# 52/36 crankset



## knightev

i might be a little behind, but i just read about campagnolo's new 52/36 for all their 11 speed groups.

it seems like a smart choice, as far as getting a set-up good for almost all riding (flat, hilly, maybe even mountains?).

any thoughts?


----------



## pulser955

knightev said:


> i might be a little behind, but i just read about campagnolo's new 52/36 for all their 11 speed groups.
> 
> it seems like a smart choice, as far as getting a set-up good for almost all riding (flat, hilly, maybe even mountains?).
> 
> any thoughts?


I'm running a Sram Red 52/36 with a Campy 10sp group. I needed to find a way to do big mountain climbs with out hurting my knees. But I still need the speed down hill and on the flats. I'm happy with the gearing and will be using the campy crank when I go 11sp next year.


----------



## knightev

pulser955 said:


> I'm running a Sram Red 52/36 with a Campy 10sp group. I needed to find a way to do big mountain climbs with out hurting my knees. But I still need the speed down hill and on the flats. I'm happy with the gearing and will be using the campy crank when I go 11sp next year.


what cassette are you running?


----------



## Al1943

That would be too big of a ratio jump for me. A 50/36 seems more reasonable. With a 52/36 you'd need to shift the rear over 3 cogs to make any kind of smooth transition.


----------



## Kontact

Until someone comes out with a 11.5 cassette cog, this combination makes zero sense. You pick your large chainring to match your high cassette cog - 11 with 50 and 12 with 53. Just because 52 is 16 more than 36, that doesn't make it suddenly more useful.

Plus, a 52 on a 110BCD crank is flexy.


Dumb, dumb, dumb. Marketing nonsense.


----------



## PixelPaul

anyone know when the 52/36 cranks will be available?


----------



## redlude97

Kontact said:


> Until someone comes out with a 11.5 cassette cog, this combination makes zero sense. You pick your large chainring to match your high cassette cog - 11 with 50 and 12 with 53. Just because 52 is 16 more than 36, that doesn't make it suddenly more useful.
> 
> Plus, a 52 on a 110BCD crank is flexy.
> 
> 
> Dumb, dumb, dumb. Marketing nonsense.


What about those of us who only have a 50x12?


----------



## Al1943

redlude97 said:


> What about those of us who only have a 50x12?


A 50 x 12 is good for 33+ mph at 100 rpm. Most can crank more than 100 without much trouble. When I get above 33 it's because I'm coasting down a steep hill.


----------



## redlude97

Al1943 said:


> A 50 x 12 is good for 33+ mph at 100 rpm. Most can crank more than 100 without much trouble. When I get above 33 it's because I'm coasting down a steep hill.


I'm well aware of what my 50x12 can take me to and haven't missed a 50x11 very much at all :thumbsup:


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

Kontact said:


> Until someone comes out with a 11.5 cassette cog, this combination makes zero sense.


Right. With the big companies eschewing starting cogs larger than a 12 the big ring should be smaller.

With a 13 starting cog you have the same big gear Eddy Merckx used to dominate the classics with feats like spending 140km off-the-front all the way to the finish on a Tour de France stage.

Those of us who aren't contenders in the Tour de France don't need gears even larger than that.

I've ridden a 50x13 big gear for the last 16 years and it's worked great, even for the decade I spent living in Boulder, CO right between the Colorado Rockies to the west and plains to the east.

It's pleasant up to about 35 MPH down-hill past which tucking works well enough. 

OTOH, there are plenty of spots on flatter ground where 50x18 or 50x16 feels great but 50x15/17/19 wouldn't be so nice and I'm happy to have traded smaller starting cogs that I might occasionally use for ones in the middle that see heavy use.


----------



## asad137

Al1943 said:


> With a 52/36 you'd need to shift the rear over 3 cogs to make any kind of smooth transition.


That's what I do every time I shift the front with my 50/34 front rings.


----------



## gordy748

Kontact said:


> Until someone comes out with a 11.5 cassette cog, this combination makes zero sense. You pick your large chainring to match your high cassette cog - 11 with 50 and 12 with 53. Just because 52 is 16 more than 36, that doesn't make it suddenly more useful.
> 
> Plus, a 52 on a 110BCD crank is flexy.
> 
> 
> Dumb, dumb, dumb. Marketing nonsense.


Kontact, we all know how much you hate this set-up. A lot of what you say is valid but I do think there is a half-way house between compact and standards. Apparently some of the pros use this set-up quite happily, e.g. Ivan Basso.

I'll concede that this half-way house may be the worst of both worlds, rather than the best. But here in Seattle where the hills are many and steep, the semi-compact setup may be a reasonable idea. My LBS is getting a version in to test... who knows, it may turn out to be a good idea.


----------



## redlude97

gordy748 said:


> Kontact, we all know how much you hate this set-up. A lot of what you say is valid but I do think there is a half-way house between compact and standards. Apparently some of the pros use this set-up quite happily, e.g. Ivan Basso.
> 
> I'll concede that this half-way house may be the worst of both worlds, rather than the best. But here in Seattle where the hills are many and steep, the semi-compact setup may be a reasonable idea. My LBS is getting a version in to test... who knows, it may turn out to be a good idea.


I like my 50/36 12/27 for hilly seattle


----------



## gordy748

redlude97 said:


> I like my 50/36 12/27 for hilly seattle


I'm currently on 53/ 39 with 12/ 27, but am a little over geared for a non-racer. Does anyone know how much a Campy 36 chain ring would cost? I've never seen a 50/ 36 for sale...


----------



## Eyorerox

Now
Campagnolo Chorus 11sp 36/52 EVO Crankset - 2013: Total Cycling


----------



## knightev

Eyorerox said:


> Now
> Campagnolo Chorus 11sp 36/52 EVO Crankset - 2013: Total Cycling


they are also up on ribble, already.


----------



## Kontact

gordy748 said:


> Kontact, we all know how much you hate this set-up. A lot of what you say is valid but I do think there is a half-way house between compact and standards. Apparently some of the pros use this set-up quite happily, e.g. Ivan Basso.
> 
> I'll concede that this half-way house may be the worst of both worlds, rather than the best. But here in Seattle where the hills are many and steep, the semi-compact setup may be a reasonable idea. My LBS is getting a version in to test... who knows, it may turn out to be a good idea.


A halfway between a compact and standard would have an appropriate BCD for the large chainring - at least 120, though you could probably go 125 and still get a 36 on it.

Better yet, a 130 crank will take a 38 chainring - only 2 gear inches larger than a 36. Yet the large chainring will shift well.

There are all sorts of interesting combinations that could make great use of either 130 or 110 cranks, and 52x36 isn't one of them. It is just the newest half-baked, "give the dumb consumers what they want" marketing driven hoopla that sells because hardly anyone takes the time to figure out how stuff actually works. The target market is people who say things like "my compact really spins up great". The reality is that all the chainrings and cogs do is make gear ratios, and consumers are allowed to actually look at gear ratio charts and think before they buy. 

But they won't.


----------



## Guest

Al1943 said:


> A 50 x 12 is good for 33+ mph at 100 rpm. Most can crank more than 100 without much trouble. When I get above 33 it's because I'm coasting down a steep hill.


50/12 is also good for 44+ at 135. While I probably could go ever so slightly faster by spinning 125rpm in a 50/11, occasions for me to actually go that fast (and be faster by pedaling than just coasting) are so rare I'd rather have a 16t intermediate cog than a 11t starting cog. (I ride mostly solo, occasional group rides and organized rides, no racing)

I'm running a 50-36 cransket with a 12-28 cassette. That said, I'm what many would call a "spinner". My overall average cadence is 95. Usual cadence when riding a steady speed is 100-110. Climbing is typically ~90. Sprinting or hammering downhill is 125+.


----------



## pulser955

knightev said:


> what cassette are you running?


I am running a campy 11-25 cassette. With a short cadge the largest rear cog I can run is 26. I also race so I have to have an 11.


----------



## pulser955

Kontact said:


> A halfway between a compact and standard would have an appropriate BCD for the large chainring - at least 120, though you could probably go 125 and still get a 36 on it.
> 
> Better yet, a 130 crank will take a 38 chainring - only 2 gear inches larger than a 36. Yet the large chainring will shift well.
> 
> There are all sorts of interesting combinations that could make great use of either 130 or 110 cranks, and 52x36 isn't one of them. It is just the newest half-baked, "give the dumb consumers what they want" marketing driven hoopla that sells because hardly anyone takes the time to figure out how stuff actually works. The target market is people who say things like "my compact really spins up great". The reality is that all the chainrings and cogs do is make gear ratios, and consumers are allowed to actually look at gear ratio charts and think before they buy.
> 
> But they won't.


I don't know I race and I was having problems with my knees after really big climbing days. I can't go full compact I would lose way too much on the down hills. I am a descender so that's where I make up the ground I lose on the climb or where I attack. I have to have an 11. But I wanted a lower climbing gear. But I can't clear any thing bigger then a 26 with a short cage derailleur. My cat2 training partner (who is way faster then me) talked me in to trying the 52/36. Its worked out grate for me.


----------



## knightev

*gear ratios*



Kontact said:


> The reality is that all the chainrings and cogs do is make gear ratios, and consumers are allowed to actually look at gear ratio charts and think before they buy.


i have looked at gear ratio charts, but have understood very little. could you maybe explain a bit about them?


