator said that the winner crossed the line going well over 50 mph (on the flat!)

What kind of big ring are sprinters using that can possible enable them to go over 50 mph without spinning out? Are these guys sporting 55's like TiDesigns or do some of them sport a secret 60?

[swoop]

I can't really answer that question accurately. People tell me I am very "smooth" on the bike fwiw. What that translates to numbers wise I don't know.


small tight buns, high up. that's all i noticed spinning with him. it was like seeing light and unicorns. buttah.

[J.Greene]

the commentator said that the winner crossed the line going well over 50 mph (on the flat!)


They go fast, but not 50. If phil or paul said those words consider the source.

JG

[benb]

50mph is 131rpm in a 53x11...

That shouldn't be "spun out" for the fastest guys in the world.

It does sound like a Ligget-ism though.

Even so... 40-45mph.. with a 53x11. Your cadence will not be obscene by an measure.

[EDS]

I can't really answer that question accurately. People tell me I am very "smooth" on the bike fwiw. What that translates to numbers wise I don't know.

No powermeter/bike computer for race day or training? I image with your experience and years in the saddle you know by instinct what feels good and what is sustainable. Wish I had that type of strength and experience.

[junior2189]

They go fast, but not 50. If phil or paul said those words consider the source.

JG

phil says it paul puts his own spin on it but in the end it mean the same.
phil mean 50KPH

JUNIOR

[maunahaole]

phil says it paul puts his own spin on it but in the end it mean the same.
phil mean 50KPH

JUNIOR

50kph = 31mph. I can muster 31mph on the flat and I'm an old fat guy.

Finishing sprint speeds in the 45-48 mph range would not surprise me at all.

[T.J.]

Wuses. :p

I just set up a 54/53 with an 11-23 cog set. I'm going hill riding. Ride report to follow.



William :)


what? no 11-21? wuss! :p

[Mud]

My other bike is a WUSS :banana:

[capybaras]

phil says it paul puts his own spin on it but in the end it mean the same.
phil mean 50KPH

JUNIOR

Junior-
Don't skip math class! :banana:

[shinomaster]

Flux if i could race around Boston when I was 26 with 42/21 as my lowest gear I sure you can. I loved my 42. I only gave it up for the MP West Hills of Portland. It's funny cause just today I was looking at 42 tooth rings at PBK. My Atlanta will be rebuilt as a flat land bike.

[William]

Flux if i could race around Boston when I was 26 with 42/21 as my lowest gear I sure you can. I loved my 42. I only gave it up for the MP West Hills of Portland. It's funny cause just today I was looking at 42 tooth rings at PBK. My Atlanta will be rebuilt as a flat land bike.

How many times will you be able to head out hwy 30 and circle Suavie Island? ;)




William

[Gothard]

I would like to invite anyone who uses a 42/23 for a ride here in the Alps with me :p

Pros not eligible.

Point is, forget conventions. Use what is confortable, looks and fashion be damned. Cartilage is way underrated, once it's gone it's gone.

[shinomaster]

How many times will you be able to head out hwy 30 and circle Suavie Island? ;)




William


I go east on the Springwater corridor :) .

[thwart]

Cartilage is way underrated, once it's gone it's gone. Words of wisdom. Spinning up may not be macho, but it may keep you on the road bike another decade or two.

[coylifut]

Words of wisdom. Spinning up may not be macho, but it may keep you on the road bike another decade or two.

Cancelarra looked quite macho spinning 90-100 rpms in that Monte Paschi Eroica video that swoop circulated last month. Didn't he?

[shinomaster]

He was probably spinning a 56 though..... right? :rolleyes: