# Tooth count for dummies?



## on board (Jun 18, 2010)

In researching my new bike, I have been looking at what build kit to buy. Debating whether to try SRAM this time, go with Shimano, splurge on Campy. Debating whether to go for a double or triple and what new technologies since my last bike in 03 make this a different decision.

I intend to have this built at a LBS, but I would like to walk in with a little bit of an idea for what I am looking for. When I look on sites like Competitive Cyclist, you can customize a build kit (minus disc brakes sadly) with many options for gearing. For the cassette with SRAM for instance, you can get 11/23, or 11/25 and so on. *Can someone please point me to a website that explains what all these choices are IN PLAIN ENGLISH?* Seems like there must be a good '101' type of gearing explanation out there. I looked on Sheldon Brown but maybe I missed it.

I would like to have just enough knowledge to make a good decision, or to know that the recommendation from the staff person at the store is indeed going to be a good one for my riding style.

Thank you kindly in advance.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Here is a quick break down.

11/23 - 11 is the number of teeth on the smallest cog of the cassette. 23 is the number of teeth on the largest cog of the cassette.

Now you will see difference combos.

11/23, 11/25, 11/28, 12/15, etc. Each cassette will have a different set of ratio's for said cassette.

This should help out.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/k10.shtml


----------



## on board (Jun 18, 2010)

Ok, so if one wanted the widest possible range for what is being called a compact setup, you could order the 11/32 cassette with 11 providing the most resistance (highest speed for downhill and the flats) and with 32 offering the easiest pedaling for the steep hills. Do I have this correct? Thanks.


----------



## King Arthur (Nov 13, 2009)

*combinations*

This is a correct assumption, but other propositions merit consideration. The jumps between each cog can be enormous (11,12, 13,14, 16, 19, 22, 26, 29, 32,) for example.
It can be hard to find a "comfortable geat" in which to pedal. I find that moving along at my "comfortable" pace I can use a 17 or 18 tooth cog. In this set up as an example, I would find it hard to find the comfortable area in which to peddle. A 16 tooth might prove to difficult and 19 "too easy" and require higher rpm's to maintain speed if moving along with a group.


----------



## Arcem (Jun 13, 2009)

a 11-32 is a MTB cassette, i really wouldn't recommend that as you would need a different rear derailer. Do you know what you have rode in the past? 
Also what are you using for a crankset? a standard (53/39), compact (50/34), or a tripple (52/42/30) or something other than those three?


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Arcem said:


> a 11-32 is a MTB cassette, i really wouldn't recommend that as you would need a different rear derailer. Do you know what you have rode in the past?
> Also what are you using for a crankset? a standard (53/39), compact (50/34), or a tripple (52/42/30) or something other than those three?


11-32 has found its way to the Road application, first by SRAM with the Apex group.


----------



## on board (Jun 18, 2010)

Here's where the "plain English" is necessary.

I am considering trying a "compact" crankset. SRAM seems to have new equipment that is highly rated in this regard. I have a triple on my road bike and appreciate the extra gears on the hills. I am only considering the compact double because it seems like the technology has actually made it so this can provide the same range that you got with a triple a number of years ago. I want this for an all around bike where there are lots of steep hills, and I will frequently have a pannier or two on the rack with my stuff. I am uninterested in being able to boast that I have no need for anything beyond a double, I am only interested in whether I can get an adequate range including a granny gear for the steeps. I found the 11/32 on the competitivecyclist site in their custom build page, and since they are only putting together groups for road biking (ie no disc brakes unfortunately) I assume this is either not a MTB cassette, or that it does not matter.


----------



## Arcem (Jun 13, 2009)

tednugent said:


> 11-32 has found its way to the Road application, first by SRAM with the Apex group.


My bad, i had no clue

OP a compact and a 11-32 will give you a huge gear spread and a super low climbing gear. but it might give you a couple big holes between gears. If i were you i might look into a 11-28 instead, but the only way to really find out what works for you is to try it.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

on board said:


> Here's where the "plain English" is necessary.
> 
> I am considering trying a "compact" crankset. SRAM seems to have new equipment that is highly rated in this regard. I have a triple on my road bike and appreciate the extra gears on the hills. I am only considering the compact double because it seems like the technology has actually made it so this can provide the same range that you got with a triple a number of years ago.


It doesn't. The lowest gear is 38% higher than you could get with a triple crank having a 74mm small ring BCD (33 x whatever versus 24 x whatever).

More important for many people is that you can't match the spacing for the same range.

As an extreme example, you can net the same range with 

53-39-24 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23
or
50-34 x 11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32

The triple option has every cog a roadie would want, even those of us who are picky and like one tooth jumps up to the 19 cog.

The compact double doesn't even have a 14, let alone 16 cog that many roadies miss when working hard on flat ground.

Even if you can get the range with tight spacing, you can still run into problems with double shifting and noisy chain lines.

For example, in the 8 speed era I ran 

50-40-30x13-14-15-15-16-17-18-19-21

after wearing out parts I added a 23 on the end, and then switched to a 50-34 because 34x23 is close enough to 30x21 and conventional wisdom holds that double are better than triples. 50x21 and 34x14 are the only overlapping gear combinations so there's a lot of double shifting with the wrong terrain/wind/fatigue/rest day combinations. Where I used to ride in 40x17 in the middle of the cassette I'm now using 50x21 or 34x14 which are one cog in from the end (with the later being unusable until I shimmed the small ring inward for clearance for no overlap between rings).



> I want this for an all around bike where there are lots of steep hills, and I will frequently have a pannier or two on the rack with my stuff. I am uninterested in being able to boast that I have no need for anything beyond a double, I am only interested in whether I can get an adequate range including a granny gear for the steeps.


Take your pick of Shimano or Campagnolo (with 2010 10 speed Ultrashift or current production Record/Chorus QS second generation levers) triples with the later being easier to setup for noise-free operation due to the trim options.

Wide-range compact doubles are only really an improvement for the bike companies that no longer need to make and stock more crankset SKUs, more front derailleur SKUs, more left shifter SKUs (for Shimano), and more bike SKUs.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> I want this for an all around bike where there are lots of steep hills, and I will frequently have a pannier or two on the rack with my stuff. I am uninterested in being able to boast that I have no need for anything beyond a double, I am only interested in whether I can get an adequate range including a granny gear for the steeps


Just get a triple. You want some super-low bailout gears for the times you hit a steep climb with a big load, and getting that range without a third ring means wide gaps in the cassette. You have the sense to ignore any ego and image factors.

I really think a triple is what you want.


----------



## on board (Jun 18, 2010)

Thanks everyone for the speedy "plain english" responses. I tend to get lost in all those numbers and not understand what they actually mean on the pavement. It probably is the case that I still actually want a triple for this application, but I will ask at a bike shop to see if they have a compact double rigged up for maximum range.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

What do you like/dislike about your present set up? How much time do you spend in each ring of yor triple? A compact is lighter, cooler and on paper offers all the gears most people need. But when I went from a triple to a compact, I found I was always on the ends of the cassette needing to keep shifting the FD. 
On reflection I realised most of my riding was in traffic and the middle 39 ring gave me the most useful range of gears.


----------



## 2shifter (Jul 15, 2004)

I think some other considerations are the type of riding you are planning to do and if you have other rides in your stable. If the riding is predominantly steep hills with a load, then you probably want to keep the triple. Also, the length of your rides would factor in. If you only go 30 or 40 miles, big difference than doing centuries. Particularly if your loaded up riding in unfamiliar areas. A long steep hill at the end of a 80 mile day, unexpected, is not what you want to greet you when you have 34/25. You WILL sacrifice if you go to a compact. With your riding now, do you ofter use your lowest gearing combos? If you routinely have a couple of gears in reserve, you may be able to go compact and 11-28. 

I went with 11-32, but only because I am on CX with 46-38 front. I dont care about large gaps in the middle of my cogs, as this bike is dedicated for either commuting where I rarely shift at all, or longer light touring where I am not hammering. Also, the narrow chainring spread mitigates the gaps even if I have to shift up front. I also have bikes set up standard and compact, so that allows flexibility.


----------



## on board (Jun 18, 2010)

For me, this would be bike number three. I have a road bike with a Campy triple chainring that I use for long distance rides. This bike has no fenders, racks, or extras, just a lightweight steel road bike. Number two is a mountain bike that is used for trail riding. This would be number three and would become a high quality commuter, short tour, practical bike for putting on a rack and carrying panniers with the work clothes, gym bag, light groceries occasionally, etc.

The previous question about what I don't like about the current setup is a good exercise to consider. I realize that I rarely use that small triple ring on the road bike, but at the time I bought it in 03, it seemed like I might as well get myself as many options as possible.

I did recently have the opportunity to try the new SRAM compact setup and it seems promising. I don't believe this kind of compact crank was an option until very recently or I may have really considered it when I bought the road bike.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

on board said:


> The previous question about what I don't like about the current setup is a good exercise to consider. I realize that I rarely use that small triple ring on the road bike, but at the time I bought it in 03, it seemed like I might as well get myself as many options as possible.


It depends on what cogs you run. If you run the same cogs (with many new triple or compact double equipped bikes shipping with a wider cogset than experienced road riders would use on a standard double) you don't need the third ring and aren't gaining too much from it (a 39-42 ring does work better for many recreational riders on flattish terrain compared to a 34 since it makes for fewer double shifts and better chain lines with less noise). If you setup the cogs to match your requirements you can have tighter cogs and more options.

If I ran my Campagnolo triple setup with 50-40-30x13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26 I wouldn't have needed the third ring but wouldn't have had the 16 and 18 cogs I got with 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 that are quite nice for flat rides.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

on board said:


> The previous question about what I don't like about the current setup is a good exercise to consider. I realize that I rarely use that small triple ring on the road bike, but at the time I bought it in 03, it seemed like I might as well get myself as many options as possible.


You may have answered your own question. I agree w/ 2Shifter that if you do a lot of hillclimbing, the triple might be alright- but IMO only if you really, really do a * L O T* of hillclimbing!
I do plenty, and I have a compact (50x34) w/ a 11-28 cassette. Works like a charm.



on board said:


> I did recently have the opportunity to try the new SRAM compact setup and it seems promising. I don't believe this kind of compact crank was an option until very recently or I may have really considered it when I bought the road bike.


I think if you did the SRAM compact (50x34) w/ the new 11-32, it would provide you as many options as you could possibly want. The only caveat is (was) the jumps between cogs- but if it felt good to you, you're golden. (make sure you _really_ give it a good test ride though!)


----------