----------



## Kontact

pulser955 said:


> I don't know I race and I was having problems with my knees after really big climbing days. I can't go full compact I would lose way too much on the down hills. I am a descender so that's where I make up the ground I lose on the climb or where I attack. I have to have an 11. But I wanted a lower climbing gear. But I can't clear any thing bigger then a 26 with a short cage derailleur. My cat2 training partner (who is way faster then me) talked me in to trying the 52/36. Its worked out grate for me.


I would have bought a better rear derailleur rather than a whole crankset. It's a cheaper part.


----------



## pulser955

Kontact said:


> I would have bought a better rear derailleur rather than a whole crankset. It's a cheaper part.


So a long cage is better? And then what cassette would I run? If I went bigger then I would lose the 11. The set up I have has worked perfectly. So it was money well spent.


----------



## Kontact

knightev said:


> i have looked at gear ratio charts, but have understood very little. could you maybe explain a bit about them?


Here's a good gear chart:
http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=34,50&RZ=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,22,25,28&TF=85&UF=2099&SL=2

The point of such a chart is to show you why a 34x15 is pretty much the same "gear" as 50x22. The chart tells you what the combined output of different combinations equals in terms of MPH per pedal cadence or gear inches (which means how big a wheel you'd have if you were riding an old high wheeler single speed). 

Once you can see the comparisons you can start planning what you need based on what you know works for you by observing the output and changing the available gears. For instance, if you know the lowest gear you ever use for climbing is your 34x22, you can hit "Compare" and try out 53x39 crank with a 12-25 cassette and see that 39x25 is the same output gear ratio as that 34x22.

You can also use the chart to plan your shifts - see where the natural steps are when shifting the front derailleur to go to the the next gear ratio up and down with a rear derailleur shift. That's what people mean when they say they need to shift 3 in back when shifting a compact in front.

It's a fun tool, play around with it.


----------



## dcorn

I'm running a 53/39 with a 11-28 cassette. Used to run a compact with 11-27, so the standard gearing is taking some getting used to (and probably making me a bit stronger). There are some crazy hilly rides around here in the Appalachians, so I'll probably make the jump to the 52/36 because I need some more climbing gear but don't want to lose my top speed gears. Say what you will, but I like to power through my sprints and downhills with a lower cadence. I don't like spinning 110+ rpm in any situation.

I'm now patiently waiting for Praxis to come out with their 52/36 chainrings, then I'll just get the 110 bcd spider for my crank. 


Oh, and specialized is putting 52/36 rings on many of their Tarmacs and Venges now. I know Sram and I think FSA makes those rings as well, so campy isn't doing anything new.


----------



## Doolab

Kontact must think Shimano are the dumbest of the dumb for bringing out their new Dura Ace FC9000 crankset range (50/34, 52/36, 52/38, 53/39, 54/42, 55/42) and they are all on a 110BCD 4-bolt pattern. They must be flexy and not sexy, for sure. 

Yet Shimano is known for producing some of the stiffest cranksets on the market, but what do they know if Kontact says otherwise?

Yet, as dumb as Shimano seems to Kontact, they have not elicited any complaints from professional cyclists using these new 11spd groups in international races like the TdF. 

And to add insult to injuring Kontact's cycling sensibilities, it would seem the new 52/36 crankset with the 11-28t 11spd cogset are poised to become the most popular choice with typical recreational consumers since this combo allows single tooth stepping from 11 to 17 (great for hammering on flats, descents, & in group rides) while still getting a low enough combo (36 ring with 28t cog) for climbing most hills & mountains. 

Of course, others with lower power/weight ratios or with bad knees or with other issues may opt for the easier 50/34 cranksets and the stronger racer types will go for the larger crankset options...

Oh, and on a related note, it appears that Campagnolo is also getting infected with similar wayward thinking as they will also be bringing out the 52/36 for all their 11spd groupsets. 

Oh the horror Kontact must feel... :mad2: 
But don't worry man, just ride what works for you and let others get whatever works best for them. Cheers! :thumbsup:


----------



## tztag

I ride in hilly northern cali and love the 52/36 combo. 52/39 with even a 28 or 29 cassette just wasn't enough for some of the hills around here, especially after 50 miles of ups and downs. I tried a 50/34 compact and didn't like how often I was cross chaining and shifting between the front rings. 

I have 52/36 in two iterations- SRAM 52/36 with 11/28 cassette, and Campy 11 52/36 (TA Rings) with 12/29. I feel like I hunt between front rings far less with the 52/36. If it weren't for the hills here I would be using a standard 53/39, still my favorite for great cruising gear combos.

The SRAM setup is only held back by the big jumps on the cassette, which is a problem regardless of the front rings. I actually use the 52/11 a lot going down some of the long grades here, and the 36/28 is a great climbing gear. 

The Campy setup is even better- the 12/29 cassette with 11 cogs has jumps that are a little more reasonable in the middle of the cassette, and the 52/12 is good enough for the downhills. 36/29 is even better for climbing. 

I'm not sure why the gearing chart argument is used against this setup- using the calculators and the cassettes I'm using there are three tight and/or overlapping ratios in standard, compact, and the 52/36 scenarios. I certainly don't think it's marketing hype, it's made riding around here more enjoyable for me, and although it is certainly a compromise, I think it's a good one if you want wide gearing.


----------



## Kontact

Doolab said:


> Kontact must think Shimano are the dumbest of the dumb for bringing out their new Dura Ace FC9000 crankset range (50/34, 52/36, 52/38, 53/39, 54/42, 55/42) and they are all on a 110BCD 4-bolt pattern. They must be flexy and not sexy, for sure.
> 
> Yet Shimano is known for producing some of the stiffest cranksets on the market, but what do they know if Kontact says otherwise?
> 
> Yet, as dumb as Shimano seems to Kontact, they have not elicited any complaints from professional cyclists using these new 11spd groups in international races like the TdF.
> 
> And to add insult to injuring Kontact's cycling sensibilities, it would seem the new 52/36 crankset with the 11-28t 11spd cogset are poised to become the most popular choice with typical recreational consumers since this combo allows single tooth stepping from 11 to 17 (great for hammering on flats, descents, & in group rides) while still getting a low enough combo (36 ring with 28t cog) for climbing most hills & mountains.
> 
> Of course, others with lower power/weight ratios or with bad knees or with other issues may opt for the easier 50/34 cranksets and the stronger racer types will go for the larger crankset options...
> 
> Oh, and on a related note, it appears that Campagnolo is also getting infected with similar wayward thinking as they will also be bringing out the 52/36 for all their 11spd groupsets.
> 
> Oh the horror Kontact must feel... :mad2:
> But don't worry man, just ride what works for you and let others get whatever works best for them. Cheers! :thumbsup:


The new DA crankset uses proprietary 4 bolt composite chainrings. Calling it a 110BCD crank is ignoring the reality that it is completely different than any normal crank in its construction compared to SRAM, Campy and previous Shimano cranks. It might as well just be single piece crank like a Magic Motorcycle. It doesn't suddenly make every other 110BCD 52 chainring stiffer.

That aside, it doesn't explain why a 52, something almost everyone stopped using in the late '80s, is suddenly a great idea. It only seems to be a good idea when you add 16 to 36, or are convinced you need to sprint downhill. Or think you need to emulate the equipment pro teams use by agreement with their sponsors.


Would you like me to now apologize to you for expressing my opinion on this forum about gear ratios? I didn't think I was being rude to anyone here by having such an opinion. Were you being polite in expressing your opinion?


----------



## Kontact

tztag said:


> I ride in hilly northern cali and love the 52/36 combo. 52/39 with even a 28 or 29 cassette just wasn't enough for some of the hills around here, especially after 50 miles of ups and downs. I tried a 50/34 compact and didn't like how often I was cross chaining and *shifting between the front rings*.
> 
> I'm not sure why the gearing chart argument is used against this setup- using the calculators and the cassettes I'm using there are three tight and/or overlapping ratios in standard, compact, and the 52/36 scenarios. I certainly don't think it's marketing hype, it's made riding around here more enjoyable for me, and although it is certainly a compromise, I think it's a good one if you want wide gearing.


A 50x34 has 16 teeth difference between rings, just like a 52x36 does. For the same cassette cogs, these two have nearly identical gear ratio differentials. Why do you think you'd need to shift less when you are using the same type of chainring split, just with slightly higher gearing?

Here's your gearing for comparison with a regular compact:
http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=34,50&RZ=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,22,25,28&TF=85&UF=2099&SL=2


----------



## knightev

from what i am reading it seems to me that the 52/36 is a good amateur / sportive / recreational set-up, just as the 50/34 is. the only difference, of course, being that the 52/36 has higher gearing. nice for those who have the legs to dig in a bit more, or who live in a bit more varied terrain. 

the 53/39, then seems more geared (har) towards the "pro" set-up, or those with a bit more power, or who do more serious racing, or want that "classic" crank, or simply live in a pancake flat place (like where i am).

riding style, personal choice, really, seem to be at the basis, just like everything. yet, what i am gleaning is that the 52/36 might be too flexy (at least the SRAM and Campy ones), due to the 110 BCD, to warrant "true" racing. whereas with Shimano's crank spider innovations, the 52/36 might be more viable for racing.

how about those thoughts?


----------



## tztag

Kontact- I understand the 16 tooth difference between rings is identical. It's more about the 34-12/13/14/15 ratios vs the 36-12/13/14/15. Just that little bit higher gearing with the 36 seems to keep me from having to hop up to the big ring as often on rides with rolling hills. I didn't set out trying to like the 52/36 more than the 50/34, but I do after riding both and a reduction in the number of little to big rings shifts was one of the first things I noticed after my first long ride.


----------



## Kontact

knightev said:


> from what i am reading it seems to me that the 52/36 is a good amateur / sportive / recreational set-up, just as the 50/34 is. the only difference, of course, being that the 52/36 has higher gearing. nice for those who have the legs to dig in a bit more, or who live in a bit more varied terrain.
> 
> the 53/39, then seems more geared (har) towards the "pro" set-up, or those with a bit more power, or who do more serious racing, or want that "classic" crank, or simply live in a pancake flat place (like where i am).
> 
> riding style, personal choice, really, seem to be at the basis, just like everything. yet, what i am gleaning is that the 52/36 might be too flexy (at least the SRAM and Campy ones), due to the 110 BCD, to warrant "true" racing. whereas with Shimano's crank spider innovations, the 52/36 might be more viable for racing.
> 
> how about those thoughts?


Chainring flex isn't a racer thing - it's about good shifting.

52 is only a good idea if it nicely matches the limited gear selection of the high end of the cassette. What floors me is that some cyclists have convinced themselves that they need a 52x11 - even though no pro racer has ever bothered running the equivalent 56x12 in the old days.

Really, the main problems that people complain about with compacts would best be dealt with by making the range smaller - a 49x35 crank would combine a great high to low range with better shifting and closer gear ratios. 52x36 doesn't help that problem or address the poor shifting that compacts have become known for.

And a 53x39 with a 12-27 is the stiffest, best shifting medium range gear set up out there. Good performance isn't a racer thing, it's just nice to have.


----------



## Kontact

tztag said:


> Kontact- I understand the 16 tooth difference between rings is identical. It's more about the 34-12/13/14/15 ratios vs the 36-12/13/14/15. Just that little bit higher gearing with the 36 seems to keep me from having to hop up to the big ring as often on rides with rolling hills. I didn't set out trying to like the 52/36 more than the 50/34, but I do after riding both and a reduction in the number of little to big rings shifts was one of the first things I noticed after my first long ride.


I don't know why anyone would purposely ride in the 36x12. It's not designed for that.


----------



## tztag

Kontact said:


> I don't know why anyone would purposely ride in the 36x12. It's not designed for that.


Talking about the 12 on an 11/28 cassette. I get it- I'm not talking about cruising along small/small, talking about a few revs here and there in rolling hills.

I agree with you that 53-39 with 12-27 is basically ideal, I just can't climb all the hills around here with 39. Perhaps I should type less and ride more...  Peace, have a good weekend.


----------



## svard75

Kontact said:


> Until someone comes out with a 11.5 cassette cog, this combination makes zero sense. You pick your large chainring to match your high cassette cog - 11 with 50 and 12 with 53. Just because 52 is 16 more than 36, that doesn't make it suddenly more useful.
> 
> *Plus, a 52 on a 110BCD crank is flexy.*
> 
> 
> Dumb, dumb, dumb. Marketing nonsense.


In what sense is it flexy? I've been running a 52/36 on a compact red and didn't notice any flex. My rings are BBB.


----------



## tztag

> What floors me is that some cyclists have convinced themselves that they need a 52x11 - even though no pro racer has ever bothered running the equivalent 56x12 in the old days.

For me, this one is easy. 52x11 is completely unnecessary, but it sure is fun to be flying down a long hill ticking over that huge gear doing 35 to 40 mph. No other reason but pure fun.


----------



## svard75

tztag said:


> > What floors me is that some cyclists have convinced themselves that they need a 52x11 - even though no pro racer has ever bothered running the equivalent 56x12 in the old days.
> 
> For me, this one is easy. 52x11 is completely unnecessary, but it sure is fun to be flying down a long hill ticking over that huge gear doing 35 to 40 mph. No other reason but pure fun.


Don't forget the people who prefer to mash over spin. To each his own anyway. My lightweight weekend bike has a 52/36 up front and 12/25 out back. It's perfect for where I live. My commuter is a cross bike with a 53/39 up front and 11/26 out back and I don't think I could even get up to that speed in the city to use 11.


----------



## PRB

redlude97 said:


> I like my 50/36 12/27 for hilly seattle


A 50/36 is probably the best set up for the majority of people. A 50/37 would likely work well too. However, most people believe that they need a 52/53 big ring.....


gordy748 said:


> Does anyone know how much a Campy 36 chain ring would cost?


Campy has been making a 36T for their CX cranks for a while...and they'll fit on the regular road cranks though the finish appears to be different. I was tempted to try that but ultimately I changed the UT crank back to a ST as I wasn't happy with the larger Q-factor. They typically are priced around $100.


pulser955 said:


> I can't go full compact I would lose way too much on the down hills. I am a descender so that's where I make up the ground I lose on the climb or where I attack. I have to have an 11.


For many years I ran a 50/39 and a 13-26 (7sp FW). No one could ever hang with me on the downhills so the gearing had little to do with it. Long before you ever spin out your 52x11 you're better off to stop pedaling and make yourself as aero as possible - that is a much bigger advantage.


----------



## Al1943

asad137 said:


> That's what I do every time I shift the front with my 50/34 front rings.


That's one reason I would think a 50/36 would make more sense for most riders. Or maybe a 48/34 if the FD can be lowered enough.


----------



## Manning

Al1943 said:


> That's one reason I would think a 50/36 would make more sense for most riders. Or maybe a 48/34 if the FD can be lowered enough.


48/34 is the direction I'm headed. Blown my bike budget for a while otherwise it would be on the new bike already. 

Recently picked up a new bike with 50/34 rings. The jump between the two is tough to get used to after using 52/39 for the last 15 years, and 52/42 for 15 before that. I had no problem spinning the old bike's 52/13 to 35 mph comfortably, and higher with a bit of effort. 48/12 is the exact same gear. Spun the 50/12 on the new bike up over 40 mph the other night. Yes, it was a big downhill.


----------



## Praxis Works

Many of you have emailed us about our Cold Forged 52/36 'Semi-Compact' 

It's our number one priority right now. It really has become 'The go-to' gearing for many riders. Hang tight....we're about to release it. Thanks for your patience! 
Follow us on FB or sign on to our newsletter to get the announcement the day we flip the switch and release for sale. Thanks!

[email protected]


----------



## pulser955

PRB said:


> For many years I ran a 50/39 and a 13-26 (7sp FW). No one could ever hang with me on the downhills so the gearing had little to do with it. Long before you ever spin out your 52x11 you're better off to stop pedaling and make yourself as aero as possible - that is a much bigger advantage.


How often did you hit 60mph? how many times were you taking corners at 50+mph? I do regularly. Most my canyon roads are technical. Lots of tight corners. I have to get on the power coming out of corners as fast as I can to try and get to the next one as fast as possible. A 50x13 would be hopeless at that kind of speed. If the roads were all strait then an aero tuck alone would work.


----------



## asad137

Al1943 said:


> That's one reason I would think a 50/36 would make more sense for most riders. Or maybe a 48/34 if the FD can be lowered enough.


You say that as if there's something _wrong_ with having to shift 3 cogs in the rear for every front shift. I'm not sure why you think that. It's totally fine. And, at least with SRAM, super easy -- either 3 quick taps to upshift 3 gears, or one 'long' throw to downshift 3 gears.


----------



## PRB

pulser955 said:


> How often did you hit 60mph? how many times were you taking corners at 50+mph?.....A 50x13 would be hopeless at that kind of speed. .......


 I never hit 60 but I was in the mid-high 50s quite often....58 was the max. As for corners I have no idea; I looked down one time going through one fast to see what my speed was and quickly decided that wasn't a wise idea. I didn't mean to imply that a 50x13 was what you needed, rather that the 50 might not be near the detriment that you think. I still stand by that but if you feel that you need the 52 then go for it.

90 rpm: 50x11 = 32.0mph, 52x11 = 33.3mph
110 rpm: 50x11 = 39.2mph , 52x11 = 40.7mph


----------



## redlude97

pulser955 said:


> How often did you hit 60mph? how many times were you taking corners at 50+mph? I do regularly. Most my canyon roads are technical. Lots of tight corners. I have to get on the power coming out of corners as fast as I can to try and get to the next one as fast as possible. A 50x13 would be hopeless at that kind of speed. If the roads were all strait then an aero tuck alone would work.


Are you really pedaling at 130+rpms on those 50+mph corners? I think I would piss my pants. Usually at 40+ I'm just concentrating on keeping weight on the outside foot and being as smooth as possible. Or are you running something larger than 53x11?


----------



## tomatogti

A 52/36 gives you an extra 3 teeth over a non-compact chain set which is very useful in the hills/mountains. The right gear for an individual is dependant on a number of factors including the terrain you ride on, whether it's for racing or non-racing, what cadence you like pedalling at, your level of fitness etc

The lumpier the terrain then the bigger the spread you'll need which means you want either a bigger difference between the small and large chainring and/or a larger spread on your cassette too. Eg a road racer may be fine with 53-39 (spread of 14) with a 11-23 (spread of 12) whereas someone cycle touring in the mountains may want a 52-36 (spread 16) with a 11-27 (spread of 16).

If it's for general riding and you don't race (or you race on hilly terrain) then I reckon a 52/36 with something like a 12-25 is a good set of gears for someone with a reasonable level of fitness. If you want something for the hills then maybe get an 11-27 with that same chain set.


