# How long do your chainrings last?



## Speed_Metal (Feb 9, 2004)

i did a little test of pulling off the chain from the chain ring and got quite a large gap.









the cranks are from 2004 (FSA SL-K), the chain and cassette are about 1 season old.

I tried to do the same to a brand new bike i just built up. no way could i move the chain off the rings.

is it time for a new crankset? or at least new chain rings?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

I honestly can't remember wearing one out since the late 90's on a mountain bike. Not sure I've ever had a road bike long enough or let a chain wear enough to kill one.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Speed_Metal said:


> i did a little test of pulling off the chain from the chain ring and got quite a large gap.
> 
> the cranks are from 2004 (FSA SL-K), the chain and cassette are about 1 season old.
> 
> ...


Chain ring wear is all about drive train maintenance, quality of the chain rings, power output of the rider, and gear choice. A steady rider who stays on the big ring, keeps the drivetrain clean and doesn't let the chain get too long before replacing it, and started with good quality components can get 60,000+ miles out of a chain ring. A rider who does none of these things might be in need of a new chain ring in a year or so. Are you sure you're not looking at a worn chain instead of worn chain rings?

I would want to see the chain ring teeth before making a pronouncement about your equipment.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

I bought a spare big chain ring for my DA 7800 because I like riding big/big a lot, and after maybe 20k miles, not even close to needing it.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> Chain ring wear is all about drive train maintenance, quality of the chain rings, power output of the rider, and gear choice. A steady rider who stays on the big ring, keeps the drivetrain clean and doesn't let the chain get too long before replacing it, and started with good quality components can get 60,000+ miles out of a chain ring. A rider who does none of these things might be in need of a new chain ring in a year or so. Are you sure you're not looking at a worn chain instead of worn chain rings?
> I would want to see the chain ring teeth before making a pronouncement about your equipment.


^^ This. The chain gap is probably from chain wear. 

In over 50 years of riding, with proper drivetrain maintenance and timely chain replacement, I don't remember owning any chain ring long enough to wear it to the point that it needed replacement. But years ago, I replace the whole drivetrain for a fellow who had worn his chainring teeth down to nubs - and he was a semi recreational mtb trail rider. I'll assume he did zero maintenance. He stood to pedal, the chain skipped on the chainring and he went over the 'bars. His chain was worn to +3/8" over 12" - the worst I have ever seen. Here is a pin I stole from the chain -


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Speed_Metal said:


> i did a little test of pulling off the chain from the chain ring and got quite a large gap.
> 
> View attachment 293676
> 
> ...


Yep. The chain looks a little stretched. 

Large chain ring is slightly "shark finned" but not as bad as a bike a guy brought into the shop once: the large ring was almost flattened completely. It still worked, like another club riding buddy out in TX with the same thing. Both these gentlemen liked to power the biggest gears they could turn. This guy's inner chain ring was unused, I swear to God. He hadn't just had it installed. He just never used it.

Keep those chains fresh; get down your spin, and see how many more miles you'll get out of that chain ring. Kerry's got it, they'll last 50K miles easy. I bought a bunch of chain rings many years ago anticipating the ones I used would wear out. 60K later on two bikes each, and I haven't worn any out yet.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I have no idea how many miles are on my old Alloy Record crankset. I bought it in 1999 and the chainring teeth still look good. I'm religious about changing chains and maintaining the drivetrains on my bikes. On my 11 speed bikes, I have yet to buy a replacement cassette, still using the ones I bought in late 2008. 

Buy good stuff, take good care of it, and it will be cheaper in the long run.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Sign me up as one of those who's also not worn out a chainring; I'm thinking chain wear, too.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

xxl said:


> Sign me up as one of those who's also not worn out a chainring; I'm thinking chain wear, too.


Another one who's never worn out a ring. And even after giving this pull-off test in the above photo some thought, I can't really figure out how pulling a chain off the teeth can indicate ring wear or chain wear. I realize this supposed test appears in many bike maintenance texts, but I'm not convinced that this works reliably.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

I have never seriously worn a big ring, not in say 25,000 miles. Cosmetically worn, but functionally perfect. 

But 39's with similar cosmetic wear are a different story. It is soon apparent how a load on the chain causes it to ride up the partly worn teeth, definitely contributing to more wear (chain rollers esp.) and losses. I flip that ring after 10-15k miles. Don't think it can't be done, even if the bolt heads are recessed on one side and teeth are offset!

42 tooth small rings are certainly better than 39's for wear tolerance, that extra diameter makes a difference. I don't want to know about compacts and MTB rings and other atrocities. Yes, for less wear etc we should run bigger chainrings and longer chains contrary to the general trends today. But don't get me started there.


----------



## Mr Evil (Aug 12, 2011)

Speed_Metal said:


> i did a little test of pulling off the chain from the chain ring and got quite a large gap...


