What Chain Ring to Cycle on ?

DinaElla

Folks,

Can anyone point me towards some articles or help on what Chain ring to cycle on for a beginner cyclist on a Triple Chain Set.

I was told to keep to the middle chain set and keep my cadence to around 80/90 rpm but met a cyclist yesterday who said I should be on the large chain ring on all the flats .. I tried this but it whacked me fairly quickly.

Is there a recommended use?

Cheerr

Lumen

Use whatever feels good and avoid cross-chaining.

80-90rpm is a good idea.

ednwireland

whatevers comfortable really, i could be in the middle or the big ring on flat roads (depending on surface gradient
there is always one up here, wind etc)
the main thing is being comfortable, if you can push, the big ring do if not dont, this sunday was the first ride this year i spent much time in the big ring, just felt good (and heavy tailwinds helped), converesly sections i rode last week in the big ring i rode in the middle cos of headwinds.

your main thing to watch is the chainline, ie dont cross -chain
whcih means dont be in the big ring at the front and the big ring at the bakc, or the small ring at the front and the small ring at the back. as this wears your chain (unless your racing then you can do what you like)

http://coachlevi.com/cycling/proper-chainline-example/


hope that helps

irishmotorist

This might be of interest to you:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

If you select MPH at 90RPM as your Gear Units, you can see what speed you'll be doing in a particular gear.

N.B. the cross-chaining warnings above.

IM0

yep, use whatevers comfortable, there is no 'right' way..although lots would have you believe otherwise :rolleyes:

of course the flip side of this, is use whatever isn't comfortable if you are training for racing for top fitness, but then again you wouldnt have a tripple for that :pac:

Caroline_ie

When I started using a road bike 4 years ago, I saw the light when I discovered the big ring ... However, I soon ended up at the physio as I my knees weren't strong enough then.

Go at your pace, you will eventually build up the strengh and big ring cycling will become more confortable for you.

blorg

Most riders push too hard a gear particularly starting out. If you are happier staying in the middle ring and spinning this will probably be better for your long-term cycling development.

Junior riders actually have their gearing restricted at the difficult end so they have to spin and don't develop knee problems. An old training thing with racing cyclists is to keep it in the small ring (of a double, same as your middle) all winter so as to improve spinning.

Middle ring and cadence around 80/90 is sound general advice.

Plastik

Can cross-chaining damage the rings or does it just wear out the chain?

cdaly_

Wear to the chain causes wear to the rings/sprockets so yes.

ED E

This is something I was wondering about recently. I have stopped changing the front at all leaving it on the large chainring(21speed btw) and then just shifting the rear, mostly being in 5/6 and 2/3 for stops/gradients. I get that in terms of wear and tear this is bad, but considering the junker I'm on it doesnt bother me.

What does interest me though is the cadence aspect. Watching others who judging by their attire and bikes know what they're doing I've noticed that my cadence seems very low. I've passed guys at around 30-35kph and their legs would be bombing it around, sometimes double my cadence at a guess. Is this just a preference thing or is it some kind of training technique? From observation over the last month or so I seem to be pedalling mighty slow(not going slow though )

DinaElla

Thanks for all the replies, I'm one of those people who are spinning like mad and being overtaken by someone who seems to be spinning at half the rate yet generating more speed / power. I'm hoping all the spinning is going to pay off.

Lumen

Lethal_Bullet wrote: »

What does interest me though is the cadence aspect. Watching others who judging by their attire and bikes know what they're doing I've noticed that my cadence seems very low. I've passed guys at around 30-35kph and their legs would be bombing it around, sometimes double my cadence at a guess. Is this just a preference thing or is it some kind of training technique? From observation over the last month or so I seem to be pedalling mighty slow(not going slow though )

Higher cadence is less fatiguing and puts less strain on the joints.

If you're cycling at 30-35kph at low cadence for four hours or so without any issues then you must have legs of steel.

