32:18, 32:16

[PutAwayWet]

The latter being much easier than the former. Just how much easier I found out yesterday. I can't believe what a difference 2 teeth makes. 2:1 vs 1.79:1 doesn't seem like much, but man it really is. I decided to up the gearing to train for a 62 mile SS race, so that when I put the 18 back on for the race I'll feel like Superman. Hopefully it works :) Yesterday I just felt like Superbonk...

[S. cerevisiae]

Going for the "bat-weight" theory from baseball? It'll probably work out. JuSSt remember to get in some fast spinning rides too. Gotta keep up the fast-twitch muscles working.

[plume_mtb]

what race?

[PutAwayWet]

This race (http://www.active.com/event_detail.cfm?event_id=1385512)

[Blatz]

Same experience. started out with a 32:16 on the K Monkey. Switched to an 18 Big difference

[OTBSkinloss]

Or you could drag a parachute behind you for a month or so, before the race. :D

[Jahnov]

I'd been riding 36:18 for a while and just switched to 32:18 too. WOW... I'm working about the same but walking way less on climbs. For me it is THE gear.

[althegud1srtakn]

i've tried 32:18 and went right back to 32:16, i have been thinking of switching my 175s out for some 180s tho...

[Knuckledragger]

On average, a 29er with a 32x16 will travel 62.1" every revolution of the crank. A 26" mb with a 32x16 will travel 55.8" every revolution of the crank. A 29er with a 32x18 will travel approx. 55.2", using much less force to spin the pedals than the 32x16 combo.

[50 Mission Cap]

I'd been riding 36:18 for a while and just switched to 32:18 too. WOW... I'm working about the same but walking way less on climbs. For me it is THE gear.

I agree. 32-18 is great for climbs, and not too bad in the flats. I just did a very hilly course in southern wisconsin, and I did not have to dismount at all. In fact, I muscled up a few hills that the geared guys were failing on.

[mimbresman]

Started with a 32:16 but the chain kept skipping when under a lot of pressure and torque. I switched to a 32:18 and no skipping and its a better all-around gear. And yes, I am able to power through stuff where the [mainly novice] geared guys can't make it.

[althegud1srtakn]

Started with a 32:16 but the chain kept skipping when under a lot of pressure and torque. I switched to a 32:18 and no skipping and its a better all-around gear. And yes, I am able to power through stuff where the [mainly novice] geared guys can't make it.

your chain skips on an ss rig? how do you have your bike set up

[Wazu]

Well I'll tell ya, my Bianchi came with a proprietary WTB32:16 cog but when I received my new Chris King wheelset it came with a 32:18. I told the bike shop to slap the King 18 on as I ordered a new King 32:16 cog. I've been riding like 5 times since and the bike shop keeps leaving messages cause the King 32:16 cog is in. I suppose I'll eventually mozey on down there to pick it up. Maybe when the next Dirt Rag Mag comes out.

[mimbresman]

your chain skips on an ss rig? how do you have your bike set up

A conversion kit with spacers and a chain tensioner. No skipping problems with the 18 cog. Just too much power in my legs! :cool: :rolleyes:

[bfloyd6969]

The latter being much easier than the former. Just how much easier I found out yesterday. I can't believe what a difference 2 teeth makes. 2:1 vs 1.79:1 doesn't seem like much, but man it really is. I decided to up the gearing to train for a 62 mile SS race, so that when I put the 18 back on for the race I'll feel like Superman. Hopefully it works :) Yesterday I just felt like Superbonk...

Are you regarding 26 or 29 in. wheels?

[PutAwayWet]

26"ers....

[pancho]

I don't know about either of those but I know i'm getting rid of my 34:18 asap just did a race in wv and it kicked my a$$. 34:20 here I come!!!!!!

[Marticus]

On average, a 29er with a 32x16 will travel 62.1" every revolution of the crank. A 26" mb with a 32x16 will travel 55.8" every revolution of the crank. A 29er with a 32x18 will travel approx. 55.2", using much less force to spin the pedals than the 32x16 combo.