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> A 52/36 gives you an extra 3 teeth over a non-compact chain set which is very useful in the hills/mountains. The right gear for an individual is dependant on a number of factors including the terrain you ride on, whether it's for racing or non-racing, what cadence you like pedalling at, your level of fitness etc
> 
> The lumpier the terrain then the bigger the spread you'll need which means you want either a bigger difference between the small and large chainring and/or a larger spread on your cassette too. Eg a road racer may be fine with 53-39 (spread of 14) with a 11-23 (spread of 12) whereas someone cycle touring in the mountains may want a 52-36 (spread 16) with a 11-27 (spread of 16).
> 
> If it's for general riding and you don't race (or you race on hilly terrain) then I reckon a 52/36 with something like a 12-25 is a good set of gears for someone with a reasonable level of fitness. If you want something for the hills then maybe get an 11-27 with that same chain set.


But it doesn't do anything a 50x34 does, except make shifting worse.


----------



## tomatogti

Agree that it doesn't do anything a 52-36 doesn't do (i.e. same spread but just slightly higher gearing) - however don't agree that it'll make shifting worse - why do you think that?


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

Kontact said:


> But it doesn't do anything a 50x34 does, except make shifting worse.


It gives you up to one gear lower (36x21 is like 39x23) than you'd have with a 39 inner ring but still lets you deliver about 19% more power at the same cadence on flat ground before shifting to the big ring than with 50x34.


----------



## Kontact

Drew Eckhardt said:


> It gives you up to one gear lower (36x21 is like 39x23) than you'd have with a 39 inner ring but still lets you deliver about 19% more power at the same cadence on flat ground before shifting to the big ring than with 50x34.


Sure, if you use the exact same cassette. Why would you use the same cassette? 

This is just gearing. It has nothing to do with power. The main limiters in gearing are the steep steps at the high end of the cassette, not the mid range where you shift.



Tomatogoti - chain ring flex.


----------



## redlude97

Kontact said:


> Sure, if you use the exact same cassette. Why would you use the same cassette?
> 
> This is just gearing. It has nothing to do with power. The main limiters in gearing are the steep steps at the high end of the cassette, not the mid range where you shift.


I think the main purpose of is to have the range of a compact, just shifted up slightly. I'm going to make a few assumptions based on common configurations. 53/39+12/27, 50/34+11/28, and 52/36+12/27. For some people 39x27 just isn't low enough for some people, while 34x27/28 is too low, 36x27 is just right, with gear inches of 32, 35, and 38" respectively. 
Now if we look at the range each respective chainring will give you assuming you don't extreme crosschain:
39x13-27: 78.7-37.9=40.8" good up to [email protected]
36x13-27: 72.6-35.0=37.6" good up to [email protected]
34x12-28: 74.3-31.8=42.5" good up to [email protected]
Obviously if you are strong, the 39 combined with a 12/27 gives you the best range and highest speed. If you consider the 36x13 and 34x12 to be roughly equivalent, the steps on a 12/27 are nicer than an 11/28 because of the additional 16T.

Now lets look at the differences in the big ring
52x24 vs 50x24 have GI of 54.6 vs 56.8". The major difference here is the missing 16T, which is right in the 20-25mph sweet spot for the 50x11/28 which many average cyclists would use quite a bit. 
The 50x11 is roughly equivalent to the 52x12

So the advantages of a 52/36 over a 50/34 are the increased speed range that is achieved on the 36T that lets you use it on more terrain, and the additional 16T for smoother riding on the flats. 

Or, if you are like me and are willing to sacrifice a little bit of top speed spinning ability, you run a 50/36 with a 12/27 so you get all the benefits of a 52/36 over a 50/34, along with super crisp shifting of similar to a 52/39.


----------



## Kontact

redlude97 said:


> I think the main purpose of is to have the range of a compact, just shifted up slightly. I'm going to make a few assumptions based on common configurations. 53/39+12/27, 50/34+11/28, and 52/36+12/27. For some people 39x27 just isn't low enough for some people, while 34x27/28 is too low, 36x27 is just right, with gear inches of 32, 35, and 38" respectively.
> Now if we look at the range each respective chainring will give you assuming you don't extreme crosschain:
> 39x13-27: 78.7-37.9=40.8" good up to [email protected]
> 36x13-27: 72.6-35.0=37.6" good up to [email protected]
> 34x12-28: 74.3-31.8=42.5" good up to [email protected]
> Obviously if you are strong, the 39 combined with a 12/27 gives you the best range and highest speed. If you consider the 36x13 and 34x12 to be roughly equivalent, the steps on a 12/27 are nicer than an 11/28 because of the additional 16T.
> 
> Now lets look at the differences in the big ring
> 52x24 vs 50x24 have GI of 54.6 vs 56.8". The major difference here is the missing 16T, which is right in the 20-25mph sweet spot for the 50x11/28 which many average cyclists would use quite a bit.
> The 50x11 is roughly equivalent to the 52x12
> 
> So the advantages of a 52/36 over a 50/34 are the increased speed range that is achieved on the 36T that lets you use it on more terrain, and the additional 16T for smoother riding on the flats.
> 
> Or, if you are like me and are willing to sacrifice a little bit of top speed spinning ability, you run a 50/36 with a 12/27 so you get all the benefits of a 52/36 over a 50/34, along with super crisp shifting of similar to a 52/39.


I think you've put a lot of thought into this, but your approximations aren't really that close.

A 53x12 is closest to a 49x11. A 52x12 is closest to a 48x11, and a 50x11 is closest to a 55x12, and 52x11 is like a 57x12!

My point in all of this is that 53x39 with a 12-whatever was/is a very successful gearing range. So when things go to compact with the advent of 11 tooth cogs, 50 was already a big jump up in gear ratio. 49x35 would have been a great conservative choice that would give more gearing range over traditional without losing any shifting function. 

If 50x11 is too high, 52x12 isn't as good a choice as a 49 or 48x11. With the availability of 11 tooth cogs, there is no reason to keep pushing the shifting capability of the chainwheels by keeping the poor 16 tooth jump and making the ring to BCD ratio even worse.

In short, there is almost no gearing "problem" that couldn't be solved more elegantly with other, more conservative chainring combinations than a 52x36. For instance, you get more range and more overlap than a 52x36 12-25 by using a 48x37 11-26. That's a 29 tooth capacity with the 52 and only 26 with the 48. So why choose a hard shifting, flexy crank when you can use the power of the cassette to do all the hard work? That's the reason for compacts in the first place - to use reduced size cassettes and chainrings to gain range without pushing rear derailleur capacity.


----------



## pulser955

redlude97 said:


> Are you really pedaling at 130+rpms on those 50+mph corners? I think I would piss my pants. Usually at 40+ I'm just concentrating on keeping weight on the outside foot and being as smooth as possible. Or are you running something larger than 53x11?


Nope I'm running a 52/36 and an 11x25 out back. I use to race motorcycles I really enjoy going fast on 2 wheels. Allot of the mountain roads I ride are full of what you would call a second gear corner in the race track with a motorcycle. So usually 50 to 60mph. On the road bike its closer to mid 40s or low 50s if its not too tight. If you watch the tour and you see them pedaling like crazy after a corner to get up to speed in the straight part of the road between corners. That's me trying to go as fast as I possibly can. Its a really good skill to have when you do races that have big climbs and twisty technical descents. You can give up lots of time on the climb and get it all back. Or you can drop every one on the climb and then really put time in to them.


----------



## gordy748

Kontact said:


> So why choose a hard shifting, flexy crank when you can use the power of the cassette to do all the hard work?


As much as I hear your argument in this aspect, I'm not convinced that Campagnolo or Shimano are going to let semi compact chainsets out into the wild without them being pretty good performers.


----------



## redlude97

Kontact said:


> I think you've put a lot of thought into this, but your approximations aren't really that close.
> 
> A 53x12 is closest to a 49x11. A 52x12 is closest to a 48x11, and a 50x11 is closest to a 55x12, and 52x11 is like a 57x12!
> 
> My point in all of this is that 53x39 with a 12-whatever was/is a very successful gearing range. So when things go to compact with the advent of 11 tooth cogs, 50 was already a big jump up in gear ratio. 49x35 would have been a great conservative choice that would give more gearing range over traditional without losing any shifting function.
> 
> If 50x11 is too high, 52x12 isn't as good a choice as a 49 or 48x11. With the availability of 11 tooth cogs, there is no reason to keep pushing the shifting capability of the chainwheels by keeping the poor 16 tooth jump and making the ring to BCD ratio even worse.
> 
> In short, there is almost no gearing "problem" that couldn't be solved more elegantly with other, more conservative chainring combinations than a 52x36. For instance, you get more range and more overlap than a 52x36 12-25 by using a 48x37 11-26. That's a 29 tooth capacity with the 52 and only 26 with the 48. So why choose a hard shifting, flexy crank when you can use the power of the cassette to do all the hard work? That's the reason for compacts in the first place - to use reduced size cassettes and chainrings to gain range without pushing rear derailleur capacity.


