Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Is 34 x 34 about the same as 32 x 32?
  • Bagstard
    Free Member

    As the title says, I'm just getting back into xc/trail riding and my Dialled Alpine has 1 x 9 gearing. My old set up was 32 x 32, but that isn't possible with my LG1 chainguide. So will 34 x 34 get me up hills the same as my old set up?

    mos
    Full Member

    ?

    tinsy
    Free Member

    yep its the same thing… 1:1

    Bagstard
    Free Member

    That's great, cheers. Just goes to show how little I know about gears!

    tinsy
    Free Member

    you probably have a life instead!!

    DickBarton
    Full Member

    I think it is the same looking at the gear tables, both combinations give 26" of forward movement for 1 crank revolution.

    http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/gear_inch_ratio_table26.html

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    It's identical…. No need to look at a gear table!! 🙂

    miketually
    Free Member

    both combinations give 26" of forward movement for 1 crank revolution.

    No they don't. You need to multiply by pi to get the forward motion.

    The gear inches given in gear tables are the equivalent height of a penny farthing wheel, which would have had the cranks attached direct to the wheel. Simples 🙂

    clubber
    Free Member

    Technically, 34:34 is more efficient than 32:32 but then as stated above, having a life is more important than knowing these 'interesting' facts 😉

    ampthill
    Full Member

    34:34 is heavier, the chain goes faster with less tension

    BUt the gearing is the same

    Sirneildementure
    Free Member

    34:34 is theoretically harder to get up to speed, but easier to maintain a higher speed with lower cadence.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    34:34 is theoretically harder to get up to speed, but easier to maintain a higher speed with lower cadence

    whaaaatttttttttt?

    miketually
    Free Member

    whaaaatttttttttt?

    More of the mass is away from the centre of rotation, but it's a miniscule amount.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    I'd guessed he might have meant soemthing like that about momentum making it harder to accelerate (wow, it must add 10g to the whole system!), but whats the caddence comment about?

    thegreatape
    Free Member

    Doesn't 1×9 mean 1 chainring and 9 sprockets?

    miketually
    Free Member

    Doesn't 1×9 mean 1 chainring and 9 sprockets?

    Yes

    miketually
    Free Member

    I'd guessed he might have meant soemthing like that about momentum making it harder to accelerate (wow, it must add 10g to the whole system!), but whats the caddence comment about?

    Presumably, the rotating mass means it's easier to keep the pedals spinning roung. Intertia -> momentum.

    Real world: it won't make any difference.

    ampthill
    Full Member

    higher speed lower cadence

    no way

    gravitysucks
    Free Member

    I'd have said that the miniscule difference a larger rotating mass would give you would be countered by the minscule extra weight of the largers cog, rings and chain….

    My only thing I'd be bothered about would benefitting from the extra groud clearance of a smaller set up

    miketually
    Free Member

    Oh, I see what he means now. To acheieve the same speed, you don't have to pedal as fast.

    Of course, this doesn't apply to the 34:34 or 32:32 question.

    miketually
    Free Member

    My only thing I'd be bothered about would benefitting from the extra groud clearance of a smaller set up

    Two teeth is going to make naff all difference to the clearance. The circumference of the chainring will be 1" bigger, so the diameter will be 1/pi inches bigger. Half that, and you get the reduction in clearance – 4mm difference.

    DanEvs
    Free Member

    Wow, what an interesting thread. 😯

    miketually
    Free Member

    Wow, what an interesting thread.

    Without geeks thinking about stuff like this you'd be walking, not riding.

    😉

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)

The topic ‘Is 34 x 34 about the same as 32 x 32?’ is closed to new replies.