Out of curiosity, I tried that test with a brand new chainring + chain, and it pulled up by about the same amount as in your picture, so I don't think it's a good test of chainring wear.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

I've worn out one chainring, it was a cheap stamped ring from a shimano sora crankset. I wore out the inner after 2 years of winter riding with a lot of salt, dirt, etc. which created a grinding paste and ate that up in a hurry. I had a lot of skipping after installing a new chain and cassette and a lot of chain suck. New rings fixed the problem. I did not do a good job cleaning the bike for riding in those conditions, I pretty much just planned on replacing the drivetrain after winter. The chain was really worn by the end of that season as well but since it was $50 or so to replace chain and cassette on an 8-spd, didn't care much. I was in the little ring, 34t, most of the winter too.


----------



## TiCruiser (Feb 21, 2009)

Speed_Metal said:


> i did a little test of pulling off the chain from the chain ring and got quite a large gap.
> 
> View attachment 293676
> 
> ...


I have a 2006 FSA compact crankset that was well maintained and I wore out the small 34 chain ring before I wore out the Ultegra cassette. I replaced both chain rings with Ultegra rings. Wish I had done it earlier. The small ring is much quieter and the shifting was much better.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

I can't say I finished a ring, but my S-Works inner ring has gotten pretty sharp. Consider low maintenance, rides mostly on climbs, less teeth = more wear, and I'm not too surprised, but it's not completely done.

My Ultegra cassette from 2010, which has been under a previous owner before then, is still alive and well too. Spinning as someone mentioned probably helped, as well as being a lightweight and running the cogs with more teeth.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Pieter said:


> I have never seriously worn a big ring, not in say 25,000 miles. Cosmetically worn, but functionally perfect.
> 
> But 39's with similar cosmetic wear are a different story. It is soon apparent how a load on the chain causes it to ride up the partly worn teeth, definitely contributing to more wear (chain rollers esp.) and losses. I flip that ring after 10-15k miles. Don't think it can't be done, even if the bolt heads are recessed on one side and teeth are offset!
> 
> 42 tooth small rings are certainly better than 39's for wear tolerance, that extra diameter makes a difference. I don't want to know about compacts and MTB rings and other atrocities. Yes, for less wear etc we should run bigger chainrings and longer chains contrary to the general trends today. But don't get me started there.


How about that? Francesco Moser once quipped after he broke the hour record, that he chose a 55 up front and a 17 in back, because he thought the large gears were easier to turn. Sounded right to me: bigger gears give more leverage. The crank is pulling the chain from further out on its axis of rotation.

I went back to the 53 after flirting with 50. Kept spinning out on it. I'd expect the same with a 34 for sure. I'd be "cross chaining" like mad. 42 provides a really nice set of gears for anything from climbing to motoring along the flats at a moderate aerobic pace. Eddy Merckx was allegedly "fond of 44 tooth inner chain rings." Got one of those too. If I were racing on rolling or flat terrain, that 44 would have been great for wringing out a little more speed. I climbed Mt. Wilson, CA on 44-22, my lowest gear. A week later went back and did it again. No problem.

34 tooth inner rings used to be "granny gears" didn't they?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

wim said:


> Another one who's never worn out a ring. And even after giving this pull-off test in the above photo some thought, I can't really figure out how pulling a chain off the teeth can indicate ring wear or chain wear. I realize this supposed test appears in many bike maintenance texts, but I'm not convinced that this works reliably.


By the time gaps between the bottom of the cogs and the chain become visible, the chain is stretched way too far and the new chain will jump on the climbing gears. I've gone by feel. About 2000 miles on a cheap Sram 8 speed chain and the drive train will start to sound "rough" in the gears I never use.

Those measuring sticks aren't much good, either, other than convincing nonbelievers they need a new chain!

Can't see the tops of the inner ring cogs in the pic above, but look at what good shape they're in compared to the big ring! Doesn't look like OP uses the inner chain ring much.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> I went back to the 53 after flirting with 50. Kept spinning out on it. I'd expect the same with a 34 for sure. I'd be "cross chaining" like mad. 42 provides a really nice set of gears for anything from climbing to motoring along the flats at a moderate aerobic pace. Eddy Merckx was allegedly "fond of 44 tooth inner chain rings." Got one of those too. If I were racing on rolling or flat terrain, that 44 would have been great for wringing out a little more speed. I climbed Mt. Wilson, CA on 44-22, my lowest gear. A week later went back and did it again. No problem.
> 
> 34 tooth inner rings used to be "granny gears" didn't they?


My CX bike has a 46 big ring and it gives very nice medium speed flat road 'legs' in the upper part of the cassette (which goes to a 12 teeth). I agree that a 44 will be very useful and mechanically sound and durable, given enough teeth on the cassette big cog according to taste.

