Forum menu
Singlespeed Ratio Q...
 

[Closed] Singlespeed Ratio Question

Posts: 7358
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I have a 36T front ring and am wondering if an 18T would be a good pairing on the back? In the past I have run 32/16 and was wondering what the difference will be?


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 8:50 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Its exactly the same...


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 8:55 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

32/16 = 36/18 so you won't notice much diffference at all.....except maybe a teeny tiny little bit less wear as there are more teeth to spread the load


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 8:57 am
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

just an ever so slightly heavier way of achieving the same ratio.


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 8:57 am
Posts: 7358
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Thanks for the quick responses guys.


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 9:04 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I have gone to a 34/17 because I find big rings seem to roll better, maybe because the chain bends less than arround smaller rings


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 8:51 pm
Posts: 4277
Full Member
 

but small rings offer more BB clearance ๐Ÿ˜€


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 9:02 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I like 36/19 (but I'm quite old).


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 9:06 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I use 44 /20 because it was what I had lying around


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 24794
Free Member
 

I use 32:17. Because 17 is a prime number, it means that the chain will load on a different tooth every time round and when coupled to the 32T front that is further extended so the chain to chainring to sprocket arrangement only comes round every 32 X 17 = 544 revolutions. At a s/speeding cadence of 75 (averaging out 30 on the climbs and 120 on the downhills) that means the same combination arises only once every seven minutes and 15 seconds (assuming no freewheeling), or put another way for a 26" wheel every 1233 yards (ditto).

If you do the same maths for 32:16 (or 36:18, they're the same 2:1) the combination will recur every 32 revolutions (36 for 36:18) hence the chain and sprockets will wear 544/32 = 17 times faster on 32:16 compared to 32:17

Either that or Brant was out of stock of 16's when I last bought one?


 
Posted : 01/04/2010 11:34 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

bloody hell my head almost fell off with that last post

But I can hear where you are comming from sort of


 
Posted : 02/04/2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 17388
Full Member
 

I think that setup is what we used to call a hunting tooth.


 
Posted : 02/04/2010 10:03 pm
Posts: 6
Free Member
 

34:18 because those were the parts in my spares box at the time I built it...


 
Posted : 02/04/2010 10:07 pm
 ajf
Posts: 632
Free Member
 

38:16 on the cx bike nice balance for both on and off road. Thats how it came.

It may change to 44:18 fixed when the weather gets better and use more for road duties but again only because thats what I already have as i know its not a huge gear difference


 
Posted : 02/04/2010 10:15 pm