53x39 vs. 52x39

[bigmonter]

Why would one want a 53x39 vs. 52x39? I get the application of the compact 50x34 and TT 55x42.

But what warrants the one tooth difference between 52 and 53?

Steven

[David Kirk]

Why would one want a 53x39 vs. 52x39? I get the application of the compact 50x34 and TT 55x42.

But what warrants the one tooth difference between 52 and 53?

Steven

It started just because it was "one bigger" and it stuck. No really... it did.

dave

[Bruce K]

Actually, I ride 52X38s on 110 bolt circle cranks on 2 of my my road bikes.

I had converted to compact cranks and 50X34 chainrings as a way to be able to climb better.

I got better over time and decided I didn't need the 34t any more.

So I then started an experiment to go back from 50X34 but I didn't want to spend a ton of $$. So the gearing then became 50X36 for a while but I wasn't all that happy still.

Now I've got the 52X38 and I like it a lot.

I run a SRAM 11-26 cassette and the range is a little better in both directions.

Just my 2 cents.

BK

[Ti Designs]

The motto of the bike industry is "one more is always better". Why else would 11 speed exist?

[Sandy]

The motto of the bike industry is "one more is always better". Why else would 11 speed exist?

To prepare for 12 speed? :rolleyes:


Simple Sandy

[Louis]

Why else would 11 speed exist?

Because they can't (for now) make a 12 spd.

[tylercheung]

i'm preparing for stupendous speed!

[capybaras]

I've heard it on good authority that 53 makes you go faster :banana:

[Peter P.]

Why would one want a 53x39 vs. 52x39?

Because my neighbor had a 52. I mean c'mon; this is America where bigger is always better. The marketing people have us duped.

[cleavel]

Hi,

When I started riding most bikes came with a 52 X 42 and a 14-28 5-speed freewheel. Shortly after that you'd see people with 53 or 54 tooth rings mated to 13 or 14 cogs. For a while 53 X 42 became the de facto "standard" for racers.

Then as rear cogs got smaller (12 then 11 tooth cogs), the "need" for 54 tooth chainrings diminished.

Personally, I need a 52-11 gear like I need another hole in my head. My training bike has a 52 X 39 setup on the crank. My race bike has the standard 53 X 39 for those odd times when I'm in a large pack on a fast downhill. ;)

OF course, I can't ever seem to buy a crank that comes with a 52 so I end up buying a new chainring and I have a lifetime supply of 53 rings for my low mileage race bikes. <JK> ;)

[RPS]

Why would one want a 53x39 vs. 52x39?I much prefer a 53-tooth over 52-tooth chainring because it has an odd number of teeth. Since almost all chains are in inch increments (i.e. – two teeth), chainring teeth will alternate with each revolution, making it last much longer.

I think that’s also why 39T small rings eventually replaced 42T. Odd is good, although I can't quite figure out why they skipped over the 41T. :rolleyes:

[regularguy412]

I much prefer a 53-tooth over 52-tooth chainring because it has an odd number of teeth. Since almost all chains are in inch increments (i.e. – two teeth), chainring teeth will alternate with each revolution, making it last much longer.

I think that’s also why 39T small rings eventually replaced 42T. Odd is good, although I can't quite figure out why they skipped over the 41T. :rolleyes:

I'll offer one suggestion why -- The derailleurs were designed to handle a wider total capacity. This allowed gear inches to both expand and contract at the same time -- low gears got lower, high gears got higher -- without having to add a ninth rear cog (well, until later) "Marketing, marketing , marketing"

I'm waiting to see how durable 12-speed will be.:D

I think you're right about the odd number of teeth. The same can be said for the switch to 11-tooth der. pulleys.

Mike in AR:beer:

[bzbvh5]

Of course with a 39 cog you go 5.64 centimetes farther per crank rotation with a 53 vs. a 52.

[fiamme red]

I'm waiting to see how durable 12-speed will be.:D:Centaur 12-speed cassettes will cost $500. And they will need to be replaced every 1,000 miles. :crap:

[RPS]

I think you're right about the odd number of teeth. The same can be said for the switch to 11-tooth der. pulleys.

Mike in AR:beer:Sorry Mike – bad humor on my part. I find many of the things we as cyclists fixate on kind of funny and this one is a great example – although the question is great in itself since there is almost no difference.

For instance, years ago a group I rode with was discussing a very strong rider who rode with a 54T chainring. The implication was that you had to be super strong to push a 54. :rolleyes:

I had to ask if anyone in the group had checked whether he was riding the 17T instead of a 16T cog, because that makes a hell of a lot bigger difference. I honestly don’t think they got it.

BTW, on derailleur pulleys where there is likely much more side load and therefore side wear, having odd teeth is not a bad idea. On chainrings I doubt differences in wear rate from the sides would amount to anything worth mentioning.

[android]

Why would one want a 53x39 vs. 52x39? I get the application of the compact 50x34 and TT 55x42.

But what warrants the one tooth difference between 52 and 53?

Steven

There's been some interesting and funny answers, but I think the logic was probably this way.

... 42/52 era, no ramps or pins to facilitate shifting.

Step 1) created better chainrings with ramps and pins. Shifting is much better... Now we should mass market it.

Step 2) Most people really need/want lower gears- What is the smallest chainring we can get on existing crank arms? 38, no tolerances are too close. Let's go with 39.

Step 3 What is the capacity where a front der works pretty reliably? 14 teeth. OK, 39+14 = 53. Let's sell that.

[regularguy412]

Sorry Mike – bad humor on my part. I find many of the things we as cyclists fixate on kind of funny and this one is a great example – although the question is great in itself since there is almost no difference.

For instance, years ago a group I rode with was discussing a very strong rider who rode with a 54T chainring. The implication was that you had to be super strong to push a 54. :rolleyes:

I had to ask if anyone in the group had checked whether he was riding the 17T instead of a 16T cog, because that makes a hell of a lot bigger difference. I honestly don’t think they got it.

BTW, on derailleur pulleys where there is likely much more side load and therefore side wear, having odd teeth is not a bad idea. On chainrings I doubt differences in wear rate from the sides would amount to anything worth mentioning.

No problem. But as I recall, there was 'some' hype about 11 tooth der. pulleys extending chain life. At least, that was the theory. :D

Mike in AR:beer: