Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages

Thanks!

They do!? I'd say they use a variety of cassesttes depending on the race and depending on the rider.

I don't know the details on raodie gear at all, but the compact chainrings didn't coem around till like the early 90's ish? (I know it was early 90's in mtb) and in ye oldie days the gears didn't go down to 12's or 11's so you would run a bigger chainring to get the top end.

 

I favour 52/36 and then 53/39, tried 50/34 not for me. Flat around here and 52/36 is just fine for big hills

 

but to me it seems that a 50/34 + 11-25 could be a better option.

Why don't you explain to us why you feel that would be a better option?

 

yeah, let's discuss something new and original here. Or not.

 

Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages

Where did you come up with that one?

 

He pulled it out of thin air.

As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers. Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
27's, 28's, and above, were made for tourists.
Back in the day, a 44x22 was used for most mountain stages.

 

As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.

Yes, I remember when I built up my first real road bike in the mid-to-late eighties, 52x42 was pretty much standard. I sat down and plotted the various gear ratios that the available cassettes would give me, and ended up deciding that a 53x39 would be optimal for me. After that, everyone followed my lead, and the rest is history, as they say. So this answers the OP's original question: You can thank Yours Truly for that standard crankset. You're welcome, it was my pleasure.

Seriously, however, when I built that bike I hade a 7-speed cassette, so that does make a bit of a difference. Depending on where and how you add the four additional cogs for a modern 11-speed cassette, and where and how you ride, different cranksets may work better for you. Personally, I could imagine considering a 52x36 once I get old and weak , or if I move to an area that's more hilly. Right now the standard crank still works best for me.

 

As of last week, I thought t-20 was going to run a 55/39/25 or some other weird triple combo.

Feel like we have been down this same road (same recent topic phrased slightly differently). . . are t-20 and mm9 the same person?

I started on a 53/39. I got made fun of for choosing the small 39 instead of the common (at the time) 41. Now, I ride a 52/36 with a 11/25 cassette. I am fine with the 52/36. I don't see much use in the 11. When it dies, I will replace it with a cassette that begins with a 12.

 

Professionals use all sorts of gears in racing.

Tour of Flanders tech: Wider tires, bigger cogs the norm | Cyclingnews.com

 

^^^No sh!t this guy pulled this "most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28..." out of thin air. When I go to races here, you see all kinds of different stuff on pro bikes. The ones that shock the crap out of me still are seeing the wide range of stuff used in the one day classic races like Flanders and Paris-Roubaix. If I remember correctly, in the mid-90s one year I stood there staring at Museeuw's 53-42 11-21 for Flanders and thinking "My God, this guy ain't human!!............." In modern day Liege-Bastogne-Liege, you see cassettes that are a tight range, and cassettes that are a surprising wide range, but it all depends on the rider and the crankset they have up front.

 

in the mid-90s one year I stood there staring at Museeuw's 53-42 11-21 for Flanders and thinking "My God, this guy ain't human!!............

My favorite combo is the 53/42 and 7spd 13-28. This provides 7 convenient ratios from 1.50 to almost 4.08.

 

If you really actually want to go fast you need this

 

As I've grown older, I've found I no longer have the power to push a 53 x 39. I moved down to a 52 x 36. This generally gives much better chain lines (therefore less wear and more efficiency) than using the 50 x 34 compact and also means you can still be pedaling when the guys on 50 x 34 compacts are freewheeling on the downhills.

A couple of my riding buddies have switched up from 50 x 34 after seeing how much more I used the centre of the sprockets than they did.

 

You may want to check your math there...at 100rpm in a 52 you'd be doing 37.1. In a 50 you'd be at 35.7. That's a whopping 1.4mph. Or, to go the same 37.1mph on the 50 you'd have to spin at insane 104rpm instead of 100.

 

Because only real cyclist use 53/39! Duh!