A 50 is just in no-man's land IMHO. Patently too small for a real life road bike big ring. 

My first 'ten speed bike' had a 45 tooth small chainring. It went to a 23 or 24 in the screw-on cluster. We rode all kinds of mountain passes on those. Very different from the MTB gearing diet that kids start on nowadays...


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> By the time gaps between the bottom of the cogs and the chain become visible, the chain is stretched way too far and the new chain will jump on the climbing gears.


Well, you're using the ring as a chain wear gauge. But when you look closely at the crank while pulling that section of chain away, you'll see that it rotates, and moving gauges are no good. If you immobilize the crank so it cannot rotate, you'll find that it's much more difficult to pull the chain off the teeth.

It also depends on exactly where you do your testing. Obviously, at the extremes (12 and 6 o'clock) the chain will come off easily as far as you want to pull it. Too many variables here for me to believe in this "test." But just thinking out loud.


----------



## BlazingPedals (Apr 4, 2013)

Can't tell for sure from the pic, but I suspect that the chainring is okay. You've got a nice round profile between teeth, and the rest of the chain isn't riding high.


----------



## Agent319 (Jul 12, 2012)

I ride with a guy who never does maintenance on his bike. Never. He only gets out of the big ring on very steep climbs as well. The bike is an '02 Felt Tri bike with Dura-Ace components. I looked at his big chain ring and it was razor sharp. He said he has changed the big ring once and not until the chain slip did he do that.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Fredrico said:


> How about that? Francesco Moser once quipped after he broke the hour record, that he chose a 55 up front and a 17 in back, because he thought the large gears were easier to turn. Sounded right to me: bigger gears give more leverage. The crank is pulling the chain from further out on its axis of rotation.


False analysis. Any leverage you get comes from the length of the crank arm. Bigger chain ring combined with bigger cassette cog does reduce drive train losses but it is because of the way the chain leaves the larger and smaller diameter cog, not due to the "lever arm" created by the radius of the cog or chain ring.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> False analysis. Any leverage you get comes from the length of the crank arm. Bigger chain ring combined with bigger cassette cog does reduce drive train losses but it is because of the way the chain leaves the larger and smaller diameter cog, not due to the "lever arm" created by the radius of the cog or chain ring.


^ This ^


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

Not sure I have ever worn out a chain ring. Wore out a cassette on a mtb after having done little maintenance; replaced the rings at the same time just because.

Had a customer come in and needed the entire drivetrain replaced - he had 39,000 miles on it, with the same chain even! We couldn't believe the chain was still together as the rollers were worn to just about nothing. It was a basic sram chain.

Worn chain rings make great throwing stars, though. We would take worn rings that were super sharp out back and see how many empty boxes we could throw 'em through.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Pieter said:


> A 50 is just in no-man's land IMHO. Patently too small for a real life road bike big ring.


50x13 is a 30 MPH cruising gear and 40 MPH sprinting gear. 50x12 is bigger than the 52x13 Eddy Merckx used to dominate the spring classics. 50x11 is bigger than many modern era pros got with 53-39x12-23.

It's plenty for most applications if you're not riding juniors cogs.

OTOH, the 34 tooth inner ring is an abomination.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I went back to the 53 after flirting with 50. Kept spinning out on it.





Pieter said:


> A 50 is just in no-man's land IMHO. Patently too small for a real life road bike big ring.
> 
> .


Really? Sounds like you guys need to work on your math and learn how to pedal.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> OTOH, the 34 tooth inner ring is an abomination.


If you live in a mountainous area with sustained 12-20% gradient climbs, you too would embrace the "abomination" - at least if you're mortal or like maintaining a cadence higher than 50 . In these conditions having a wide gearing range is the name of the game as your always wishing for a lower granny gear going up and red lined going down.


----------



## black20 (Sep 10, 2012)

Either you guys are some powerhouses or you need to move those legs quicker. I really rarely spin out a 50 ring and a 12-25 other than some small sections of long downhills which is probably less than 0.5% of total ride.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

black20 said:


> Either you guys are some powerhouses or you need to move those legs quicker. I really rarely spin out a 50 ring and a 12-25 other than some small sections of long downhills which is probably less than 0.5% of total ride.


I'd like to claim I'm a nuclear reactor, but for me it's just a combination of topography and/or incessant wind that I can R out on my 50/11 combo quite frequently 

But back to the OP question- I have worn out a Shimano Ultegra middle ring on a triple crank after about 20K miles, but that was due to severe drivetrain maintenance neglect on my part. I eventually changed the chain first and it started to skip on standing climbs. 

My takeaway from this- either properly maintain everything regularly or let it go all together. It kind of like the anecdote where people's car engine seize only when they change their oil for the first time in 50K miles.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

The chainrings on my road bike are from 2006. They're completely fine as far as I can tell, still shift like champs.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Kerry Irons said:


> False analysis. Any leverage you get comes from the length of the crank arm. Bigger chain ring combined with bigger cassette cog does reduce drive train losses but it is because of the way the chain leaves the larger and smaller diameter cog, not due to the "lever arm" created by the radius of the cog or chain ring.


Correction taken!  Your explanation is very good. Thanks.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

wim said:


> Well, you're using the ring as a chain wear gauge. But when you look closely at the crank while pulling that section of chain away, you'll see that it rotates, and moving gauges are no good. If you immobilize the crank so it cannot rotate, you'll find that it's much more difficult to pull the chain off the teeth.
> 
> It also depends on exactly where you do your testing. Obviously, at the extremes (12 and 6 o'clock) the chain will come off easily as far as you want to pull it. Too many variables here for me to believe in this "test." But just thinking out loud.


When you look at a worn chain at about 3 o'clock, can't you still see slight gaps? Slack or tensioned, these gaps should be visible. That seems to be what I've found in some of these Huffy MTBs teenagers ride into the ground and bring in with chains that you can bend back and forth in your hand.

The guys at the shop use the gauge because that's fastest, and there's mathematical certainty. An 8th of an inch is an 8th of an inch! Trouble is, that might be too late!

Yes, its difficult to tell in that picture if the chain is stretched. One could surmise that from the appearance of the large ring, though. Its pretty worn!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

The large Campy Record ring on my bike develops shark teeth around 5000 miles. If I let it go for too long, I can easily develop chain suck. So, I'd say I need to replace my large Campy chainring at least every two years (riding around 6k per year).


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> Really? Sounds like you guys need to work on your math and learn how to pedal.


Now ya got me thinking about putting on the 50 again!  I haven't used the 14 or 13 in years. :frown2: Maybe with a 50, those gears could work for me. :yesnod: 

I can jump up hills spinning 95 rpm, and my normal cadence is 90, excuse me, I got that pedaling down.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

tvad said:


> The large Campy Record ring on my bike develops shark teeth around 5000 miles. If I let it go for too long, I can easily develop chain suck. So, I'd say I need to replace my large Campy chainring at least every two years (riding around 6k per year).


There is something seriously wrong here! I just replaced a Campy big ring after 65,000 miles. At your rate I'd go through 2 chain rings per year. I don't know what you're doing but unless you're constantly riding in the rain on dirty roads I cannot imagine wearing out a Campy chain ring anywhere near that fast.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I've never worn one out in less than 40k miles. Can't imagine.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Yes, its difficult to tell in that picture if the *chain is stretched*. One could surmise that from the appearance of the large ring, though. Its pretty worn!


Semantics...but to be clear, chains don't _stretch._ They get longer but it's due to pin & roller wear, not the plates stretching. 



tvad said:


> The large Campy Record ring on my bike develops shark teeth around 5000 miles. If I let it go for too long, I can easily develop chain suck. So, I'd say I need to replace my large Campy chainring at least every two years (riding around 6k per year).


You have some serious weirdness going on here. I can't imagine that happening even w/ one chain, never lubed or cleaned. 5000 miles? No way.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Kerry Irons said:


> There is something seriously wrong here! I just replaced a Campy big ring after 65,000 miles. At your rate I'd go through 2 chain rings per year. I don't know what you're doing but unless you're constantly riding in the rain on dirty roads I cannot imagine wearing out a Campy chain ring anywhere near that fast.


Strange but true. Lots of dust and grit where I ride. Maybe that's the reason. Clean the drive train weekly.

Oh well. It is what it is.


----------



## Speed_Metal (Feb 9, 2004)

hijacking my own thread:
would there be a noticeable difference between my current -04 FSA SLK crankset, and a Chorus 11-speed, in terms of stiffness and power transfer?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Speed_Metal said:


> hijacking my own thread:
> would there be a noticeable difference between my current -04 FSA SLK crankset, and a Chorus 11-speed, in terms of stiffness and power transfer?


If you asked Campy? Absolutely. Real world? Doubtful.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> You have some serious weirdness going on here. I can't imagine that happening even w/ one chain, never lubed or cleaned. 5000 miles? No way.



I haven't worn out chain rings in around 5k on my mountain bike.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

tvad said:


> Strange but true. *Lots of dust and grit where I ride. Maybe that's the reason*. Clean the drive train weekly.
> 
> Oh well. It is what it is.


If it were dust that would impact the cassette also. Does your cassette wear out every 1000 miles? (I ask about 1000 because your chain ring is wearing out about at the 1/5th of the point that's "normal" and 5000 would be "normal" for a cassette)


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Jay Strongbow said:


> If it were dust that would impact the cassette also. Does your cassette wear out every 1000 miles?


It doesn't wear out every 1000 miles, but the highly used cogs do wear out at about the same rate as the large chainring (which I use more than the small ring).


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

tvad said:


> It doesn't wear out every 1000 miles, but the highly used cogs do wear out at about the same rate as the large chainring (which I use more than the small ring).


So we know the cause is not dust then (or anything to do with riding conditions) because you cassette life is normal and that's subject to the same dust your chainring is and you're about 1/5th of normal there.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Jay Strongbow said:


> So we know the cause is not dust then (or anything to do with riding conditions) because you cassette life is normal and that's subject to the same dust your chainring is and you're about 1/5th of normal there.


OK. Thanks for the 411.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

I replaced the small chain ring on my crankset last month. The rings are Dura Ace from 1997 and have been mounted on 4 different bikes throughout their life time. I don't know how many miles are on them.

And as far as a 50T front ring goes. I ride with a 50T ring on my CX bike which occasionally gets used as a road bike (as it has a 36T small ring instead of a 39). It's very easy for me to spin out the 50T with a 12T small cog - I can't pedal at speeds over 33 or 34 mph. On long hills, especially with tail winds, it's pretty easy to exceed that speed (and watch people pull away from me as the pedal).


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> I replaced the small chain ring on my crankset last month. The rings are Dura Ace from 1997 and have been mounted on 4 different bikes throughout their life time. I don't know how many miles are on them.
> 
> And as far as a 50T front ring goes. I ride with a 50T ring on my CX bike which occasionally gets used as a road bike (as it has a 36T small ring instead of a 39). It's very easy for me to spin out the 50T with a 12T small cog - I can't pedal at speeds over 33 or 34 mph. On long hills, especially with tail winds, it's pretty easy to exceed that speed (and watch people pull away from me as the pedal).


that's just above 100rpm. probably not the gear that's the problem then.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

den bakker said:


> that's just above 100rpm. probably not the gear that's the problem then.


Whatever.

Below is the info on a downhill that I rode this week with a 50T ring. I averaged 36.7 mph over an 8.9 mile downhill (14:30 minutes). I would have preferred to have a bigger front ring. Does that help you?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> Whatever.


100rpm is NOT spun out. It may be faster than your legs can pedal, but that's a different issue.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

laffeaux said:


> Whatever.
> 
> Below is the info on a downhill that I rode this week with a 50T ring. I averaged 36.7 mph over an 8.9 mile downhill (14:30 minutes). I would have preferred to have a bigger front ring. Does that help you?


You had an average heart rate of 194bpm with a max heart rate of 254bpm on the 8.9 mile descent? Umm...I don't think so. You should check that out and find why you're getting a wonky reading.

I can certainly understand your desire for a big ring larger than 50t, but it's likely that even with a 53/11 you'd still spin out on that descent.

IMO.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

tvad said:


> You had an average heart rate of 194bpm with a max heart rate of 254bpm on the 8.9 mile descent? Umm...I don't think so. You should check that out and find why you're getting a wonky reading.
> 
> I can certainly understand your desire for a big ring larger than 50t, but it's likely that even with a 53/11 you'd still spin out on that descent.
> 
> IMO.


Garmin HRMs have an issue with heart rates on long downhills. I'm not sure if it's the zipper on my wind jacket hitting the sending unit or some other issue, but the heart rate reading increases as speed increases - when I use my brakes the heart rate lowers and as I accelerate it increases. Several guys that I ride with have the same issue. It's pretty arid where I live, so it maybe related to dry contact points as well.

True, in places I would have spun out regardless of ring size. But where I live I easily spin out on a 50T ring. My road bike has a 53T ring and I prefer it for downhills as I can pedal longer and keep up - often all that is needed is a momentary acceleration to catch someone's wheel as they pass (and a 50T is spun out). However, in the spring I often need the lower gearing on the CX bike (36/50 instead of 39/53) to make the climbs (a portion of the ride above had a sustained 8% grade for several miles).

People will argue that I need to spin faster with a 50T or not pedal at all with a 53T. Why not just trust me when I say that I own both and prefer the 53T when going down hill?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> 100rpm is NOT spun out. It may be faster than your legs can pedal, but that's a different issue.


If spun out isn't going faster than one's legs can pedal then what is it?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Jay Strongbow said:


> If spun out isn't going faster than one's legs can pedal then what is it?


Ya got a point there, but 100rpm is something pretty much anyone should be able to handle. I definitely get his point about preferring the 53 over the 50. I guess it's just semantics but I'd just say 'that's as fast as I'm comfortable pedaling' rather than 'spun out'...for most people that's well over 130-140rpm. 100 is basic spinning around cadence.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

laffeaux said:


> Garmin HRMs have an issue with heart rates on long downhills. I'm not sure if it's the zipper on my wind jacket hitting the sending unit or some other issue, but the heart rate reading increases as speed increases - when I use my brakes the heart rate lowers and as I accelerate it increases. Several guys that I ride with have the same issue. It's pretty arid where I live, so it maybe related to dry contact points as well.
> 
> True, in places I would have spun out regardless of ring size. But where I live I easily spin out on a 50T ring. My road bike has a 53T ring and I prefer it for downhills as I can pedal longer and keep up - often all that is needed is a momentary acceleration to catch someone's wheel as they pass (and a 50T is spun out). However, in the spring I often need the lower gearing on the CX bike (36/50 instead of 39/53) to make the climbs (a portion of the ride above had a sustained 8% grade for several miles).
> 
> People will argue that I need to spin faster with a 50T or not pedal at all with a 53T. Why not just trust me when I say that I own both and prefer the 53T when going down hill?


Back in club riding days, I had the same problem spinning out in 50-13, my lowest gear. On a slight downgrade, all of a sudden I'd be spinning out, and everyone else is going just a little bit faster in their 52's and 53's, and I can't pedal faster to keep up! :shocked: Humiliating! That 53 is like over drive.

And if anyone accuses me of not knowing how to spin, I do spin intervals once in a while, and can get leg speeds up to 150 rpm any time I want. Thing is, the sweet spot is still about 95 rpm. Power starts dropping off around 110 rpm and continues dropping as cadence increases. On a club ride that can mean sure death. :yesnod:


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> Ya got a point there, but 100rpm is something pretty much anyone should be able to handle. I definitely get his point about preferring the 53 over the 50. I guess it's just semantics but I'd just say 'that's as fast as I'm comfortable pedaling' rather than 'spun out'...for most people that's well over 130-140rpm. 100 is basic spinning around cadence.


yeah, I knew what you meant, that his threshold for spinning out was low, and I was just being a pedantic prick about the way you said it.

anyway, I like the 50 because it can get up a lot more hills without shifting to the small ring (generally who cares but in a race where I'm hanging on by the skin of my teeth a big to small ring shift, or not, could make a difference).......and going down hills the spin out point is right about when I'd be better off tucking anyway so any bigger gears wouldn't get used much at all.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> But where I live I easily spin out on a 50T ring.


More semantics, perhaps, but I think this is significant. You're not spinning out "on a 50T ring." It takes two gears to make a ratio. You're spinning out on a "50/12 ratio."

The reason I say it's significant is that it points to a possibly better solution. You would get a bigger jump by changing to a cassette with an 11 than by changing the 50 ring to a 53. I'm sure you know that, but by constantly emphasizing the ring size in isolation you're painting a misleading picture.

Seems to me, anyway.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> Semantics...but to be clear, chains don't _stretch._ They get longer but it's due to pin & roller wear, not the plates stretching.
> 
> 
> 
> You have some serious weirdness going on here. I can't imagine that happening even w/ one chain, never lubed or cleaned. 5000 miles? No way.


Yep, the pins and rollers wear down and the chain stretches out!  Each link gets longer. That's a stretch, right? Obviously that's not the side plates, but the rollers. So we can still say the chain "stretched" in that each link makes the chain a little longer. :yesnod: But ok, "stretched" isn't precisely correct. How about "elongated?"

A couple of looks at that big ring in the pic above suggests to me heavy use, lots of pressure on the chain powering in the big ring. The little ring, as much as is visible, doesn't look worn at all. My old chainrings don't look that bad. I think OP should put a new big ring on. The speed at which it was worn down will make it unusable in another season, unless OP learns how to use the small ring. 

And as others have suggested, cheap alloy rings wear out twice as fast as the good stuff, so get the good stuff. :yesnod:


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I will not criticize what someone needs/prefers as their high gear going down hill, but I do expect the same from people who think they know what I need for going uphill.

On track. I have only replaced one chain ring and it had about 16000 miles on it. A 42 if it matters.

As far as the good stuff lasting longer, what does this mean. Are you saying that Record lasts longer than Centaur? Force lasts longer than Rival? Dura Ace vs 105? I'm not buying. I'm thinking it is more likely if there is a difference that our shop mech. are noticing it's due more to the fact that those who own high end tend to be more careful about cleaning than those who own lower end groups.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> ...I like the 50 because it can get up a lot more hills without shifting to the small ring (generally who cares but in a race where I'm hanging on by the skin of my teeth a big to small ring shift, or not, could make a difference).......and going down hills the spin out point is right about when I'd be better off tucking anyway so any bigger gears wouldn't get used much at all.


Tell it like it is. :yesnod:

Easier to shift and pick up the cadence the less difference in teeth. If I ever TT'd I'd have a 53-44. It shifts instantly and the legs don't have to accelerate much to pick up the cadence, or struggle in the higher gear to re-establish cadence. But 50/34? That's still a big jump!

Yep, every time speeding downhill, getting aero increases speeds a couple of mph. The eggbeater effect of pedaling fast against a strong headwind sometimes actually slows me down.  Full tuck was my secret weapon when "handicapped" with the 50. It worked.  Some of the time. :frown2:


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> Full tuck was my secret weapon when "handicapped" with the 50. It worked.  Some of the time. :frown2:


I squeeze the top of the frame with my knees as well when I'm in full tuck.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

myhui said:


> I squeeze the top of the frame with my knees as well when I'm in full tuck.


Thanks for the sidebar.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

tvad said:


> Thanks for the sidebar.


I provide color commentary much like they do during hockey games:

Punjabi Podcast: Leafs running out of time | Hockey | CBC Sports


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Herbie said:


> I will not criticize what someone needs/prefers as their high gear going down hill, but I do expect the same from people who think they know what I need for going uphill.
> 
> On track. I have only replaced one chain ring and it had about 16000 miles on it. A 42 if it matters.
> 
> As far as the good stuff lasting longer, what does this mean. Are you saying that Record lasts longer than Centaur? Force lasts longer than Rival? Dura Ace vs 105? I'm not buying. I'm thinking it is more likely if there is a difference that our shop mech. are noticing it's due more to the fact that those who own high end tend to be more careful about cleaning than those who own lower end groups.


Yep, taking care of the stuff makes it last longest. But also working up a smooth pedal stroke, and using gears the legs can "stay on top of" evenly apportioning transfer of power to that big chain ring, that also makes a huge difference, at least IME. Big guys who refuse to shift into the small ring, wear out the large ring twice as fast, again, IME.

Wearing out a 42 inner ring in 16,000 miles doesn't sound unreasonable, though. That's always the climbing gear, so it surely gets worked harder than the big ring. The first cassette cogs to wear out are usually the climbing gears.

I don't really know what's "good" today. I've heard mixed reviews of Dura Ace, for example. But that could be riders who get Dura Ace tend to ride harder!  That big ring in the pic above doesn't look all that durable, either. Anybody know if titanium chain rings are still being made?  

Campy Record have held up really well. I keep them clean, replace chains after only 2000 miles, and the cassette gears last 12,000 miles, inner chain rings at least 30,000 miles, and outer rings forever, because the old knees don't want to mash big gears anymore!

Wore out both rings, the inner at probably 16000 miles, yeah, on my first real bike, Shimano 600-EX, a step down from Dura Ace back then. Looking at OPs FSA crank above, I'm thinking mid to lower level stuff is still junk.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> I squeeze the top of the frame with my knees as well when I'm in full tuck.


Yep, keep your knees in! 

I scoot back in the saddle, getting a nice aero flat back, and establishing good fore-aft balance to avoid dreaded front wheel wobble! :shocked:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

All this time I thought this thread was about chainring longevity.

Who knew?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> All this time I thought this thread was about chainring longevity.
> 
> Who knew?


…..oh! What? Oh yeah, chainring longevity. :yesnod: What more can we say? 

The one pictured above is trash. Replace it with Campagnolo and all will be right! :yesnod:


----------



## Belisarius (Aug 5, 2017)

Kerry Irons said:


> There is something seriously wrong here! I just replaced a Campy big ring after 65,000 miles. At your rate I'd go through 2 chain rings per year. I don't know what you're doing but unless you're constantly riding in the rain on dirty roads I cannot imagine wearing out a Campy chain ring anywhere near that fast.


I have always known that Campy makes superior products, especially metallurgy. i know former Pro riders still using their 20+ year old Campy Record 9 speed. For the last 30,000 kms, have used Campy SR chains with Shimano drivetrain and a SRAM 1190 cassette.

Last week, I realized that recurring chain sucks on my Dura Ace rings was caused by ring wear. I never thought of it, never imagined it. Thought that with mechanics working x2 per season on stuff such as BB or bearing (I do everything else myself) , they WOULD PICK IT UP. In 2015, tired, leaning for water, I veered to the right and a curving curb scraped my 53 DA, chewing half way 5. I was told : LOOKS GOOD. NO WORRIES...

First clue: Chain suck. Thought it was poor limits.
Second clue. Oct 2019, FRONT GEAR NOISE all configurations... Suddenly it is LOUSY LOUD.

Maybe. Then I swapped the 23,000 kms DA 9000 Rings with a 10,000 kms Ultegra. 1/3 of the noise, and whisper quiet in the 53!!! THAT WAS MY RESEARCH CUE "Noisy chainrings"

Third, FINAL Clue: Digital Claiper measurement: The DA 9000 53t (least worn) had 0.5-0.75 mm wider valley gap than the Ultegra 53t, and narrowed teeth....

Ordered same evening two new 39/53 rings from Jenson USA.

I ONLY RIDE DRY, Use the best industrial oil on the planet, Chain always looks clean and never ever gunks up (best oil on the planet). Regularly push 35-42 Km/hr, with faster bursts approaching 50 km/hr.... Consequently, all shifts are fast and, as far as the casettes and chainring are concerned, brutal for the metal.

