Sram 10-33 or 10-36? Your opinion is appreciated

[benb]

I'm confused as to what options you are considering here, are you changing the chainring sizes or not.

With the 50/34 IMO either cassette would be fine. On a 50-34 I find an excessively tight spaced cassette is actually really really annoying because it causes me to somehow end up riding in a gear range where I have to make vastly more shifts on the front derailleur.

I have a bike with a 50/34 + 12-34 IIRC, the wider spacing gets rid of that dumb zone where tons of front derailleur shifts happen for me. Based on the 12-34 working, I would think either 10-33 or 10-36 would also not be annoying.

With the SRAM 48/35 setup for me at least personally I would definitely go with the tighter spaced 10-33.

I would also not sweat 65g if you're not a featherweight climbing specialist. Bike weight difference is going to be completely dwarfed by the benefits of getting the gear ratios right.

[Alistair]

Do you need the 35/48 rings?

I'm running 33/46 + 10-33 on my road bike and the 1:1 low is nice when I hit hillier terrain during a long ride. I don't race, rides are a mix of solo and group, terrain is a mix of short punchy rollers and moderate hills if I head west tornados the Blue Ridge. Rarely real extended climbing (that's usually on my gravel or mountain bikes).

In the 12t cog the difference between the 46 and 48 ring is ~1mph (27 vs 28 @ 90rpm).

[AngryScientist]

This thread shows well that gearing selection is very personal, and depends on a lot of factors.

Personally I will not build a bike anymore that does not include 1:1 or lower gearing, but that's just me, I don't race and I like to have options when the hills point up.

[MXLeader]

Originally Posted by bianchi10

My thoughts: (The RD I got has the max 36T BTW
48/35 chainring and pairing that with the Sram Red 10-33 or even the Force 10-36.

SO, to those of you with more experience with gear ratio's, I would be keen to hear your feedback as to which you think may be a good choice, given the information I've given and what I'm trying to achieve.

Appreciate your thoughts!

At 218 lbs I am by no means a climber, but where I live we have tons of short and steep hills that can easily exceed 15% grade. My preferred climbing cadence is 80 rpms. In a one-to-one gear ratio with a cadence of 80 rpms and climbing an 8% grade, my power output is around 300 watts. I can tolerate that for 10 minutes or so, but why put myself through that effort at the end of long ride or on an easy day?

I vote for the easier gear ratios.

[fa63]

I am big fan of the 46/33 - 10/36 combo for my riding, but it is hilly around here (and mountains to the north) and I weigh 225 lbs YMMV.

[bianchi10]

Originally Posted by Dave

No one commenting has a clue about the terrain that you ride or your power to weight ratio. Riding in Colorado, I've used a 48/31 GRX crank with the 10-33. It's nice to have the 14, but the 28-33 shift sucks. I really needed lower gearing and used a 46/30 crank with a 10-36 for several years. It was great for 10% grades, but still tough for 12-13%

This isn't that difficult to figure out. The 10-36 gives you 9% lower gearing. Do you need it or not?

Thank you for the feedback. I know it's not difficult for some people to sort out, but as I mentioned, it is something I have little knowledge on. Changing out a punctured tire is not a difficult task either, for someone who has experience doing it. Ask someone who has never changed a tire before to do it, and they might struggle a little. I have no idea what 9% lower gearing means/feel like in real world terms, which is why I came here to try and get a better idea, from others who know more than I.

[bianchi10]

Originally Posted by Hakkalugi

I have the 10-36 and love it. Granted, on some climbs I’ve been mistaken for a statue, but overall, having that serious bail out has been awesome and has made my day more enjoyable.

For context, every ride from my house starts with a really fun descent down the driveway. Sadly, each ride also ends with a climb up said driveway. It’s only .6 miles, but it gains 450’, with the steepest part around 22% and the recovery section at a relaxing 8%. My son does it in just under 5 minutes; I got under 10 once but chatted with several ancestors and a tie-dyed lemur on the way up. I don’t think I’ll ever repeat that experience.

haha this made me smile! I'm kind of in the same boat. I live on a hill, so every ride starts with a 2.5 mile descent and ends with the same 2.5 mile climb. It's not the Alps, but it gets more steep the further I go. After long rides, it can be grueling. The idea of a 10-36 for moments like this sounds amazing. However, I know its not needed, but more or less that every so often desire.

[NHAero]

Not an AXS rider, so grains of salt, etc...

I'd stick with the 10-33 for the smaller jumps, but swap the chainrings from 48-35 to 46-33. 46x10 is a smidge (1.2%) higher top gear than the 50x11 you run now, and the 33x33 is 13.3% lower than the 34x30 you run now.

[kppolich]

Assuming this is a dedicated Road bike.

Pretty simple, go ride your current bike on the usual terrain. Find the hardest climb and see what gear you use and check your power/HR and overall comfortability.

If you are uncomfy or think you'll tackle some tougher terrain get some more range.
If comfy, you can look to move to a comparable 12sp range.
Also, take in to account the top end of that cassette to make sure you aren't spinning out with a 46T up front.

[XXtwindad]

This is, of course, the Paceline Forum. I have another bike geared 32/36. So, there’s that

[bigbill]

I have Red AXS with 35/48 and a 10-33. I originally had 33/46 and was wishing for bigger rings in the front when a powermeter 35/48 popped up on the classifieds. My RD keeps me at 33 or smaller, but I very rarely get on the 33. I like the tighter ratio in the higher gears, and this is a dedicated road bike with 30s. If I had an AXS gravel bike, it would have Force with 10-36 and 33/46.

[benb]

The tricky thing with this is just how varied terrain is and how strong everyone is.

I have a friend in NJ and my cousin used to live in FL. They could literally ride 100 miles and have less climbing than I have in 10 miles.

But someone in CA who rides up into the mountains will have much more than me, and it's not always about total elevation gain anyway. Better engineered roads tend to be a little less steep than poorly designed old roads like we have in the NE.

Bottom line is having to walk up the hill is always the slowest way... *

* = except for some crazy MTB situations