 

And they should upgrade the small ring to a 42, 43, or as Eddy did, 44! :thumbsup:

 

One thing I havnt seen mentioned was how conservetive the pro racing in Europe really was. If it was good enough for their fathers it's good enough for them.
Seriously it was Suntour ( lesser extent) and shimano (greater extent) that started pushing boundaries with new things.
Cassette hubs shimano
Sti shifting. Shimano
Dual pivot brakes shimano
Willingness to try new things, even disasters like bio pace and the AX and sante groups. Shimano

Oh and compact cranks where a direct result of unhappiness with the shifting quality of triples at the time. That said my current triple 28-38-48 from shimano shifts beautifully, showing how far we have come,

 

Bike racing is "conservative" because organizers want the race to be a test of athletic ability, not equipment. :yesnod:

 

A good recounting of the evolution of Al cranksets, and who did what when, from the folks at Bicycle Quarterly.

 

Luca Paolini don't need no stinkin' small gears for E3-Scheldeprijs

Luca Paolini don't need no stinkin' small gears for Scheldeprijs

 

Luca Paolini don't need no stinkin' small gears for Scheldeprijs
View attachment 305074

yes well done on a race with the biggest climb being 75ft altitude.

 

One or two cogs is a big enough difference. Whilst I may not notice the friction, there has to be reduced wear if you are keeping a generally straighter chain line.

 

I tend to suspect the difference in wear over the life of the chain is not really discernible or measurable. You're talking about a difference of maybe as much as 1° in chain alignment.

What I'm struggling with is what difference it's made for your riding. Setting aside the wear argument, if it works for you then great - use it. But I'm trying to figure out why it works for you. The 36t ring would be more accommodating for a lower speed range. Has your typical speed or comfortable cadence changed such that you feel the change from a 42t chain ring to a 36t ring is more accommodating?

 

What I don't get? Some ppl trying to base their gearing around what top pros ride, when your typical recreational rider has barely half the power-to-weight-ratio/VO2 Max of said top professional rider, if even that.

Oh, and we don't get to use EPO either, like Lance and the majority of the peloton. Which is just as well.

 

What I don't get? Some ppl trying to base their gearing around what top pros ride, when your typical recreational rider has barely half the power-to-weight-ratio/VO2 Max of said top professional rider, if even that.

Keep in mind that there are quite a few people who don't compete that are quite fit and strong to turn those big gears.

 

I must be in the minority here because I just simply ride my bike. When the road changes I shift to a gear that feels appropriate.

What Cavendish uses now or what Lemond used for his gearing in the 70's is not something that comes to mind during my rides.

 

Yup. Ride. Shift when you're churning butter or freewheeling. Done. Sometimes, you go faster and get stronger, sometimes, you just need to coast. But changing based on what someone else does, why?

Someone asked me earlier this week what cogs I had on my 11-28 and why I hadn't gone to 11 speed yet. My answer - well, I know there's an 11 and a 28 and some things in between and because I don't have the money to drop on an extra gear that I don't miss.

The OP asked why the community came to 53/39. I'd say, it hasn't yet decided. It will continue to morph as things change (as they always have).

The OP said 11-28 is the standard. In many cases it is, just because of the range. Especially with 11 speed where you can keep your spacing almost the same as a 10sp 11-25 and just tack on a 28. But in general, people ride what they want based on their own preferences. There's only a consensus because, well, it works well. When you find yourself on a 8% for 2km and then it pitches up to 12% for a few hundred feet, that 28 feels great. Even if you are cross chained. It may keep you from having to drop down to the little ring and potentially drop a chain or at least lose some momentum.

 

My suspicion is that with the 36 chain ring and shifting over toward the center of the cassette the reason for the benefit you're experiencing is closer gear spacing between the adjacent gears when you're on that ring, not chain alignment or friction.

 

When you find yourself on a 8% for 2km and then it pitches up to 12% for a few hundred feet, that 28 feels great. Even if you are cross chained. It may keep you from having to drop down to the little ring and potentially drop a chain or at least lose some momentum.

