#1
|
|||
|
|||
53x39 vs. 52x39
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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
dave |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
HED Wheel afficianado Age is a case of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
The motto of the bike industry is "one more is always better". Why else would 11 speed exist?
__________________
If the pedals are turning it's all good. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ti Designs
Quote:
Simple Sandy
__________________
Adopt a Pet. Treat animals with kindness, humans included. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
i'm preparing for stupendous speed!
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I've heard it on good authority that 53 makes you go faster
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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>
__________________
Thanks. Cleave "Real men wear pink." See my cycling photos at http://www.pbase.com/cleavel/bicycling See my bikes at http://www.pbase.com/cleavel/mybicycles Visit my blog at http://cleavesblant.blogspot.com/ Lightning Velo Cycling Club: http://www.lightningvelo.org/ |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm waiting to see how durable 12-speed will be. 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
__________________
2013 Serotta Fondo Ti w/Enve fork |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Math Geek Here
Of course with a 39 cog you go 5.64 centimetes farther per crank rotation with a 53 vs. a 52.
__________________
I'm so big, they call me SUPER MAGNUS. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi. --Peter Schickele |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|