Forum menu
I was wondering the other day while riding, on the same bike and same terrain would it make a difference if you were pushing a 32t chain ring on a 36t cassette compared to a 36t chain ring on a 32t cassette?
the ratio is the same but something in my head says there is a difference due to leverage of crank arm etc?
If anyone knows for sure and can explain it in simple terms that would be grand
🙂
Yes, because they're difference ratios!on the same bike and same terrain would it make a difference if you were pushing a 32t chain ring on a 36t cassette compared to a 36t chain ring on a 32t cassette?
You might need to explain your question better first!
32:36 is not the same as 36:32 if that is what you are asking?
Pushing the same ratio but using different sized cogs (e.g. 34:17 vs 32:16) should in theory be the same.
They aren't the same ratio.
On a 26" wheeled bike
32-36 is 23.1"
36-32 is 29.3"
so 32-36 will be easier to pedal
you could put your pedals on the rear axle and attach your wheel to the bottom bracket
then it would be the same (but difficult to pedal)
sorry dude but it's a pretty basic maths thing; where the numbers are matters.
you might quite like a 1/4 lb burger but you'd be a bit pushed to eat 4/1 lb burger (ie 16 quarter pounders)
More teeth on the front = higher (more difficult) gear.
More teeth on the back = lower (easier) gear.
So as others have said, 36:32 and 32:36 are not the same ratio at all.
36t chainring and 32t cassette will be approx 25% higher than the opposite way round.
Assuming that the OP erred in his post, and meant is 36:36 any different from 32:32 then the answer (mathematically) is no, but you might get extra drivetrain losses from the friction of the extra chain wrap or various other miniscule variables.
Sorry, I was just being a total dumb @ss, I think I was having several thoughts regarding gears ratios, single speeds and wheels sizes.
I think I was actually thinking along the lines of having a triple ring crank and a singlespeed backend has this ever been done and if not why not?
you still need a mech or similar to keep the chain tension (i dont think a standard SS tensioner would take up enough slack) also it will shift a lot worse and probably weigh & cost more than a single ring with whatever speed cassette at the back.I think I was actually thinking along the lines of having a triple ring crank and a singlespeed backend has this ever been done and if not why not?
more to the point is why would you want to? dishless rear wheel is the only thing I can think of
gearbox, hammerschmidt, alfine or rohloff are more what you're after I guess, pricey tho.
[i]has this ever been done and if not why not? [/i]
Chainline is crap, you need a rear derailleur as a tensioner to deal with change in effective chain length between the ratios.
Do a google for dingle speed - people use twin front and twin rear rings that don't affect overall chainlength too much so they don't need a tensioner.
thought of suggesting this but you have to stop to change the chain over by handDo a google for dingle speed
Bad maths aside, are larger or smaller rings more efficient? For a given ratio, do larger rings exert more friction on a chain or does the larger circumference of a big ring set-up equal more efficiency?
For some reason I've always thought that bigger rings would be quicker but I have no science to back that up.
[i] [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_gearing#Details ]In derailleur mechanisms the highest efficiency is achieved by the larger sprockets. Efficiency generally decreases with smaller sprocket and chainring sizes[/url][/i]
bigger sprockets = better efficiency, 36:18 is more efficient and will wear better than 32:16 whether there's a tangible difference so as to be worth it I don't know. (vs weight, clearance, and availability factors)
I have 38:20 on my single speed. This is for aesthetic (and lack of fitness) reasons. It's good to know it's more efficient but I don't notice any difference.