Chain rings size
- Thread starter tintin40
- Start date
Iwasgoodonce
Old School Grand Master
They say it saves weight but I have always said they changed to sell more stuff. It goes around more often so will wear out quicker. I alway felt bike lost something when MD came in. 46-36-24 is where it is at.
- Feedback
- View
My era first half of 90's
They shrank (well Suntour did first) to save weight and it did, you didn't need the big 28 to 34 hunks of steel at the back and of course less metal at the front = less weight.
It also improved ground clearance and in effect pulled the rings away from the chainstays.
But I ran (and still do run) 48/36/24 front and 12-28/30/32 at the back and then when 11tooth came out 11/28 11/32
52 at the front was not uncommon when 12 was the smallest at the back.
I'm finding it very hard using the new SLX chainring sizes of 22 to 44 at the front. I spin out so easily and find the low gear too low. (11-28 at the back)
Odd as I've used Suntour MD for quite some time now but that is on another bike that likes to go slower :s and that has 20 tooth on the front and 11-26 I think on the rear (would need to check)
So it is small because the 11 tooth at the rear became possible, hence to keep the same ratio's the front rings have to become smaller.
Though with 9 speed you can get back the 32 sprocket have a decent run up a block and so not so much need for the small front. Probably why you can still get the now called 'trekking' front ring setup of 48/46/26.
They shrank (well Suntour did first) to save weight and it did, you didn't need the big 28 to 34 hunks of steel at the back and of course less metal at the front = less weight.
It also improved ground clearance and in effect pulled the rings away from the chainstays.
But I ran (and still do run) 48/36/24 front and 12-28/30/32 at the back and then when 11tooth came out 11/28 11/32
52 at the front was not uncommon when 12 was the smallest at the back.
I'm finding it very hard using the new SLX chainring sizes of 22 to 44 at the front. I spin out so easily and find the low gear too low. (11-28 at the back)
Odd as I've used Suntour MD for quite some time now but that is on another bike that likes to go slower :s and that has 20 tooth on the front and 11-26 I think on the rear (would need to check)
So it is small because the 11 tooth at the rear became possible, hence to keep the same ratio's the front rings have to become smaller.
Though with 9 speed you can get back the 32 sprocket have a decent run up a block and so not so much need for the small front. Probably why you can still get the now called 'trekking' front ring setup of 48/46/26.
jameshurrell
Dirt Disciple
My 86 Muddy Fox Courier had 48-38-28 chainrings BITD. I changed the 28 for a Tioga 26 tooth ring about 15 years ago and it was much, much better. Not sure of the original rear config as it's had 3 cassettes over its life. It was originally a 6 ring cassette on the rear, but it currently has a 7 ring Shimano.
Bitd I was always trying to get smaller rings but no one did them. I much prefer the smaller rings of modern bikes as I tend to spin a lot anyway. When I do spin out of my 44/11 it's usually on the road and going down a steep hill.
On my TT bike bitd I had 39/48 rings as I found, with a 52, that I was hardly ever using the top 2 or 3 gears.
On my TT bike bitd I had 39/48 rings as I found, with a 52, that I was hardly ever using the top 2 or 3 gears.
