32t works for me. I suppose there are a lot of factors involved.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't even say that our riding around here is particularly steep - I would say it's usually about 120ft/mile of climbing, which isn't wild by any means.

 

I like a 30T round or oval most of the time with a Shimano 10-51 cassette. 32 isn’t my jam where I ride. I’ve used a 28 for early season. And 28 isn’t a crazy way to stay out of the pie plate. Ride what you like. **** the haters.

 

Funny, I was thinking of going to a 34 or 36t chainring...and I live in the high mountains.
One of my riding friends who is very strong and a very good climber switched to a 28t chainring( from a 32t) and hated it and went back to the 32 after about a wekk.

 

Funny, I was thinking of going to a 34 or 36t chainring...and I live in the high mountains.
One of my riding friends who is very strong and a very good climber switched to a 28t chainring( from a 32t) and hated it and went back to the 32 after about a wekk.

Ouch! I know Ben Hildred prefers a 34t chainring for his insane climbing achievements, so whatever works.

 

Perfectly fine for me, I like 32t on my lighter 29er and fatbikes, 30 on the heavier fatbike and enduro bike. With a 50t in the rear, it gets to the point where if that's too hard, it's better to just get off and walk IMO, faster. IME, it's a lot more conditioning-based and changing the chainring size 2t isn't radical. The rear cogs at 50-52 will pretty much guarantee a good low gear for climbing up stuff, way better than the 42 of 11spd...which I still use. I say conditioning though because people ride single speeds and do just fine. They aren't inherently faster people, unless they are more fit, but the point is it doesn't make as much difference usually as we think it does IMO. I will say a couple exceptions are high altitude (like above 7000 and more like above 9000) and snow-biking on the snowmachine trails where the surface is always churned and you're lucky to sustain 5mph on the flats. Those call for easier gears a lot more than any other situation I encounter.

 

I ride to and from the local trail on a paved road and even with a 32t chainring I frequently spin out on the way home since the road slightly down hill. And with the trails I ride I never use the top 2 cogs and 3rd sees rare usage. A typical ride for me:

 

hey sunset ride, how did you get this info? i have the sram eagle transmission and the app, but i haven't seen this. pretty cool.

 

I'm solidly on team 28T and would be down with a 26T, especially with a 10T cog available. I think it's a crime that most bikes don't come with smaller rings, especially entry level ones for newer riders. I think very few MTBers need the ability to really pedal downhill. A number of newer and smaller friends have also gotten on the train and it makes a huge difference to have a smaller gear when there's steep climbing to do. Also let's you avoid some wear on those alu bailout gears.

I think of 32+ as more for flat XC racing and downhill bikes, but then again there are single-speeders out in the world. Different strokes I guess.

I'm curious how the 32T crowd would rate the frequency that they use their 10T vs their 50+T.

edit: great graph sunset. I'm probably in the 3 or 4 lowest gears 90% of the time I'm pedaling, even on 28T, but most of my rides are in mountains.

 

I'm solidly on team 28T and would be down with a 26T, especially with a 10T cog available. I think it's a crime that most bikes don't come with smaller rings, especially entry level ones for newer riders. I think very few MTBers need the ability to really pedal downhill. A number of newer and smaller friends have also gotten on the train and it makes a huge difference to have a smaller gear when there's steep climbing to do. Also let's you avoid some wear on those alu bailout gears.

I think of 32+ as more for flat XC racing and downhill bikes, but then again there are single-speeders out in the world. Different strokes I guess.

I'm curious how the 32T crowd would rate the frequency that they use their 10T vs their 50+T.

edit: great graph sunset. I'm probably in the 3 or 4 lowest gears 90% of the time I'm pedaling, even on 28T, but most of my rides are in mountains.

32 is specked for a reason. Anything much lower on climbs and you start to lose traction and experience front wheel lift. Even in the super steep high mountain trails in CO 32-46 or 32-50 is about the lowest you can go without going so slow there is no balance. There is also an efficiency loss in chain wrap the lower you go.

 

Using a 30 up front. With that I can manage with my 2nd largest cog (40) for most climbs leaving the 48 granny gear for the steepest of climbs or for when I am pretty dead at the end of a long day. But that´s on a 27.5er bike. On a 29er I would probably try a 28 up front. I realize I spend very little time in the middle of the cassette. It´s normally either highest or lowest three cogs.

 

I also watch a lot of people stall on climbs because they were in too easy of a gear, trying to pedal too fast, without enough strength to power through the small bumps and such that are on the climb. They may not be strong enough for the harder gear...but either way, it's not the gearing that is preventing the climb.

 

That's also very true. I think strategic upshifting has a place on climbs as well, but I figure that it makes sense to save energy being in a relatively easy ratio and high cadence to keep heart rate down for smooth climbing.

 

For any of you guys that are tracking heart rate/perceived effort, where are you sitting on your average climbs with your preferred gearing?

 

I'm on 34 on two bikes and 33 on another. I won the 33 in a race raffle so might as well use it. My gripe is that newer frames are limited to 34. I'd like to go up to 36 or 38.