You make good points, Corenfa, but I laughed a little at this. My days of routinely climbing 2km of 8% in the big ring are a few years in the past. Not too many years past, and I can still do it, but it's a low-cadence out-of-the saddle grind. When it kicks up to 12%, I'm little-ringing for sure. On the other hand, I don't mind the occasional mash, and my lowest gear in 39x26, which I can muscle up short pitches of >15%.

Anyway, you're certainly right about the basics. Ride, shift up if you're spinning too fast, shift down if you lugging. Ride, shift, shift again, repeat until you die or can't ride anymore (and hope the latter doesn't precede the former by too long?).

 

It's proven that the #1 reason for going with a 53-39 is to be able to brag about using a 53-39 on internet forums. Usually the same people are from places like Florida, where "hills" and "climbs" are tough, but doable with a 11-28 cassette.

 

where does that leave people with both cranksets?

 

Just so we are "clear"

 

Ha. No need to exaggerate a climb like that. Just say "It's hard as f*ck" and we get it. 5400, 5000, 4400 - nah. It's hard as f*ck. See how easy that is.

That being said - look - there's some recovery time in there. It's only ALMOST hard as f*ck.

 

switched to compact and never looked back. I have never run out of gears. when going down hill, I don't really like to be going 40mph+ and accelerating while mashing on pedals. pass.

 

Yeah, that's one thing that always makes me wonder: coveting that 53 ring so you can pedal downhill? I've discovered over the years that gravity will do just fine. My speed actually increases beyond spinning out in 53-13 very quickly if I just get into a nice aerodynamic tuck. I've glided like a bird in flight passing many a rider pedaling like mad. At high speeds, aerodynamics becomes all the more critical in cutting through that wall of air. :yesnod:

 

to think using tall gears is for marketing purposes, is....well....stupid.....or to think its to get old people on bikes is....well....even more stupid than my previous stupid.....that makes it fookin-stoopid.

teams are about winning. winning gets marketing coverage, is....well.....smart.....making the right choices to win is....well.....more smart than my previous smart.....that makes it fookin-smart.

follow the leader -

Tour of Flanders tech: Wider tires, bigger cogs the norm | Cyclingnews.com

Wider is better at Flanders - BikeRadar

 

Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages but to me it seems that a 50/34 + 11-25 could be a better option.

Anyway I'd like to know your thought on why exactly THIS big ring and why exactly THIS small ring.

Thanks!

For me, a 50x11 is too small in certain (frequent) racing situations. Sometimes it just feels better to push a bigger gear and a 50x11 has me spinning much faster at higher speeds. Plus it makes sprinting much tougher as well. A 34x28 is absolutely worthless for all of my racing. I run a 52x36 now and I actually prefer the 53x39 because the 36 is just too small on the rollers and punchers that I typically train and race on. A 39x23/25 is about the max I would ever realistically need in a race and even then only on very long or really, really steep inclines. With the 36 I'm never using my lowest gears and I'm running an 11-23 cassette. I don't like it and will go back to a 53x39 on the next bike/build.

 

For me, a 50x11 is too small in certain (frequent) racing situations. Sometimes it just feels better to push a bigger gear and a 50x11 has me spinning much faster at higher speeds. Plus it makes sprinting much tougher as well. A 34x28 is absolutely worthless for all of my racing. I run a 52x36 now and I actually prefer the 53x39 because the 36 is just too small on the rollers and punchers that I typically train and race on. A 39x23/25 is about the max I would ever realistically need in a race and even then only on very long or really, really steep inclines. With the 36 I'm never using my lowest gears and I'm running an 11-23 cassette. I don't like it and will go back to a 53x39 on the next bike/build.

See post #6 on page 2. I know a LOT of pro women that use compacts and I'm betting they'd drop you pretty regularly. It's a small difference(50 to 53), but at least you qualify it as 'your preference'. You could always just pedal 4-5rpm faster...