Ironically, I use Campy chains as they seem indestructible vs Shimano poor 11 speed metallurgy (Last Shimano DA chain I tried lasted 500 kms before becoming wobbly rattly etc). I assume that Campy Chainrings may be a superior alloy (as is SRAM 1190). Some interesting compromises. The Campy chain is slightly noisier but NARROWER (5.3mm), STABLE, POWERFUL, lasting 3,200-4000 kms to 80%. Can push at elite level power and it is predictable. Campy vs Shimano chains are like a BMW vs a Kia.

But if both chainring and chain are high end metallurgy, two hard surfaces are bad for both objects. A hard chainring will wear faster a chain. 

As I never owned Campy cranksets, I cannot comment on the predicted lifespan of their chairings. Using the SR Chains as reference I would not be surprised if Campy Chains are x3 to x5 the longevity of Shimano. 

Dry weather, clean lubricated experience with DA 9000 tells me that 15,000 kms elite power, 70% 39 and 30% 53, is the absolute maximum life expectancy of DA 9000. Conequently, I now understand why DA replacement chainrings flew off online electronic shelves each season.

benefits of replacing the chainrings: QUIET, SAFER, FASTER front gear changes. I was getting nearly one chain such PER RIDE, none the last 400 kms with the 'younger' 10,000 kms Ultegra crank...

Oh, why Ultegra- am waiting for the LBS appointment to replace my DA rings... COVID-19 slows down stores.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

I wore out a middle chainring on a triple twice. New chain would skip on the chainring. More than likely I didn't replace my chain soon enough before it was too stretched out.


----------



## rideit (Feb 8, 2005)

Belisarius said:


> I have always known that Campy makes superior products, especially metallurgy. i know former Pro riders still using their 20+ year old Campy Record 9 speed. For the last 30,000 kms, have used Campy SR chains with Shimano drivetrain and a SRAM 1190 cassette.
> 
> Last week, I realized that recurring chain sucks on my Dura Ace rings was caused by ring wear. I never thought of it, never imagined it. Thought that with mechanics working x2 per season on stuff such as BB or bearing (I do everything else myself) , they WOULD PICK IT UP. In 2015, tired, leaning for water, I veered to the right and a curving curb scraped my 53 DA, chewing half way 5. I was told : LOOKS GOOD. NO WORRIES...
> 
> ...


Pray tell, what is the BEST OIL ON THE PLANET, exactly?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Belisarius said:


> I ONLY RIDE DRY, Use the best industrial oil on the planet


Dry oil?

Hahahahahahaha. Dude you are so funny.


----------



## tfinator (Nov 4, 2009)

tlg said:


> Dry oil?
> 
> Hahahahahahaha. Dude you are so funny.


I think he means the weather.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

tfinator said:


> I think he means the weather.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


But he's still funny, and rambles incoherently. "The best industrial oil on the planet..." but does he give us a specific product?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

tfinator said:


> I think he means the weather.


Ohhh. Well that's just as funny! Only getting 9,000mi on chainrings in DRY conditions.

hahahahaha.

I want to know what this miracle oil is.... so that I NEVER use it.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

tlg said:


> Dry oil?
> 
> Hahahahahahaha. Dude you are so funny.


That's like dehydrated water.


----------



## tfinator (Nov 4, 2009)

cxwrench said:


> But he's still funny, and rambles incoherently. "The best industrial oil on the planet..." but does he give us a specific product?


Cool story bro.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

Did anyone notice he dredged a six year old thread?


----------



## craiger_ny (Jun 24, 2014)

ogre said:


> Did anyone notice he dredged a six year old thread?


If you knew the secret to effortless financial freedom or the best industrial oil on the planet or the cure for cancer or some other such thing wouldn't you?

I for one would be shouting it from the roof tops.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

ogre said:


> Did anyone notice he dredged a six year old thread?


He dredged 4 of them.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

rideit said:


> Pray tell, what is the BEST OIL ON THE PLANET, exactly?


The one that causes a chain to wear out in 400-800km. ut:


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Lombard said:


> The one that causes a chain to wear out in 400-800km. ut:


Oh my. I was laughing so hard at his chainring buffoonery I missed his chain wear.

I don't even lube my chain until at least 1000km. My oil must be from another planet.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

tlg said:


> Oh my. I was laughing so hard at his chainring buffoonery I missed his chain wear.
> 
> I don't even lube my chain until at least 1000km. *My oil must be from another planet.*


LOL! I only lube my chain every 500 miles and as I stated before, I had to replace it at 6000 miles due to a stiff link I couldn't work out. The chain had no "stretch" and the new chain shifted perfectly with the 6000 mile old cassette. My lube is from another galaxy, LOL!


----------