I think your opinion of the reason for the advent of compacts is different than mine. My understanding was to phase out triples. 39x27 isn't low enough for the majority of cyclists, and 36x25 is the same gear. 52x36 12-27 would require a 48x37 11-28. The front shifting would be better but the cassette would still be missing the 16t. Its all a tradeoff for some people. I feel like people avoid front shifting, so the 52x36 allows each chainring to have a more useful range without sacrificing large jumps. I do agree that 52x36 isn't ideal, but it makes sense when you are avoiding exchanging the 16T for an 11T.


----------



## Kontact

redlude97 said:


> I think your opinion of the reason for the advent of compacts is different than mine. My understanding was to phase out triples. 39x27 isn't low enough for the majority of cyclists, and 36x25 is the same gear. 52x36 12-27 would require a 48x37 11-28. The front shifting would be better but the cassette would still be missing the 16t. Its all a tradeoff for some people. I feel like people avoid front shifting, so the 52x36 allows each chainring to have a more useful range without sacrificing large jumps. I do agree that 52x36 isn't ideal, but it makes sense when you are avoiding exchanging the 16T for an 11T.


Historically, the first "compact" was a racer's - Tyler Hamilton used one in 2003 in the TDF. That sort of gearing was actually available in the '90s on the Shimano RSX group, but it didn't catch on.

I don't think anyone made a particular effort to kill triples as much as people embraced a crank and cassette pairing with more range than traditional cranks, which also got low enough for some people to not need a triple. The response to drop most triple systems is an unfortunate by-product of compact popularity. Campy is bringing new triples back, probably because the folks who really need the low gears have found that the compact has some real limits - especially from Campy, who has no MTB cassettes.


And I wasn't suggesting a 48x37 crank as a solution - I was pointing out how something as ridiculously close ratio as a 48x37 could do the same job as the 52x36 better simply by pairing it with the right cassette. As I mentioned earlier, a 49x35 might be the ultimate compact performer. 52x36 isn't the product of a gear calculator as much as it is the solution for people who always think more is better. The same folks riding around on cranks that are too long and handlebars that are too wide.



gordy said:


> As much as I hear your argument in this aspect, I'm not convinced that Campagnolo or Shimano are going to let semi compact chainsets out into the wild without them being pretty good performers.


I think both companies have come out with more than a few dead ends and poor "improvements" that they abandoned in just a year of two. Got any dedicated DA 7800 free hubs? :thumbsup:


----------



## tomatogti

Tomatogoti - chain ring flex.[/QUOTE]

Less reliable shifting due to chainring flex? Chainrings are generally stiff enough for this to make no perceptible difference so I don't think it's worth worrying about this when deciding on gear combos.

A similarly (imperceptible) argument could be had the other way to say that 50-34 is lighter than a 52-36 but again it's too insignificant to worry about.


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> Less reliable shifting due to chainring flex? Chainrings are generally stiff enough for this to make no perceptible difference so I don't think it's worth worrying about this when deciding on gear combos.
> 
> A similarly (imperceptible) argument could be had the other way to say that 50-34 is lighter than a 52-36 but again it's too insignificant to worry about.


As a bike mechanic that has been doing this since 1990, I disagree with you. Chainring flex is a very big deal, and has a lot to do with the demise of the the Vumaquad crank.


----------



## tomatogti

Kontact said:


> As a bike mechanic that has been doing this since 1990, I disagree with you. Chainring flex is a very big deal, and has a lot to do with the demise of the the Vumaquad crank.


No-one I know has ever had a problem with chainring flex and I've been racing at elite level on the road, track and mountain bikes for 20+ years and spent 3 years as a bike mechanic so have lots of friends who ride and race. 

Maybe once in a blue moon someone, somewhere has a problem with it but to say it's a very big deal just seems a gross exaggeration to me. You've been a bike mechanic longer than me and I was one over 10 years ago so perhaps it's more of an issue these days but I've never heard anyone mention it.


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> No-one I know has ever had a problem with chainring flex and I've been racing at elite level on the road, track and mountain bikes for 20+ years and spent 3 years as a bike mechanic so have lots of friends who ride and race.
> 
> Maybe once in a blue moon someone, somewhere has a problem with it but to say it's a very big deal just seems a gross exaggeration to me. You've been a bike mechanic longer than me and I was one over 10 years ago so perhaps it's more of an issue these days but I've never heard anyone mention it.


So you're saying that you stopped being a mechanic several years *before* compact cranks were available, and you never saw a problem with compact crank shifting? Well, yeah. Hard to see problems that haven't been invented yet.


----------



## tomatogti

Kontact said:


> So you're saying that you stopped being a mechanic several years *before* compact cranks were available, and you never saw a problem with compact crank shifting? Well, yeah. Hard to see problems that haven't been invented yet.


I've got bikes with both normal and compact crank sets and have lots of friends with both and I've never heard of this problem so I'm saying it's pretty rare in my experience. Surely mountain bikes are more "compact" still than compact road cranks and they've been around plenty long enough. Just don't think it's worth worrying about when deciding what cranks to get, that's all. The main issue is getting the overall set of gear ratios right for you and if compact cranks fit the bill then I'd say get them.


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> I've got bikes with both normal and compact crank sets and have lots of friends with both and I've never heard of this problem so I'm saying it's pretty rare in my experience. Surely mountain bikes are more "compact" still than compact road cranks and they've been around plenty long enough. Just don't think it's worth worrying about when deciding what cranks to get, that's all. The main issue is getting the overall set of gear ratios right for you and if compact cranks fit the bill then I'd say get them.


The problem is the distance from the fixing bolts to the outer diameter of the chainring. A 50 on a compact crank is a greater distance from the bolts to the chain than any mountain crank or traditional road crank by about 6mm. A 52 on a 110 adds another 5mm to that. Not an issue with Shimano cranks, but FSA, SRAM and Campy front shifting isn't amazing in the first place and the addtional flex on the compact rings can be a problem. Going to a 52 is only going to make it worse.

Trust me, this problem exists and SRAM knows about it because I've gotten enough stuff warrantied because of it to convince me that the issue exists. 

That is on top of the problem of using a 16 tooth gap between chainrings, which also causes problems.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

I did run 52/38 on a Campagnolo Record 11 speed crankset for a while.

I picked the stronglight rings that are thicker and heavier than the specialites TA or the original Campagnolo.

I didn't noted any flex.


----------



## Bob Ross

Al1943 said:


> That would be too big of a ratio jump for me. A 50/36 seems more reasonable. With a 52/36 you'd need to shift the rear over 3 cogs to make any kind of smooth transition.


You seem to have a very particular definition of "smooth"

I run a 50/34 on two of my bikes (same 16-tooth difference as 52/36) and I find I only need to shift the rear over 1 cog to make a smooth transition.


----------



## redlude97

Bob Ross said:


> You seem to have a very particular definition of "smooth"
> 
> I run a 50/34 on two of my bikes (same 16-tooth difference as 52/36) and I find I only need to shift the rear over 1 cog to make a smooth transition.


what cassette are you running? I can't think of anywhere in a normal cassette range that only 1 shift would be required to match the previous gear ratio.


----------



## Cyclin Dan

I've been thinking about swapping my 53/39 for a 52/36. I run Super Record 11 with a 12/29.


----------



## Bob Ross

redlude97 said:


> what cassette are you running? I can't think of anywhere in a normal cassette range that only 1 shift would be required to match the previous gear ratio.


But that's the point: You don't shift your chainrings up or down in order to "_match_ the previous gear ratio", you shift your chainrings up or down _in order to get to an easier or harder gear ratio_. 

I'm not only expecting but _intending_ for it to be an easier/harder effort or a slower/faster cadence when I shift the FD...so the only reason I do _any_ compensation in the back is so that it's not as _dramatic_ a change in effort and/or cadence.

(I'm running a 10-speed 11-26 in case that makes any difference.)


----------



## jsedlak

Al1943 said:


> A 50 x 12 is good for 33+ mph at 100 rpm. Most can crank more than 100 without much trouble. When I get above 33 it's because I'm coasting down a steep hill.


The issue isn't with the 50x12.

It's in the middle, where you spend most of the time. Most people I know with a compact around here have the same issue: either they cross chain a lot or have to switch gears (both front and rear) too much to keep up.

FWIW, I swapped out the 50/34+11-23 for a 55/42+11-23 on my TT bike.
And my road bikes run 53/39+12-27


----------



## redlude97

Bob Ross said:


> But that's the point: You don't shift your chainrings up or down in order to "_match_ the previous gear ratio", you shift your chainrings up or down _in order to get to an easier or harder gear ratio_.
> 
> I'm not only expecting but _intending_ for it to be an easier/harder effort or a slower/faster cadence when I shift the FD...so the only reason I do _any_ compensation in the back is so that it's not as _dramatic_ a change in effort and/or cadence.
> 
> (I'm running a 10-speed 11-26 in case that makes any difference.)


That certainly doesn't seem smooth to me. I usually shift chainrings before I actually need an easier or harder gear, like shifting to the small chainring before I hit the base of a hill, or shifting to the big ring as you crest a hill. In either case I don't want a dramatic change in my cadence or speed.


----------



## Bob Ross

redlude97 said:


> That certainly doesn't seem smooth to me. I usually shift chainrings before I actually need an easier or harder gear, like shifting to the small chainring before I hit the base of a hill, or shifting to the big ring as you crest a hill. *In either case I don't want a dramatic change in my cadence or speed*.


Right, neither do I. That's why I'll go up or down one cog after going down or up in front. It winds up being smooth, and yet it achieves the desired objective of also being easier/harder as necessary.

