|52T or 53T?||pimpy|
Jan 21, 2004 4:45 AM
I need a new crankset. My LBS only has a 53T but I have not so much power, so I think I can do with a 52T. LBS says it doesn't mind. Is that true?
|52,53 whatever it takes.nm||lonebikeroftheapocalypse|
Jan 21, 2004 5:12 AM
Jan 21, 2004 5:58 AM
|"Beer? It's 8 o'clock in the morning!! Scotch? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jan 21, 2004 7:45 AM
|Brain f@rt. What movie is that from? (nm)||Dave Hickey|
Jan 21, 2004 9:03 AM
|The cloud is lifting. Michael Keaton. I still can't....||Dave Hickey|
Jan 21, 2004 9:10 AM
|the d@mn movie.|
|Mr. Mom...A classic. nm||T-Doc|
Jan 21, 2004 9:15 AM
|Whew.... I real better now. Thanks nm||Dave Hickey|
Jan 21, 2004 9:18 AM
|One Punch! One Punch! nm||russw19|
Jan 21, 2004 12:46 PM
|I'm happy to say ....||irregardless|
Jan 21, 2004 9:51 AM
|that anything Michael Keaton says is out of my memory before I leave the theater, assuming I see any of his movies in the first place.|
|Well, it's one better, isn't it? nm||pitt83|
Jan 21, 2004 5:50 AM
|Hey, isn't that a Spinal Tap reference?! (nm)||BigFatSal|
Jan 21, 2004 10:25 AM
|it's nearly equal...||FORT-Cyclist|
Jan 21, 2004 5:57 AM
|you can't feel the difference.
divide 53 with 11 and then 52 with 11. do the same with 12,13,14...
|Look at a gear chart||triple shot espresso|
Jan 21, 2004 7:25 AM
But to answer your question a little better, it depends. Most racers go with the 53 or better.
Do plan on continuing to ride with not so much power? Ride in that big ring as much as possible and start putting in some time and developing that gear smashing and thrashing power. Soon you'll be looking at the 53 and thinking that it might not be enough and you'll be eyeing the 54.
|re: 52T or 53T?||Chen2|
Jan 21, 2004 7:28 AM
|I would have a slight preference for the 52 because the ratio combinations would be slightly closer. It's a very small difference though. For the same reason I prefer a cassette that starts with a 13 instead of 12.|
Jan 21, 2004 7:45 AM
|It common and available.
You still have overlap between little front little rear and big front big rear.
There is a slight wear advantage having an odd number of teeth in the front. The chain is always messing with a different tooth on each rotation. With an even number it is possible that certain links of the chain only hit certain teeth and could cause some uneven wear or shifting.
The gearing difference between 52 and 53 is less than 2%
On the rear a tooth can make a big difference. 12 vs. 13 is 8%
Either chain ring will work differences are very minor.
Jan 21, 2004 9:43 AM
|"There is a slight wear advantage having an odd number of teeth in the front. The chain is always messing with a different tooth on each rotation. With an even number it is possible that certain links of the chain only hit certain teeth and could cause some uneven wear or shifting."
Have you done the math on this?
|No, too lazy, read it on a bicycling related technical website||bimini|
Jan 21, 2004 1:25 PM
|With 53 being an odd number and not divisible by any other number only a chain with 106 links or 159 links could cause repetative meshing of links and teeth.
With 52 there could be quite a few different harmonics involved. Not only are you dealing with multiples of 52, but multiples of numbers that can be divided into 52 (26, 13, 3, 2). I don't remember but combinations of those numbers and multiples of those numbers my cause harmonics also.
I do recall during my engineering training dealing with vibrations and gear trains that hamonics and repetative meshing of gear teeths was to be avoided if possible. Can be a big deal at the high RPMs. But at the low RPMs a bicycle operates at it's effect should be small.
According to what they said in the website this is why they recommended the 39 / 53 combination and this is why that combination is so popular. It also said the effect was small and nothing to be too concerned with. It only causes a minor increase in wear.
|53T, but then I'm biased. (nm)||53T|
Jan 21, 2004 7:30 AM