ED E

Lumen wrote: »

Higher cadence is less fatiguing and puts less strain on the joints.

If you're cycling at 30-35kph at low cadence for four hours or so without any issues then you must have legs of steel.

I'm primarily a commuter and I'm late for everything:rolleyes:

As soon as "The Big Quiz" is over I'll be doing a lot more, so I'll keep that in mind:)

beara biker

everyones level of fitness is different. 80/90 rpm is good. pushing the large chainring is really for building muscle . if you are new to cycling i would stick to the middle ring.

irishmotorist

Just thinking again, stick with what's comfortable but give yourself an aim. I wanted to be aiming for about 90+ RPM but when I got the cadence sensor for the bike I found I was doing about 80. If felt a bit unusual for the first while, but now I'm reasonably comfortable and natural feeling at about 90. On a long spin, I can't keep it quite up at that level, but I'm working at it and getting closer.

Captain Havoc

When I was out with the group yesterday, I was nearly exclusively in the granny ring. I don't know if this is good but I kept my cadence high, which was noted. It seems to be year by year I've gone down in the rings, two years ago I was on the outside, last year on the middle and this year I'm on the granny, have they invented a quadruple yet? My question: is this bad that I was in the granny ring on the smallest on the back or should I have gone on to the middle?

blorg

Captain Havoc wrote: »

My question: is this bad that I was in the granny ring on the smallest on the back or should I have gone on to the middle?

Yes, that is cross-chaining and it is bad (inefficient, noisy and wearing on the bike;) you should never be in that combination. If you find yourself there shift up at the front and down at the back.

Plastik

Are there any charts (etc) out there that show you which gear is in theory more difficult to push than the next? Something like small front/big back, small front/2 back, small front/3 back, big front/big back etc. all the way to big front/small back?

I've an 8 speed standard double and I've been pondering just what the exact order of the gears is in terms of difficulty to turn!

Lumen

Plastik wrote: »

Are there any charts (etc) out there that show you which gear is in theory more difficult to push than the next? Something like small front/big back, small front/2 back, small front/3 back, big front/big back etc. all the way to big front/small back?

I've an 8 speed standard double and I've been pondering just what the exact order of the gears is in terms of difficulty to turn!

this....

irishmotorist wrote: »

This might be of interest to you:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

If you select MPH at 90RPM as your Gear Units, you can see what speed you'll be doing in a particular gear.

N.B. the cross-chaining warnings above.

gman2k

blorg wrote: »

Junior riders actually have their gearing restricted at the difficult end so they have to spin and don't develop knee problems

It's actually to protect the underage riders whose bodies are still growing from damaging/ stressing their hearts.
Hills are actually worse for your knees than anything else, whether running or cycling - so said my surgeon.

But back on topic - lower ring for general riding, big ring for where pace can go up easily - i.e. downhill, tailwind, or in racing - all the time:)

cdaly_

irishmotorist wrote: »

Just thinking again, stick with what's comfortable but give yourself an aim. I wanted to be aiming for about 90+ RPM but when I got the cadence sensor for the bike I found I was doing about 80. If felt a bit unusual for the first while, but now I'm reasonably comfortable and natural feeling at about 90. On a long spin, I can't keep it quite up at that level, but I'm working at it and getting closer.

Ditto here. When I started out, I'd be pushing the big ring. Moved over to the middle ring and upped my cadence. I now run about 85-95 rpm steadily with occasional sprints up to 110-115 for 15-20 seconds...

blorg

gman2k wrote: »

It's actually to protect the underage riders whose bodies are still growing from damaging/ stressing their hearts.
Hills are actually worse for your knees than anything else, whether running or cycling - so said my surgeon.

Everything I've read is that it is to protect their muscles/knees and to teach them how to spin. Spinning in an easy gear works your heart more than grinding in a hard gear.

Hills are bad for your knees cycling mainly because you have to go down into your bottom gear and can't get your cadence up sufficiently so have to grind!