Folks who say "I need to go up or down _two_ cogs" -- or, as in your case, _three_ cogs (!) -- strike me as having an incredibly specific goal in mind that goes beyond just "smooth". 

Since I almost always hear that uttered by folks who use compact chainrings but used to ride standard 53/39 rings, I suspect they have a preconceived notion of what a front shift is _supposed to_ feel like, and they're trying to replicate that experience.


----------



## redlude97

Bob Ross said:


> Right, neither do I. That's why I'll go up or down one cog after going down or up in front. It winds up being smooth, and yet it achieves the desired objective of also being easier/harder as necessary.
> 
> Folks who say "I need to go up or down _two_ cogs" -- or, as in your case, _three_ cogs (!) -- strike me as having an incredibly specific goal in mind that goes beyond just "smooth".
> 
> Since I almost always hear that uttered by folks who use compact chainrings but used to ride standard 53/39 rings, I suspect they have a preconceived notion of what a front shift is _supposed to_ feel like, and they're trying to replicate that experience.


I'm sorry but there is no way I could ever consider 1 shift from say 50x23 to 34x21 smooth. this would require a simultaneous jump in cadence from 90-100rpm to 120-135rpm.


----------



## Bob Ross

redlude97 said:


> I'm sorry but there is no way I could ever consider 1 shift from say 50x23 to 34x21 smooth. this would require a simultaneous jump in cadence from 90-100rpm to 120-135rpm.



So in other words, I was right when I wrote


Bob Ross said:


> You seem to have a very particular definition of "smooth"


----------



## tomatogti

Kontact said:


> The problem is the distance from the fixing bolts to the outer diameter of the chainring. A 50 on a compact crank is a greater distance from the bolts to the chain than any mountain crank or traditional road crank by about 6mm. A 52 on a 110 adds another 5mm to that. Not an issue with Shimano cranks, but FSA, SRAM and Campy front shifting isn't amazing in the first place and the addtional flex on the compact rings can be a problem. Going to a 52 is only going to make it worse.
> 
> Trust me, this problem exists and SRAM knows about it because I've gotten enough stuff warrantied because of it to convince me that the issue exists.
> 
> That is on top of the problem of using a 16 tooth gap between chainrings, which also causes problems.


So SRAM will warranty it's 52-36 crankset because of chain flex?


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> So SRAM will warranty it's 52-36 crankset because of chain flex?


They've warrantied 50-34s when they wouldn't shift correctly, after ruling out the chain, chainring and front derailleur.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

Bob Ross said:


> You seem to have a very particular definition of "smooth"
> 
> I run a 50/34 on two of my bikes (same 16-tooth difference as 52/36) and I find I only need to shift the rear over 1 cog to make a smooth transition.


I had a 50-34 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 and found I needed a _five_ cog change to get a smooth change. 

Eschewing the fully cross-chained combinations, 50x19 followed 34x14 going faster and 34x15 came after 50x21 going slower.

Fortunately with Campagnolo shifters that was accomplished with simultaneous thumb lever shoves moving to the small ring although it took an extra front lever push 2/3 of the way moving to the big ring.


----------



## tomatogti

Kontact said:


> They've warrantied 50-34s when they wouldn't shift correctly, after ruling out the chain, chainring and front derailleur.


Sounds amazing - so whichever models they are warrantying can't be fit for purpose - care to share which models they are so people can avoid them? (I'm not a SRAM fan at all but still amazed at them if this is true!)


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> Sounds amazing - so whichever models they are warrantying can't be fit for purpose - care to share which models they are so people can avoid them? (I'm not a SRAM fan at all but still amazed at them if this is true!)


It isn't one model or a constant problem. The frame geometry, derailleur mount and stiffness are all factors.

The perfect shifting component works so well that any number of degradations will still allow it to shift reasonably well. Think Shimano cranks and FDs. Other stuff works fine most of the time, but with the right factors starts to show it's weaknesses. SRAM Red Ti derailleurs have a horrible reputation, yet some people are perfectly happy with theirs, because they are on the right bike.

The goal is to have parts that work without super fine tuning across a wide range of specs. Big chainrings on small BCD cranks make it hard for that to happen - especially when you're retrofitting a 52 on a crank built for a 50.


----------



## tomatogti

Kontact said:


> It isn't one model or a constant problem. The frame geometry, derailleur mount and stiffness are all factors.
> 
> The perfect shifting component works so well that any number of degradations will still allow it to shift reasonably well. Think Shimano cranks and FDs. Other stuff works fine most of the time, but with the right factors starts to show it's weaknesses. SRAM Red Ti derailleurs have a horrible reputation, yet some people are perfectly happy with theirs, because they are on the right bike.
> 
> The goal is to have parts that work without super fine tuning across a wide range of specs. Big chainrings on small BCD cranks make it hard for that to happen - especially when you're retrofitting a 52 on a crank built for a 50.


I know many pros use Force front mechs because the Red ones are so flexy. If SRAM components work fine on some bikes then surprised they're willing to warranty them just because you've chosen an incompatible bike (although SRAM should make it clear they won't work with everything too). Shimano all the way and then people won't have these problems!


----------



## ejabbale

This has been a great thread with a lot of great information. I have two bikes, one that has 2011 SRAM Red with a 53/39 Rotor Crank and an 11-26 cassette. The other has 2012/13 Sram Red 53/39 with a recently added 12-27 cassette. I live in upstate NY in the Adirondack Mountains so there is some hilly terrain as you might imagine. I have been trying to find the best way to gain a couple of climbing gears without drastically affecting my gear ratios and thought about a 52/36 for one of my bikes. I decided to go the easy route and replace one of my 11-26 cassettes with the 12-27 but obviously the difference between the 26 and 27 is not that great. I really do not like the gear ratios and gaps of say an 11 or 12-28 so any recommendations are welcome! I know some love the 52/36 and some don't but how can I best accomplish what I am after? I really appreciate the advice from those who are much more knowledgable than I on this subject!!

Thanks,

Eric


----------



## Kontact

tomatogti said:


> I know many pros use Force front mechs because the Red ones are so flexy. If SRAM components work fine on some bikes then surprised they're willing to warranty them just because you've chosen an incompatible bike (although SRAM should make it clear they won't work with everything too). Shimano all the way and then people won't have these problems!


Then you'll just have Shimano's rear shifting problems. SRAM stuff isn't "incompatible" with anything, but sometimes it doesn't work like it should. Shimano rear shifting sucks lately because there is too much cable friction for the ultralight return springs they went to because they were trying to prevent Gripshift use. Combine a current Shimano shifter and a 20 year old Shimano derailleur and you really get some decent shifting.

I know this hurts you to hear, but none of the current component companies is doing anything perfectly. Microshift stuff is as reliable as anything out there. And traditional cranks are still your best bet for outstanding shifting and long component life.


----------



## Kontact

ejabbale said:


> This has been a great thread with a lot of great information. I have two bikes, one that has 2011 SRAM Red with a 53/39 Rotor Crank and an 11-26 cassette. The other has 2012/13 Sram Red 53/39 with a recently added 12-27 cassette. I live in upstate NY in the Adirondack Mountains so there is some hilly terrain as you might imagine. I have been trying to find the best way to gain a couple of climbing gears without drastically affecting my gear ratios and thought about a 52/36 for one of my bikes. I decided to go the easy route and replace one of my 11-26 cassettes with the 12-27 but obviously the difference between the 26 and 27 is not that great. I really do not like the gear ratios and gaps of say an 11 or 12-28 so any recommendations are welcome! I know some love the 52/36 and some don't but how can I best accomplish what I am after? I really appreciate the advice from those who are much more knowledgable than I on this subject!!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Eric


Buy a 110 bcd spider for your Rotor crank and mount 49 or 50x34 rings on it. You'll still have a higher gear than a 53x12 and a lower low gear. You didn't need a 53x11 in the first place.


----------



## ejabbale

Kontact said:


> Buy a 110 bcd spider for your Rotor crank and mount 49 or 50x34 rings on it. You'll still have a higher gear than a 53x12 and a lower low gear. You didn't need a 53x11 in the first place.


Good Advice thank you, I was not aware that I could do that. Had I been more educated on all of this before hand I would not have had the 53x11 but live and learn. If I don't want to go quite as low as the 34 will a 50/36 work well?


----------



## redlude97

ejabbale said:


> Good Advice thank you, I was not aware that I could do that. Had I been more educated on all of this before hand I would not have had the 53x11 but live and learn. If I don't want to go quite as low as the 34 will a 50/36 work well?


50/36 is the ****.


----------



## Lookbiker

Been using 52/36 with an 11-25 for the past two years and it is great. Raced for years using 53/39 and then tried 50/34 for a few years. 

52/39 works for me.


----------



## MXL

Al1943 said:


> That's one reason I would think a 50/36 would make more sense for most riders. Or maybe a 48/34 if the FD can be lowered enough.


I have a Campy compact 48/34 and I reaally like it. FWIW, I run a Record long cage RD with a 12-25, but if things get real steep I can easily switch to a 13-29, which makes life much smoother.


----------



## tomatogti

Kontact said:


> Then you'll just have Shimano's rear shifting problems. SRAM stuff isn't "incompatible" with anything, but sometimes it doesn't work like it should. Shimano rear shifting sucks lately because there is too much cable friction for the ultralight return springs they went to because they were trying to prevent Gripshift use. Combine a current Shimano shifter and a 20 year old Shimano derailleur and you really get some decent shifting.
> 
> I know this hurts you to hear, but none of the current component companies is doing anything perfectly. Microshift stuff is as reliable as anything out there. And traditional cranks are still your best bet for outstanding shifting and long component life.


