The Riding Gravel Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Slim

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 131
Reply with quote  #1 
Easton has released info on some new chainring/crankset combos with reduced size:

https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/easton-gravel-specific-double-chainrings-52073/

47/32t and 46/30t, are some nice options for many dirrent riders:

The first could be nice for fast gravel riders or more casual road bikers, and the second could be good for more casual gravel racers.

I know that for myself, as a not-so fit rider, I really need/like a slightly lower than 1:1 gear ratio. The wisdom of this choice is reinforced in the forums her when many people report walking hills in Almanzo.

At the same time, 44/11 is about right ass a top gear for some fun blasting down paved descents.

So a 47/32 front combined with 11-34 casette, would work for me, or even better, the 46/30 with a 11-32 casette. That crankset would also let me customize gearing with casette swaps:
11-28 for road, 11-36 for extrem climbing on poor roads.


Anyway, nice to see more options for gearing out there.

It always surprises me that so many stock bikes and retail options are the same as ridden by pro racers.
Especially when it seems even the pros could use some easier gears (check out the Spring classics, they are often grinding out too tall of a gear on the cobbled climbs of Flanders for example). They might need that tall gearing to win a sprint finish, but for the rest of us, that doesn’t really matter...
If you see that they AVERAGE over 43km/h for those races, then there are people like me, who ride at less than 3/4 of that speed, even on short rides, let alone when doing some 8-12 hour gravel race. It only makes sens that my chainrings would we 3/4 the size of theirs, which would Be exactly 40/30t! And that’s before you add the reduced speed from less riding gravel vs pavement or the larger tires increasing the gear inches.
0
runrideski

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #2 
Personally, my wish is that they would develop a cassette with narrower gaps between the most-frequently 'middle' used gears (i.e., the middle cogs in the range) and leave the larger (ex. 3+) gaps at the ends of the range, particularly the smaller cogs.

The 11-12-13-14 cog combinations that typify all Shimano and SRAM road cassettes between 11-23 & 11- 32T just don't make sense to me.  Especially if you're then stuck with 3-cog jumps in the 'more useable' (at least for me) gears (ex. 21-24-27 in 11-30 and 22-25-28 in 11-32) .  I'd much prefer 11-13-15 in the small cogs and then 2-cog jumps in the middle range of Shimano's 11-34 cassette.

For this reason alone, it surprises me that the 11-34 is not the go-to cassette for gravel applications (provided it can give you an easy enough low gear).


0
Slim

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 131
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by runrideski
Personally, my wish is that they would develop a cassette with narrower gaps between the most-frequently 'middle' used gears (i.e., the middle cogs in the range) and leave the larger (ex. 3+) gaps at the ends of the range,


yes, I have thought the same thing.

It is one of the reasons that on my 1x gravel bike, I use the XT 11-46 cassette rather than the Sunrace one. The XT cassette has a big jump to the "bail out" 46t, with higher spacing in the other  coggs, while the Sunrise spaces them more evenly.
0
drwelby

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 397
Reply with quote  #4 
The idea is that because of the exponential effects of aerodynamic losses,  a small gap in a higher gear becomes a bigger gap in power. So it makes sense for road racing speeds.
0
Volsung

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #5 

Quote:
Originally Posted by runrideski
Personally, my wish is that they would develop a cassette with narrower gaps between the most-frequently 'middle' used gears (i.e., the middle cogs in the range) and leave the larger (ex. 3+) gaps at the ends of the range, particularly the smaller cogs.

The 11-12-13-14 cog combinations that typify all Shimano and SRAM road cassettes between 11-23 & 11- 32T just don't make sense to me.  Especially if you're then stuck with 3-cog jumps in the 'more useable' (at least for me) gears (ex. 21-24-27 in 11-30 and 22-25-28 in 11-32) .  I'd much prefer 11-13-15 in the small cogs and then 2-cog jumps in the middle range of Shimano's 11-34 cassette.

For this reason alone, it surprises me that the 11-34 is not the go-to cassette for gravel applications (provided it can give you an easy enough low gear).


 

You can get a 14-28 cassette for small jumps.  Or if you want to be like me, you can spend even more money and buy both a 14-28 and 11-34 to make a 14-34 then have a weird 11-28 leftover that no one wants to buy.