ED E

Talking about cadence, my legs go like the clappers on DublinBikes, they really dont want you to pick up pace do they:p

Doc_Savage

what i ended up doing to my bike was to fit a SS crank with the chainline lining up with the center of the cassette. it was a 42 tooth chainring on a 8 speed cassette.
i binned the front derailleur and never looked back.. no other chainrings or derailleur to rub off on the front and the chain never skipped off or made any unnerving noises.. only the freewheel and rear deraillueur made noise. I was sick of never being on the right chainring and got a bit impatient.. i still think that tripple chainrings are overkill and can't see the logic behind their promenance(sp?) on high end bikes! (somebody mention wider gear range and then think.... why?)

blorg

David Millar tried that in the 2003 TdF prologue. Didn't work out too good for him.

Seriously though there is a place for front chainrings, even three of them on road bikes, for mere mortals such as ourselves... you would be a little fitter and have a wider cadence range than a beginning rider I would wager.

DirkVoodoo

Doc_Savage wrote: »

i still think that tripple chainrings are overkill and can't see the logic behind their promenance(sp?) on high end bikes! (somebody mention wider gear range and then think.... why?)

cdaly_

Doc_Savage wrote: »

i still think that tripple chainrings are overkill and can't see the logic behind their promenance(sp?) on high end bikes! (somebody mention wider gear range and then think.... why?)

I want the wide range but I'm finding it annoying these days when I'm skipping more than one tooth between sprockets. With a triple I can run a tighter cassette and still have the wide range.

Doc_Savage

oh i can't argue with hills... and i won't!

but you can probably get the same range of ratios out of a double by fitting a slightly bigger difference between them than a triples adjacent rings. And a lot of bikes are also fitting very close ratio ten speed cassettes (correct me if i'm wrong but the reason for this is smoother shifting?) and therefore reducing their breadth of ratios.

here's an example of a triple chainset

127.6 95.7 73.6
117.0 87.8 67.5
108.0 81.0 62.3
100.3 75.2 57.9
93.6 70.2 54.0
87.8 65.8 50.6
82.6 61.9 47.6
78.0 58.5 45.0
73.9 55.4 42.6
66.9 50.1 38.6

Here's an example of a double chainset

127.6 93.3
108.0 78.9
93.6 68.4
82.6 60.4
73.9 54.0
66.9 48.9
61.0 44.6
56.2 41.0
50.1 36.6
41.3 30.2

you can combine a smart choice of cassette and chainring to try and get a cross-section similar to this.

(all of the above are in gear inches(i ride fixed(with a brake 76.4/without a brake 68.5))(this should also explain my preference to simplicity:p(actually Bollox to that, i'm a mechanical engineer and if i can see something unnecessary i'll cut it off!:rolleyes: unless it looks cool:p)))

Doc_Savage

cdaly_ wrote: »

I want the wide range but I'm finding it annoying these days when I'm skipping more than one tooth between sprockets. With a triple I can run a tighter cassette and still have the wide range.

you can focus your bike more to the area that you need/want that smooth gearchange, it could be in the first few gears for low acceleration etc. If you are skipping links on the chain when shifting then i would look for wear on your casette and chain, either that or your are trying to shift gears when putting the chain under full strain. remember that i linear progressing casette is not always the ideal. Ie. it may not feel like a linear progression in your legs and a gear ratio increase closer to a logarithmic progression may suit more!

cdaly_

Ah no, I wasn't clear there. What I meant was the jumps are from 15t to 17t rather than to 16t so greater changes in cadence. Just looking at your ratios, I note the double gives an 82.6 to 73.9 while the triple gives a 78.0 between the two.

With my current cassette 9sp 11-28, I'm finding that a single gear change (around my usual gearing) can shift my cadence from 80 to 94 which is too much of a change. I reckon I should leave aside the 11t and go for a more compact cassette.