Shimano shifting isn't as good as it used to be. It just needs to be better maintained these days. Using an old mech a good idea. SRAM is compatible with Shimano and incompatible with Campagnolo (for gears).

Yes, none are perfect but Shimano and Campag are light years ahead of SRAM. 50-34 on compact is as good as 53-39 - you say 52-36 is not as good, I'll take your word for that. Component life - well bigger chain rings and cassettes better for obvious reasons but difference is minimal and conversely the small stuff weighs less - 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other really.


----------



## gordy748

Kontact said:


> I think both companies have come out with more than a few dead ends and poor "improvements" that they abandoned in just a year of two. Got any dedicated DA 7800 free hubs? :thumbsup:


Ha ha! No, although I did buy a pair of Croce d'Aune delta brakes once upon a time. 

Interestingly, this thread seems to conclude that everybody is using different chainrings, and loving whatever they're on. I wonder if I shouldn't just stick with my 53/ 39 setup...


----------



## ejabbale

Kontact said:


> Buy a 110 bcd spider for your Rotor crank and mount 49 or 50x34 rings on it. You'll still have a higher gear than a 53x12 and a lower low gear. You didn't need a 53x11 in the first place.


So here's the rub, my rotor crank is not on the bike I prefer to climb on and since I have the "new" SRAM Red on the bike I prefer climbing on I think I'd have to rebuild each bike and swap the drive trains. To my knowledge the new Red crank can't be converted. Any advice is welcomed.


----------



## Drone 5200

Nice thread. Good discussion.

I wanted to throw out that I've been running the DA7800 with 50/39 for quite some time. It's very versatile, and makes for smooth and easy shifting to preserve cadence. Since I'm middle aged the 52 or 53 up front is more than I need. I find that with a 50/39 and a couple of cassette choices I can get whatever gearing I need for whatever condition. Typically that's an 11-23 out back, but I can go all the way to 11-28 as needed to get lower gearing. 

I've tried the 53/39, 52/39 and 50/34 and found them less than ideal for me. In particular, as others have said, the gap is too great on the 50/34. I for one am sorry to see that the new DA No longer includes the 50-39 option. 

Cheers.


----------



## bike_meister

SRAM users may want to check this out...


----------



## bike_meister

Now that I can post a link...

Wiggle - Rival Climbers Kit (WiFLi) customer reviews - product reviews - read top consumer ratings


----------



## carlislegeorge

Not necessarily to resurrect this thread for the sake of resurrection, but I thought I'd post pics of the Praxis 52/36 with DA-7950 (i.e., replacing 50/34) on my Parlee Z5 SLi. If anyone's interested, I'll post riding impressions in a couple of days. The cassette is 11-28 (for now). My primary purpose in doing this was to test out the 52/36 combination in advance of going to 11 speed. Not that I really need any of this stuff. And...I know looks don't count, but the Praxis rings don't look half bad in this application, IMHO. The mech said the install took a fair amount of tweaking to the Front Der, and I also wound up putting on a new chain. Shifting (not under load) sounds fine.


----------



## Lelandjt

A question for people using low climbing gears. What steady speed are you climbing at? I never go below 8mph on the steepest sections because I have a 39/23 low gear. I usually climb between 9-12mph.


----------



## Bob Ross

carlislegeorge said:


> The mech said the install took a fair amount of tweaking to the Front Der


Any idea why?


----------



## carlislegeorge

Bob Ross said:


> Any idea why?


I think they hadn't ever worked with the Parlee carbon FD clamp before.


----------



## AvantDale

Kontact said:


> It isn't one model or a constant problem. The frame geometry, derailleur mount and stiffness are all factors.
> 
> The perfect shifting component works so well that any number of degradations will still allow it to shift reasonably well. Think Shimano cranks and FDs. Other stuff works fine most of the time, but with the right factors starts to show it's weaknesses. SRAM Red Ti derailleurs have a horrible reputation, yet some people are perfectly happy with theirs, because they are on the right bike.
> 
> The goal is to have parts that work without super fine tuning across a wide range of specs. Big chainrings on small BCD cranks make it hard for that to happen - especially when you're retrofitting a 52 on a crank built for a 50.


I just had this happen to me recently. I had a SRAM Red steel FD and Rotor 3D/52-36 Q Rings on a Franco Balcom, and it shifted great. I parted the Balcom and put the same setup onto my Cervelo S2...and it shifted like crap. It would not shift up into the big ring consistently. Shifter felt rubbery. 

Turned out that SRAM has a 4 degree shim that tilts the FD forward. Installing that shim fixed the shifting issue.

Funny that you mentioned the Red Ti FD...had it on my Cannondale System Six and I've never had any issues.


----------



## Eyorerox

From Praxis email out



52/36 Mid-Compact : Dealers can't get enough 

In the first 3 months since launch, the new Praxis Works 52/36 110BCD Mid-Compact has become our #1 selling set. Dealers have been buying them at a rapid pace as more and more customers are asking for the change in their compact gearing. Offered in either Black, or Blk/Silver, the combo has simply become the most sought after ring set in the market. With the industry's first and only Cold Forged 52/36, Praxis is Forging ahead!


----------



## pagey

Just replaced my compacts with Praxis 52/36 on my Cervelo. So far loving the shifting with DI2


----------



## carlislegeorge

*52/36 ride report*



carlislegeorge said:


> .... If anyone's interested, I'll post riding impressions in a couple of days. The cassette is 11-28 (for now).....


Have been out maybe 3 times for about 150 miles. So far, so good. Not 100% as seamless as the OEM Dura-Ace Di2 7950 50/34, but performance has been very very close, probably 98% as smooth (just to attach a non-scientifically derived number). By this, I mean I hear an odd sound now and then, especially shifting under most pressure (i.e., while standing), but nothing even closely resembling a missed shift or slipped cog tooth. On the little (36) ring, I get a little "chain slap" sound (not exactly cross chaining) down around 11-12-13, that only happened on 11 using the 34 little ring. Not sure what I'd attribute this to, exact all the tolerances with D-A are designed to work together.


----------



## aclinjury

Thank you for the review.
I'm fancying a praxis 52/36 combo myself




carlislegeorge said:


> Have been out maybe 3 times for about 150 miles. So far, so good. Not 100% as seamless as the OEM Dura-Ace Di2 7950 50/34, but performance has been very very close, probably 98% as smooth (just to attach a non-scientifically derived number). By this, I mean I hear an odd sound now and then, especially shifting under most pressure (i.e., while standing), but nothing even closely resembling a missed shift or slipped cog tooth. On the little (36) ring, I get a little "chain slap" sound (not exactly cross chaining) down around 11-12-13, that only happened on 11 using the 34 little ring. Not sure what I'd attribute this to, exact all the tolerances with D-A are designed to work together.


----------



## marathon marke

AvantDale said:


> Funny that you mentioned the Red Ti FD...had it on my Cannondale System Six and I've never had any issues.


I have it on my 2012 BMC SLR01 with a 2011 Red crank, and it has preformed flawlessly. As some have said, much can depend on the frame geometry, but I'm also thinking the rigidity of the derailleur mount. The SLR01's mount is rock solid, so that might make up for some flex in the ti cage.


----------



## Doc_D

I'm building a new bike this winter with a dura ace 9000 mechanical group. My previous bike was a 53/39 with a 12-27. I really went back and forth on which rings to get. I finally ordered up the 52/36 crankset. I went with an 11-28 cassette. I'm thinking this combination should cover everything I do from 20+% climbs to downhill finish line sprints where the pack is already going 38 MPH when the sprint starts.

It'll be very cool if I can go all season and not change a cassette.


----------



## youcoming

I love the idea of a 52-36 I'm actually getting it on my next bike. In the areas ride there are no mountains only rollers and hills, with a 11-25 out back I could likely stay in the 52 for almost any hill. Unless it gets over 12% for any distance I just don't bother and the 52 will be better than a 53 in these cases. Now as for the small ring the 36 will be a dream on the real steep stuff compared to the 39. We do have steep in Ontario just not real long.


----------



## jjcools

I am trying to figure out some good gearing for some larger climbing rides. My dream after reading all this would be 50/36 and 11/27. But I have campy so my 12/27 will have to do. Is the flex and shifting bad on the 52/36? I asked praxis about a 50/36 option but have not heard back. 

I guess I could go 12/29 but like the closer rear gearing. It would be cheaper though.


----------



## ejabbale

I've been running the Praxis 52/36 with an 11/26 cassette and have found the shifting to be smooth and I do not feel any flex at all.


----------



## SystemShock

_


PRB said:



For many years I ran a 50/39 and a 13-26 (7sp FW). No one could ever hang with me on the downhills so the gearing had little to do with it. Long before you ever spin out your 52x11 you're better off to stop pedaling and make yourself as aero as possible - that is a much bigger advantage.

Click to expand...




pulser955 said:



How often did you hit 60mph? how many times were you taking corners at 50+mph? I do regularly. Most my canyon roads are technical. Lots of tight corners. I have to get on the power coming out of corners as fast as I can to try and get to the next one as fast as possible. A 50x13 would be hopeless at that kind of speed. If the roads were all strait then an aero tuck alone would work.

Click to expand...

