What are the big 3 waiting for to go sub-compact?

[mhespenheide]

We don't need a "new" standard. Just 94mm BCD, like mountain cranks in the 90's.

Coincidentally, that's what I'll be building up next... I'm thinking 11-32 in the back, 32/44 or 32/46 or 32/48 in the front. Haven't decided that part yet.

[Vientomas]

http://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle...ct-chainrings/

Another option...

[muz]

Originally Posted by Gummee

Old math: 1 tooth in the back is worth 3 in the front.

IOW: making cassettes bigger is doing more for you than making rings smaller

M

That IS old math, and no longer relevant IMO. It made sense in the age of 144BCD cranks and corncob freewheels. With 34t small ring and 34t big cog, 1 tooth in the back is the same as 1 tooth in the front. When you increase the cassette size, you get larger jumps in the gears. When you decrease the crank size, you lose the top end speed that only the racers need.

[Jaybee]

Backwards compatibility and a limited number of "standards" is great... until it impacts utility. Then you make something new, and the market decides if it is worthwhile.

I agree with AS - I'd like a small ring < 34t on a modern road crank and I'd like to be able to get that for the price of Force/Ultegra.

[Ralph]

I have no problem with a 30-40-50 with 13-26 (or 12-30 depending) with med cage rear. But understand current trend is going other way. Could also run a 28-39-48, or 26-39-48, or 28-39-49 with my Campy Triple set ups.

[GregL]

I've got an Ultegra 6800 cyclocross crank on my gravel bike. I pulled the original 36T inner ring and replaced it with a 34T. With an HG800 11-34 cassette on the back, I have all the gears I could ever need. If I need more than a 34-34 low gear, I probably need my MTB instead of the gravel bike!

Greg

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by GregL

I've got an Ultegra 6800 cyclocross crank on my gravel bike. I pulled the original 36T inner ring and replaced it with a 34T. With an HG800 11-34 cassette on the back, I have all the gears I could ever need. If I need more than a 34-34 low gear, I probably need my MTB instead of the gravel bike!

Greg

i see people writing stuff like this all the time. i dont know where you ride, but if you've seen some of the high grade loose stuff that is not uncommon to find on a gravel bike, gearing less than 1:1 is not a bad thing.

[BikeNY]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

We don't need a "new" standard. Just 94mm BCD, like mountain cranks in the 90's.

Coincidentally, that's what I'll be building up next... I'm thinking 11-32 in the back, 32/44 or 32/46 or 32/48 in the front. Haven't decided that part yet.

This!!! Road bikes borrowed the 110 BCD from mountain bikes years ago, why not borrow the old MTB compact 94 BCD now?

Or, the way Easton and White industries does it with a large direct mount ring and then the smaller ring mounting to the big would work fine as well, but be more proprietary.

I'm currently running 46t and 33t 110 BCD rings from TA, and an 11-36 cassette, which has slightly bigger gaps than I would like. As others have said, I think 44t or 46t big and 30t small would be about right.

[AngryScientist]

we are slowly getting there though.

it used to be that campy would not offer record in a compact because they thought that only guys racing deserved to use top level kit. now, i would bet that the record compact outsells the standard version by a LONG shot.

the point is that, at least for me, sometimes - if i'm out on a 100 mile mixed terrain ride - i'm out to see the scenery, relax and enjoy myself, not prove anything about how tough i am and how heavy of a gear i can push uphill.

[NHAero]

I switched my CAAD10 to a 1x11 - 42T ring and Ultegra 11-34 cassette. Gives a top gear inch of 101 with the 25mm tires, and actually closer jumps in the mid-range where I ride most.
When my Anderson comes back from Dave it's going to a Wickwerx Junior 41-33 pair on a 110 BCD crankset and the same 11-34 cassette. Not quite as low as Angry's 30/32 but old standard BCD. Running 37mm tires yields a 102 gear-inch top and a 26 low.
My vintage Bob Jackson I just swapped to a 10s with a 12-30 in the rear. It's currently a 48-36-24 on a 110 BCD. I don't need the 48T big ring - it could easily be a 45 or 46.
When you choose a outer chain ring that really is right sized, at least if you're a old slow guy like me, then the gap between the two rings is smaller and makes a better shifting front. That said, if the 110BCD accepted smaller than a 33, I'd have chosen something more like 41-30 for my Anderson, which gets back to Angry's point.

[David Tollefson]

I've been running 46/34 on my gravel bike for about 4 years now, and the same on my road bike for the past two. Paired with an 11-32 on gravel, it's almost low enough -- I can make it up even the really steep stuff, but I find myself wishing for just that little bit more on those hills. On the road I've got it paired with an 11-23, and I can swap in a 25 or even a 28 for really hilly rides. Mostly the 23 suffices. I like that it allows me to ride in the middle of the cassette most of the time, and after I get out my driveway, mostly it's used as a 1x system unless I hit good hills.

I'm in the process of building my next gravel bike, and it'll have a MTB 39/26 'ring configuration (SRAM X5). I'm thinking I can pair it with an 11-26 and get that 1:1 low gear, or go with a 28 for more. Whether the 39/11 will be enough for the pavement remains to be seen. But I like the narrower gaps between gears.

[GregL]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i see people writing stuff like this all the time. i dont know where you ride, but if you've seen some of the high grade loose stuff that is not uncommon to find on a gravel bike, gearing less than 1:1 is not a bad thing.

The hills and dales of upstate NY. Lots of gravel roads, Jeep tracks, singletrack, etc... The true gravel roads I ride are/were intended for vehicles (at least at one time...). As such, they can all be ridden with a 1:1 low gear. I understand that some people may want an even lower gear, I just haven't had the need for it... yet.

Greg

[AngryScientist]

that's a cool snapshot map Greg.

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by Lewis Moon

I have never understood the concept of super wide gearing in the back. It's as if the right cadence really doesn't matter.
IMHO, most of this thrutching around with 1X, super wide cassettes, discs, etc is about trying to stimulate demand by being different and not really about being better.

With the kind of riding most of us are doing 1X cadence DOESN'T matter. The demand is far beyond just being different as most of the bikes built for other than road are already 1X now. Also they work.

46-30 is old news in rando world. We've found it useful for a long time. A low gear of 36 or 34 with a 32 really isn't much if you're doing a lot of climbing, especially on dirt.

I don't understand why having more options is seen as "forcing" you to change. If you still want a low gear of 39 23, it's available. Have fun.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

Backwards compatibility and a limited number of "standards" is great... until it impacts utility. Then you make something new, and the market decides if it is worthwhile.

While in general this is true, there have been so many different chainring "standards" used, it is very hard to believe that one of the pre-existing standards is not suitable.

Case in point:

The 110/74mm BCD standard was original developed about 40 years ago, when 3 piece cranks, threaded BBs and 5spd freewheels were the most common. 30 years later, when people wanted lower gears on their "racing" bikes, it was re-adopted, and re-adapted for 9/10/11spd, and with integrated spindle cranks and press-fit BBs. It works just fine, even 40 years later with the latest drivetrains.

Now that people want even smaller chainrings, there are lots of smaller already existing BCD standards that could be re-adopted, such as the 94/58 BCD 5 arm standard or the 104/64 BCD 4 arm standard.