0
cheamhale

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #6 
You need to think of gearing n terms of percent change not absolute number of teeth. 11-12 jump is 9%. 25-27 is also about 9%
0
Rusty Frame

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #7 
I'm old (71), heavy (250) but still love to ride. I swapped the Shimano 105 cassette on my Felt V-85 for a SRAM 11-36 and could climb most hills.  I swapped the 105 compact crankset for a FSA 46-30 crankset (the shop gave me credit for the 105).  Now I climb anything around hilly Kansas City.  Still don't need the 11 tooth cog (or the 12 for that matter).
0
bobknh

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 768
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Frame
I'm old (71), heavy (250) but still love to ride. I swapped the Shimano 105 cassette on my Felt V-85 for a SRAM 11-36 and could climb most hills.  I swapped the 105 compact crankset for a FSA 46-30 crankset (the shop gave me credit for the 105).  Now I climb anything around hilly Kansas City.  Still don't need the 11 tooth cog (or the 12 for that matter).

I'M old too, 75 , but I weigh 145 lbs + or minus. I too use an 11-36 cassette, and I'm thinking switching from my 46/36 chainrings to 46/30. No shame -- several NYS State  Road and ITT championships, and a Silver Medal in Masters Nat's in my resume. Thanks for your post. It doesn't matter how big the gear you push to get to the top; just who get's there first.
0
GSPChilliwack

Member
Registered:
Posts: 42
Reply with quote  #9 
I'm guessing one could fit these rings to one of RaceFace's alloy mtb cranks if the Easton crank arms are too spendy. I'm sure it's the same interface.

There are lots of spindle sizes available for the Cinch stuff, so might even be able to get a decent q-factor.
0
Bike John

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #10 
It seems like these subcompact cranksets all continue to be based on the same 30mm spindle size and/or 110 BCD. It’s a shame no one makes them for BSA / 68mm bottom brackets that don’t cost a large fortune/weigh a ton/look like vintage cranks from the beginning of the last century.
0
ridemagnetic

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #11 
White Industries MR30 cranks fit 68mm bb's, road, gravel and mtn q factors. And their VBC rings come in all the right tooth counts.
Expensive but worth it. I own 2.

__________________
A great set of wheels will make an average frame ride better. It doesn't work the other way around.  ~ridemagnetic
0
Bike John

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridemagnetic
White Industries MR30 cranks fit 68mm bb's, road, gravel and mtn q factors. And their VBC rings come in all the right tooth counts.
Expensive but worth it. I own 2.


Thanks but those are still eye-wateringly expensive. Especially to outfit two bikes (although IIRC it would be incompatible with my Trek’s BB90 in any case).
0
dangle

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 223
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheamhale
You need to think of gearing n terms of percent change not absolute number of teeth. 11-12 jump is 9%. 25-27 is also about 9%


Very well said.
0
Slim

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 131
Reply with quote  #14 
And I had not seen this either: Sub compact rings for a standard Shimano crankset:

https://bikerumor.com/2018/01/09/climb-anything-new-absoluteblack-46-30-48-32-micro-compact-chainrings/
0
Slim

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 131
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by runrideski
Personally, my wish is that they would develop a cassette with narrower gaps between the most-frequently 'middle' used gears (i.e., the middle cogs in the range) and leave the larger (ex. 3+) gaps at the ends of the range, particularly the smaller cogs.

The 11-12-13-14 cog combinations that typify all Shimano and SRAM road cassettes between 11-23 & 11- 32T just don't make sense to me.  Especially if you're then stuck with 3-cog jumps in the 'more useable' (at least for me) gears (ex. 21-24-27 in 11-30 and 22-25-28 in 11-32) .  I'd much prefer 11-13-15 in the small cogs and then 2-cog jumps in the middle range of Shimano's 11-34 cassette.


There is some good reasoning for that.

The first is that it's the % that matters, not the number of teeth in the jump. So, a 11->12t jump is nearly 10% on the small end. At the big end of the cassette, that would be nearly the same as 30 ->33t.

Conversely a 29-> 34t jump is a smaller % than 11->13t.

The other reason is that for good shifting you can not have just any number of teeth in your jump. The shift ramps and tooth shaping need to line up from cog to cog.


0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.