 

good thread. i live in an area with a lot of big climbs, and in general i like climbing. i have 30T ovals on both of my bikes. i ordered a 28T for my newer bike, but it was out of stock and they said it was going to take a long time to procure, so i went with the 30T oval. for me, i am pretty much never in my higher gears. it is pretty rare for me to go above 6th gear or so. i like having the low gearing because if the gear is too low and i am overspinning i can always shift up. i also have long pencil thin legs, so that is probably part of it also.

 

Honestly, most people racing DH are doing just fine on 32s, 30s even on enduro bikes. Back in the day we thought we needed 44 and even 52 tooth rings, but you lose so much time in turns and then pedaling out of turns, it's really not faster 99.9% of the time. Some pros may run a little bigger than this...but still far cry from the old days with the giant plate-rings up front. There's a lot of the time where 10 out back is too low for me to pedal in between jumps on the downhill. I can turn it...but I don't accelerate as fast as when I turn a little easier gear.

 

Yep, a good rider can win a downhill run without any gears or even a chain.

 

I prefer the 30T over the 32T and definitely wouldn't want anything larger. I'm still in the 50/52 much more than the 10, that's for sure. 28T would work, but it's not necessary. That said, I'm a decent climber without an extra ounce of fat. Why the industry specs 32T as normal when the average overweight guy is significantly slower than me up climbs is beyond my comprehension. I'm guessing it's because these bikes see a lot more road use than one might think, especially on the low end of pricing.

 

I ride in the foothills and mountains of Colorado. I ride anywhere from 30t (fat bike) to 38t (adventure/bikepacking). A default of 32t works fine for me. I rarely feel the need for anything lower on the front if I'm riding with a 50 or 52 in the rear.

I'm also a singlespeeder, so I'm used to just sucking it up standing when necessary. I did a 12 hour race on a singlespeed recently, covering over 109 miles and 12k of climbing. 30/22 ratio, which seems absurd. It wasn't. It was fine. Also, I noticed that I rarely gave up time to most folks on the descents, often catching and passing some or leaving others behind. People pedal in the stupidest places, gaining basically nothing.

Of course, the really fast team guys on gears completely blew by me... It was a day of observing the best etiquette I could, getting out of people's way without causing myself or them to crash or slow way down.

 

I wonder how much some people perceive a difference is suspension kinematics with changing chainring size as a change in the pedaling efficiency with a smaller ring.

 

That's what I do - I'll choose between 30 and 32 based on feel for the antisquat. You get about a 5% change per 2 teeth. I'm quite happy that frame designers set antisquat off a 32 or 34, just like I'm happy that they set bb height with 175mm rings. I'll use a 30t for more as and 170mm for more rock clearance, though I'll have to go 165mm now that they're catching on.

Since I don't race or live in the big mountains, I don't need a big range. 30 or 32t with 10-42 is fine.

Yo Mods, can we please merge this thread with the "Is It Mountain Biking When There's No Mountain" thread?

Thanks,
=sParty

I don't have any mountain bikes. I have an enduro bike, a trail bike, a ww bike, a gravel bike, and an xc bike.

 

Yo Mods, can we please merge this thread with the "Is It Mountain Biking When There's No Mountain" thread?

Thanks,
=sParty

 

I like the taller gears for riding to and from the trails and between trail systems, so I don't see myself going down from the 32 tooth chainrings or the 11-34 cassettes I'm currently using on my bikes. Several of my friends ride single speed on the same trails I ride, and I figure if they can climb 2000'-3000' on 30x19 then I shouldn't complain about climbing it on my 32x34.

 

My single speed is 34X20. I asked the frame builder what I should go with and that's what I was told. He has a storied racing career so figured I was good to go.

 

I run either 34 or 36, depending on the time of the year on my XC bike, 32 or 34 on my long travel bike and a 46T on my gravel bike. They all have a 10-52 cassette

 

Honestly, most people racing DH are doing just fine on 32s, 30s even on enduro bikes. Back in the day we thought we needed 44 and even 52 tooth rings, but you lose so much time in turns and then pedaling out of turns, it's really not faster 99.9% of the time. Some pros may run a little bigger than this...but still far cry from the old days with the giant plate-rings up front. There's a lot of the time where 10 out back is too low for me to pedal in between jumps on the downhill. I can turn it...but I don't accelerate as fast as when I turn a little easier gear.

Yeah, makes me want to experiment with the 26t just to see if I ever actually spin it out - currently I find that if I ever shift into the 28x10, I usually shift right back down for the reason you're describing.

I ride in the foothills and mountains of Colorado. I ride anywhere from 30t (fat bike) to 38t (adventure/bikepacking). A default of 32t works fine for me. I rarely feel the need for anything lower on the front if I'm riding with a 50 or 52 in the rear.

I'm also a singlespeeder, so I'm used to just sucking it up standing when necessary. I did a 12 hour race on a singlespeed recently, covering over 109 miles and 12k of climbing. 30/22 ratio, which seems absurd. It wasn't. It was fine. Also, I noticed that I rarely gave up time to most folks on the descents, often catching and passing some or leaving others behind. People pedal in the stupidest places, gaining basically nothing.