_With full respect given to Pulser... wha?

[Pulser] says elsewhere that he has a 52x11 top gear. @60mph, that's 161 RPM, i.e. faster than the vast majority of ppl can spin for any length of time, other than track stars. Even LeMond used to say anything above 130 RPM was inefficient.

You can check out Tour de France vids on YouTube (below) where pro riders are bombing down descents @100kph (62mph), and they're almost never pedaling, rather, they're aero-tucking like a mother.

I guess tight n' twisty and *50*mph might call for a really big gear, but on anything like a truly fast descent with real straightaways, aero-tuck guy will leave pedaling-like-a-hummingbird-on-crack guy in the dust.

Very twisty stuff excepted, most of the ppl I know who'd rather pedal a descent than aero-tuck it usually do so because the speed of a full-aero-tuck descent scares them a little. Which is 100% understandable.


----------



## SystemShock

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Right. With the big companies eschewing starting cogs larger than a 12 the big ring should be smaller.
> 
> With a 13 starting cog you have the same big gear Eddy Merckx used to dominate the classics with feats like spending 140km off-the-front all the way to the finish on a Tour de France stage.
> 
> Those of us who aren't contenders in the Tour de France don't need gears even larger than that.
> 
> I've ridden a 50x13 big gear for the last 16 years and it's worked great, even for the decade I spent living in Boulder, CO right between the Colorado Rockies to the west and plains to the east.
> 
> It's pleasant up to about 35 MPH down-hill past which tucking works well enough.
> 
> OTOH, there are plenty of spots on flatter ground where 50x18 or 50x16 feels great but 50x15/17/19 wouldn't be so nice and I'm happy to have traded smaller starting cogs that I might occasionally use for ones in the middle that see heavy use.


Quite right on all counts. :thumbsup:

Sure, if you race, you need the 11t or 12t... but almost everyone else would be better served by having those cogs in the middle or the end of the cassette instead (climbing gears). 

What's better, an 11t you never use, or a 16t or 18t or 28t you use plenty?


----------



## jazzyd206

*52/36*

I have a 11spd bike with a compact crank and I'm thinking about changing out the chainring to a 52/36. my current cog set is 11/28. Any thoughts?


----------



## carlislegeorge

jazzyd206 said:


> I have a 11spd bike with a compact crank and I'm thinking about changing out the chainring to a 52/36. my current cog set is 11/28. Any thoughts?


Since this MAY be your first post, I'll try to be nice...perhaps you should give more consideration to framing your question...after reading the previous 107 posts in this thread.


----------



## pulser955

SystemShock said:


> _
> 
> 
> _With full respect given to Pulser... wha?
> 
> [Pulser] says elsewhere that he has a 52x11 top gear. @60mph, that's 161 RPM, i.e. faster than the vast majority of ppl can spin for any length of time, other than track stars. Even LeMond used to say anything above 130 RPM was inefficient.
> 
> You can check out Tour de France vids on YouTube (below) where pro riders are bombing down descents @100kph (62mph), and they're almost never pedaling, rather, they're aero-tucking like a mother.
> 
> I guess tight n' twisty and *50*mph might call for a really big gear, but on anything like a truly fast descent with real straightaways, aero-tuck guy will leave pedaling-like-a-hummingbird-on-crack guy in the dust.
> 
> Very twisty stuff excepted, most of the ppl I know who'd rather pedal a descent than aero-tuck it usually do so because the speed of a full-aero-tuck descent scares them a little. Which is 100% understandable.


IF you race you understand that its about getting up to speed as fast as you can. No I am not spinning at 60mph. But with the 11 I can get there faster then a guy with an 12 or a 13. Thats the point.


----------



## SystemShock

pulser955 said:


> IF you race you understand that its about getting up to speed as fast as you can.
> 
> No I am not spinning at 60mph.
> 
> But with the 11 I can get there faster then a guy with an 12 or a 13. Thats the point.


Cool. So, that's cleared up... you're aero-tucking beyond a certain speed, 'cuz it's faster than pedaling, beyond that speed. The 11t helps get you up to that certain speed faster.

But I'm curious... how much do you weigh? PRB seemed to be saying that, for him, you're better off/faster aero-tucking well before you spin out that 52x11 top gear. That's my experience as well, but I have to disqualify myself on account of being heavy for a cyclist.

And, of course, this is terrain-dependent as well, i.e. how steep and/or twisty your local descents are. 

Guess the point I'm trying to flesh out is, IF you race, and/or IF you're not very heavy, and/or IF your descents are not very steep or straight, then maybe you need an 11t. Otherwise, you don't. 

But, we're still gonna wind up with the 11t cog spec'd on most mid-compact-equipped new bikes though... because many ppl's flatland cruising gears live on the small ring, and to have 36x12,13,14 be your cruising gears, you need an 11t so that 36x12 isn't your small-small/cross-chained gear. 


/this, even though if you had an 18t, most ppl could just have their cruising gears on the big ring, and no 11t would be necessary unless you really did use it...




.


----------



## pulser955

SystemShock said:


> Cool. So, that's cleared up... you're aero-tucking beyond a certain speed, 'cuz it's faster than pedaling, beyond that speed. The 11t helps get you up to that certain speed faster.
> 
> But I'm curious... how much do you weigh? PRB seemed to be saying that, for him, you're better off/faster aero-tucking well before you spin out that 52x11 top gear. That's my experience as well, but I have to disqualify myself on account of being heavy for a cyclist.
> 
> And, of course, this is terrain-dependent as well, i.e. how steep and/or twisty your local descents are.
> 
> Guess the point I'm trying to flesh out is, IF you race, and/or IF you're not very heavy, and/or IF your descents are not very steep or straight, then maybe you need an 11t. Otherwise, you don't.
> 
> But we're still gonna get the 11t with most mid-compact setups though, because many ppl's flatland cruising gears live on the small ring, and to have 36x12,13,14 be your cruising gears, you need an 11t so that 36x12 isn't your small-small/cross-chained gear.


I am 160lb and I don't just aero tuck to get up to speed. When I am racing on a technical decent or just having fun with a few friends I trust there is allot of sprinting out of corners in the low 40s to get back up to speed. Some of our tighter canyons can have some really tight turns. Its even more important when you over shoot one and have to really slow down.


----------



## Lelandjt

jazzyd206 said:


> I have a 11spd bike with a compact crank and I'm thinking about changing out the chainring to a 52/36. my current cog set is 11/28. Any thoughts?


I think this will likely still leave you with a plenty low 1st gear while giving you a bigger top end that both lets you pedal at higher speeds and lets you soft/slow pedal at speeds that currently have you spinning.
Giving people gearing advice over the internet is nearly impossible though cuz it depends on your cadence preferences, terrain, and speed. We all have different engines and ride on different roads. I have been happy with "traditional" 39/53 11-23 everywhere I've ridden.


----------



## mann2

bumping this. I assume there's a lot more people on 52/36 now?


----------



## SystemShock

mann2 said:


> bumping this. I assume there's a lot more people on 52/36 now?


From what I'm seeing, it's starting to become fairly popular, yes.

Not like 53/39 or 50/34 popular, but you're seeing it more and more.


----------



## mann2

^so true. and i believe this particular tooth combination makes good sense.


----------



## tomivan

Anyone... is it possible to just use/replace/change to 52/36 chainrings from 53/39 and not the whole crankset on campa super record 11?


----------



## SystemShock

tomivan said:


> Anyone... is it possible to just use/replace/change to 52/36 chainrings from 53/39 and not the whole crankset on campa super record 11?


If your crank came with 53/39 chainrings, then it's very likely a 130mm bolt-circle-diameter crank, or, in Campy's case, 135mm (Campy likes to be a little different). And thus you won't be able to put anything smaller than a 39-tooth chainring on said Campy crank. 

So no, you can't go 52/36 with that crank. 

Campy does now sell cranks that come with 52/36 chainrings, but this is not one of those.


----------



## tomivan

bummer... thanks


----------



## SystemShock

tomivan said:


> bummer... thanks


Yeah, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. 

On the bright side, you could probably play around with the cassette if you needed lower climbing gears... unless you already have a 12-29 there.


----------



## SystemShock

jjcools said:


> I am trying to figure out some good gearing for some larger climbing rides. My dream after reading all this would be 50/36 and 11/27. But I have campy so my 12/27 will have to do.


Not anymore... Campy apparently is coming out with 11-27 cassettes soon (already?):

_They’ve also added a new 11-27 cassette option for (left to right) Super Record, Record and Chorus. Cog counts are 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27.

_
*2014 Model Year Campy Details Emerge - Internal EPS Battery, BB30 Cranksets & More!*


----------



## Ahillock

So are the Praxis chainrings considered to be one of the best 52/36 chainrings out right now?


----------



## svard75

Ahillock said:


> So are the Praxis chainrings considered to be one of the best 52/36 chainrings out right now?


Holy expensive! I bought BBB's and they work great. Both were under $100 with shipping.


----------



## tranzformer

svard75 said:


> Holy expensive! I bought BBB's and they work great. Both were under $100 with shipping.


They pretty good?


----------



## svard75

tranzformer said:


> They pretty good?


The BBB rings are awesome. I have a compact crankset with these, weigh 210lbs and can put down some power. No flex or shifting issues even do some cross-chaining. Have over 2000k on them and the teeth are like new. Mind you I never drive in wet weather and keep my chain clean. For the general rider they'll be great.


----------