Yeah, I think we're on to something here. Because the work done is about the same, we're getting more displacement for less force whenever we increase the size of the wheel! Next time I race, I'm showing up with 2900" wheels, pedaling once on a 1:1 and winning the day without so much as a twinge in my legs! What's more, the required elevation with wheels of that size will allow me to see over most of the trees to the finish line before I even start! This is a flawless plan! :D

[dacook]

Yeah, I think we're on to something here. Because the work done is about the same, we're getting more displacement for less force whenever we increase the size of the wheel! Next time I race, I'm showing up with 2900" wheels, pedaling once on a 1:1 and winning the day without so much as a twinge in my legs! What's more, the required elevation with wheels of that size will allow me to see over most of the trees to the finish line before I even start! This is a flawless plan! :D


That's funny.:D

J-I think I'm going with the "Train like you fight, fight like you train" mentality and sticking with my 1.8:1 ratio.

[PutAwayWet]

You know, I don't buy the 'bigger wheel, less force to turn it' thing. I'm no physics genius but to move two equal masses two equal distances should require the same amount of force, regardless of the size of the wheel. Perhaps it keeps rolling better, due to the larger circumference providing more rolling inertia - but then the 26" wheels should accelerate faster, because you have to use less force to spin a smaller wheel...

[dacook]

You know, I don't buy the 'bigger wheel, less force to turn it' thing. I'm no physics genius but to move two equal masses two equal distances should require the same amount of force, regardless of the size of the wheel. Perhaps it keeps rolling better, due to the larger circumference providing more rolling inertia - but then the 26" wheels should accelerate faster, because you have to use less force to spin a smaller wheel...

J-I thought we proved this at HP a year or so ago (the whole 26 w/ 32:18 = 29 w/32:20)

Isn't it all about the gear inches? I think you are correct in your statement, 2 equal masses moving the same distance requires the same amount of force, the circumferance of the rolling portion is different, so to "equalize" them (have the same gear inch or distance traveled per wheel revolution) the gear ratio has to be different. They are inverse, the larger the wheel, the smaller (more teeth in the rear cog) the gearing to equal a smaller wheel and a larger (less teeth in the rear cog) gear.

Sheldon Brown has a good explanation on Gear inches, but in my gear inch calculations:
26 w/ 32:18 = 46.1 gear inches
29 w/32:20 =46.6 gear inches

This does assume the same crank arm length, which I am using 180 over the usual 175, but I just hit more rocks (and have to get more RA#'s from Crank Bros.).

We are not equal in mass, although I know you are trying to catch me!:D

[nogearshere]

your plan is very sound. particularly when the elevation an terrain are similar. you might even consider a 17...that was my favorite 26" gear and i trained on 16. the 'softer' gear and added rush of competition really do a number on your legs.

does the 29/26 debate really have to show its ugly head in these forums? i mean isnt there another place (http://forums.mtbr.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61) for that? bottom line, your bike doesnt mean squat if you dont look good doing it...

[PutAwayWet]

does the 29/26 debate really have to show its ugly head in these forums? i mean isnt there another place (http://forums.mtbr.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61) for that? bottom line, your bike doesnt mean squat if you dont look good doing it...

Listen here, you prima dona. I look awful doing just about everything I do. Except when I'm wearing that sexy black Misfit Psycles t-shirt. Let me have some comfort in knowing I can out-awful just about anyone on trail.

[OneGearEnuff]

I switched from a 32:16 to a 32:17 and it even made a great difference in steeps for me. In flat courses the 32:16 is great because of all of the momentum but the steep climbing could get really painful on 30+ mile rides and the 17 saved me so much.
I don't like the 18 because, as a power rider (5' 11" - 173 lbs) with big quads, hammies and glutes, I start feeling sort of weakened by the 18 and on rolling ridge trails it doesn't work out as well and I spin out too easily.
Hope the 18 worked well for you.

[Blatz]

Why all the paralysis by Analysis. Ride what works best for you

[nogearshere]

Why all the paralysis by Analysis. Ride what works best for you

its a single speed.
if you didnt obsess over ratios and wheels what would be left...

i cant weigh fun.

[justageek]

its a single speed.
if you didnt obsess over ratios and wheels what would be left...

i cant weigh fun.

We can still worry about weight? I saved 3/4 of a gram by using a smaller chainring!