Of course, the really fast team guys on gears completely blew by me... It was a day of observing the best etiquette I could, getting out of people's way without causing myself or them to crash or slow way down.

That is kind of an interesting thing - I run 30/20 on my singlespeed and am happy to climb for a hour consecutively - that said, the chainline is always perfect (side note, I wonder what the extent is that chainline effects pedaling efficiency). That said, my background in long-distance running has taught me that spending extended time in zone 3 and 4 is extremely inefficient from a cardio standpoint. My primary focus on the bike is having fun, but I also try to have it not be detrimental from a training standpoint.

 

I like to think of myself as relatively strong, and my bike builds tend to be fairly conscious of weight and rolling resistance, if not especially light. That being the case, I still prefer a 28t oval chainring even with an Eagle cassette, and honestly wouldn't see a huge downside to a 26t. I also know that while cadence is a moving target on a mtb, 80+ RPMs is a sweet spot for endurance.

With any larger of a chainring, I find myself with little in reserve at the bottom of the cassette, and frequently riding uphill with a very bad chainline. Besides for "get stronger", is there something I'm missing about the 32t chainring that is most frequently specced even on very heavy low-end mountain bikes?

For me, it's an age thing. I stick with a 32T for the summer, and in the winter for fat biking, I use a 28T. I used to throw a 34T on the front in the summer for extra cruising speed, but don't even bother.

Then there's the 50T vs 52T rear, I went with 50T on all my wheels, but I could probably use even that little tiny extra bit on the last lap of a race. And I don't even live or ride in mountains. So I'd say age, and where you live are determining factors for best compromise in chainring sizes.

 

I like to think of myself as relatively strong, and my bike builds tend to be fairly conscious of weight and rolling resistance, if not especially light. That being the case, I still prefer a 28t oval chainring even with an Eagle cassette, and honestly wouldn't see a huge downside to a 26t. I also know that while cadence is a moving target on a mtb, 80+ RPMs is a sweet spot for endurance.

With any larger of a chainring, I find myself with little in reserve at the bottom of the cassette, and frequently riding uphill with a very bad chainline. Besides for "get stronger", is there something I'm missing about the 32t chainring that is most frequently specced even on very heavy low-end mountain bikes?

View attachment 2102404

34T is max to clear yoke on my bike, even then only good for 10 cogs on Boost. Because a sideways chain is a waste of watts.

Reposting here my preference, taking your cast off XT triples and fitting a 24T steel standby, a 34T NW in 1x position, and a bash.

Need the bigger ring for speed because 11T rear already wears too quickly. Add a 48T cassette and there's nothing too steep.

Ya'll need that 28T single because of stunted cranks. Longer cranks give leverage and allow lower cadence for lower heart rate in endurance climbing. Mine are 180's. The NW gets most everything done. For no battery downhill trail reverses, that super low gear is fun to try.

 

Nothing in my area is both smooth and steep enough to make less than 30t viable. Phoenix doesn’t have that 15% grade road; winch and plummet where spinning at 90rpm is doable. Sure there’s steep, but it’s ledge-y rocky singletrack tech and it’s over in a short burst. It’s a ‘feature’ not a climb. I’ve ridden a bike with a 28x52 climbing gear and it takes 5 pedal revolutions to get over a suitcase sized obstacle. I hit one pedal twice on the same rock.

Like, I can absolutely see a use for 28 or 26x51 (or 52), Mt Elden rd in Flagstaff (2 hours north of me) is passenger car smooth, but is 7 miles bottom to top, averages something like 10% grade with several pitches above 15%. It’s also at 9k ft ASL. I’ve had to walk parts when climbing it, but I MIGHT ride that road once this year, so less than 32t is silly to me

 

This is a very good point. Clearing short obstacles is better done in a higher gear. "Sometimes it's easier to go faster."

 

I used to have a 32 on my old RF cranks, was fine but never really had a good flat road gear, would burn out or it’d be too light, I switched to a 34 by chance with a deal I got on some stylo cranks, that has a really nice pedalling gear.

 

Since I ride the road to commute with my mtb too, 32 and 34 spin out way too easily. I've never had issues with finding a gear low enough, or thinking that I would be less fatigued if I had a lower gear to take the climbs on some epic. It's quite the opposite for me--I feel granny gears are too torquey and slow moving to ride easily, making me waste more energy to compensate. Extra energy spent going a little faster on climbs has always worked well for me--I didn't miss ditching my granny gear when I went to 2x10, back in the day.

On anything DH, there's so little resistance in the pedals/drivetrain when trying to pedal, that it might feel unsafe to pedal beyond 30 mph. On a hill that some DHers regularly reach the high 40s on, I feel that going over 37 is pushing it, due to how I start to bounce when spinning fast. I rather not suffer the increased pedal kickback of smaller chainrings, either.

My bike's chainstay clearance prevents any larger chainring. There's already some paint chipped there from flex near the chainring.

 

I use a 30 T ring with a 10-51 cassette on my bikes. I don't have many sustained climbs but there are a few 25-30% pitches with good traction. I can do those without dropping to the 51 but that wears Mr out a lot quicker. There's only one road segment where I spin out but that's short enough to not care about.