26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Frederic Vaille » Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:00:00


I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
a WorldCup machine ?

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Mick Eker » Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Personally I like 24-36-46 - usually with a 12-32 at the back.
If you don't ride extremely steep hills then I suppose the
23-36-46 will be easier to set up and probably shift more reliably
due to the smaller difference in size. I doubt if I would notice much
difference either way, the only real justification for my having a
non-compact chainset is that it gives me a decent gear range when I
put on my road wheels - with either an 11-28 or 11-23
block, otherwise I would go for a 22-34-44 .
- Mick Ekers (UK)

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Alex Wetmor » Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Personally I like 24-36-46 - usually with a 12-32 at the back.

This is the combo that I use on my touring bike (RSX crankset in the front,
XTR 12-32 cogs in the rear).  It works very well for climbing up steep
hills, and has enough high range to get me going down hills to 35 or so,
then I just coast beyond there.

alex

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Matt O'Tool » Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Personally I like 24-36-46 - usually with a 12-32 at the back.
> If you don't ride extremely steep hills then I suppose the
> 23-36-46 will be easier to set up and probably shift more reliably
> due to the smaller difference in size. I doubt if I would notice much
> difference either way,

I think the "standard" XTR 12-32 setup with a 24-36-46 or
24-34-46 is the best all around mountain bike gearing
available.  It's adequately high and low, and doesn't have
any weird gaps.  However, the difference is really
marginal.  It's more intelligent to replace worn drivetrains
with new LX cranks, at the typical closeout price of $60 or
so.  Use these with the corrresponding 11-28 or 11-30
cassettes.

Quote:
> the only real justification for my having a
> non-compact chainset is that it gives me a decent gear range when I
> put on my road wheels - with either an 11-28 or 11-23
> block, otherwise I would go for a 22-34-44 .

This is a really good point.  It would be nice to have a
standard XTR drivetrain, with a 12-32 for off-road use, and
a 11-24 or whatever for road or rail-trail rides.  I used to
have DX 7 speed drivetrains, which used a 24-34-46 crank
(sometimes a 22 or 20 with a Microdapter), a 13-30 cassette
for offroad, and a nice STX 7 speed 11-24 cassette for road
riding.  It was a good system.

Matt O.

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Bez » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

>On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
>crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

>I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

>What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
>a WorldCup machine ?

I've just 'upgraded' mine from standard to compact -- !

Anyway I've always used 11-28 (7sp) with 24-36-46/8 which gives
a good range. I very very very rarely use the 24/28 because I get
too much torque, it's only for when I'm totally bonked. The next one
up (24/24 I think) suits me for both long and technical climbs, so
personally I wouldn't be too keen to go much lower.

I've just gone to 11-28 (8sp) with 22-32-42 a couple of days ago and
haven't ridden it yet, I'm a bit concerned I won't have enough top end,
especially for the Alps next week :-(  Maybe I'll take my standard drive
chainset too... mmm, let's spin that 48/11 :-)

Bez

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Martin Trautman » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> a WorldCup machine ?

What I feel for 26-36-46:

26 vs. 36 is nice, although there's not much that you win below 36/28 =
1.28

36 vs. 46 does not look very well. 46/18 and 36/14 are almost the same,
as well as 36/11 vs. 46/14. Between 46/14 and 46/12 there's a gap at the
range of about 38 km/h

24/28 goes down to 0.85 (that's about 9 km/h with 90 tpm, 2000 mm
circumference). Shifting is always a small step from middle to big, than
a bigger step back to middle again (e.g. 34/18, 46/24, 34/16, 46/21,
34/14, 46/18, 36/12, 46/16). The gap at 38 km/h is the same as before.

Thus I'd prefer the second one.

Regards
Martin

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by G.E.T » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> >I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> >On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> >crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> >I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> >What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> >a WorldCup machine ?

> I've just 'upgraded' mine from standard to compact -- !

> Anyway I've always used 11-28 (7sp) with 24-36-46/8 which gives
> a good range. I very very very rarely use the 24/28 because I get
> too much torque, it's only for when I'm totally bonked. The next one
> up (24/24 I think) suits me for both long and technical climbs, so
> personally I wouldn't be too keen to go much lower.

> I've just gone to 11-28 (8sp) with 22-32-42 a couple of days ago and
> haven't ridden it yet, I'm a bit concerned I won't have enough top end,
> especially for the Alps next week :-(  Maybe I'll take my standard drive
> chainset too... mmm, let's spin that 48/11 :-)

Yeah, run the standard crankset, the 42/11 sucks, you can spin it out on
the slightest of downhills.
 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by -NOJ » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00

I have a good ride using 24-34-46 with an XTR 12-32, but I want to get a 48
for the large ring for speed.  Other than that, it gives a good range of
singletrack and climbing gears, as my goal was to be able to do most trails
in the middle ring.

-NOJ-

Quote:

> I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> a WorldCup machine ?

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Sk1 Bu » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
> I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> a WorldCup machine ?

I go w/ the 24-34-46, with 11-32 cassette myself.  I ride a lot of steep, technical terrain & I'm nowhere near a worldcup machine - I need all the help I can get.  If I was on mostly easier terrain I would think about 26-36-46 and closer gears in the back.

--

KILLER CHICKEN - EAT GOOD - RIDE HARD
Best dinner in Tahoe under $10

Print out this note and we'll give you 2 for 1 pitchers of beer!

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Duncan Harr » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I've just gone to 11-28 (8sp) with 22-32-42 a couple of days ago and
> haven't ridden it yet, I'm a bit concerned I won't have enough top end,
> especially for the Alps next week :-(  Maybe I'll take my standard drive

That's nearly 100inch top gear. Most of the descents are too 'technical'
to enable useful use of mega large gears. Just relax and enjoy the scenery :-)

--
Duncan Harris, Sapio Design Ltd, Manchester, U.K.

Web site on CD-ROM?  Browse http://www.sapio.com/

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by G.E.T » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> a WorldCup machine ?

Depends on how much steep stuff you ride.  The 24-34-46 will give you a
slightly smaller low gear and the 26-36-46 will give you a slightly higher
low gear than your last set up.  If possible I'd go 24-34-48.

Greg  

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Matt O'Tool » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I have a good ride using 24-34-46 with an XTR 12-32, but I
> want to get a 48 for the large ring for speed.  Other than
> that, it gives a good range of singletrack and climbing
> gears, as my goal was to be able to do most trails in the
> middle ring.

The 34-48 shift is a big one, kinda clunky on most
drivetrains.  Also, the chain often rubs on the inside of
the 48 ring, while in the 34 ring and the small cogs.  The
difference in top end between a 46 and 48 ring with a 12 cog
isn't a big one.  You're better off spinning a little
faster, in fact, not that much faster.

Matt O.

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Gre » Fri, 04 Sep 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>Personally I like 24-36-46 - usually with a 12-32 at the back.
>If you don't ride extremely steep hills then I suppose the
>23-36-46 will be easier to set up and probably shift more reliably
>due to the smaller difference in size. I doubt if I would notice much
>difference either way, the only real justification for my having a
>non-compact chainset is that it gives me a decent gear range when I
>put on my road wheels - with either an 11-28 or 11-23
>block, otherwise I would go for a 22-34-44 .
>- Mick Ekers (UK)

You can have a 24-26-46 in a compact setup (Real makes these rings in
94BCD) .  I have a set, they shift great.  Beware tho, you need a
small spacer in between the spider and the middle ring when using
these rings when using a compact LX crank.  I am not sure about other
cranks.

G :)

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by Rob Zingarell » Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> a WorldCup machine ?

I'd go for the larger range and lower bottom-end (24-34-46).  That's
what 'normal' people use.  (Unless you're a real whus like me, and
go with 22-32-42 rings and 12-32 cogs ;^)

--
-Rob Zingarelli  (remove 'boing' from address to respond)
  http://www.goldinc.com/~zing  Coastal Mississippi trail maps & stuff

 
 
 

26-36-46 or 24-34-46 ?

Post by steven T koont » Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I am about to upgrade my mtb from compact to std gears (8s 12-32 rear).

> On the front, I hesitate between 24-34-46 rings, like the last XTR
> crankset, and 26-36-46, like the old one.

> I was previously using 22-32-42 with 11-28 cogs.

> What works, better, given the fact that I'm a 'normal' human being, not
> a WorldCup machine ?

A 22-32-44 with an 11-30... IMHO of course.. I'd hate to be stuck with
a 26 tooth granny..

--