Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    You won't take me alive
    Reputation: seachicken11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    75

    11/32 or 11/34 ???

    What are the benefits????

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    662
    Im interested, too. But Im pretty much settled on 11-34. It seems to have become the new standard.

    Whats interesting is that some say that by going 11-34, it doesnt "force" a rider to become stronger.

  3. #3
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by seachicken11
    What are the benefits????
    The benefit of 11/34 is that you get an easier granny to get you up steep stuff. The disadvantage is your spacing is further apart between each gear.

    The benefit of 11/32 is that your spacing is closer together so there isn't a big leap from gear to gear.

    I put 11/34s on all my bikes as I ride in steep terrain with climbs that never seem to end and I need the little bit of help a 34 tooth gives me over a 32. If you ride all the time you'll find yourself not using the 34 except on really steep terrain, so I don't buy the logic of keeps someone from getting strong. If you ride a lot you'll get stronger.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,209
    I just recently switched to 11-34 from 11-32 and so far I like it. I kinda thought I'd miss the 32 cog in back (it jumps from 30-34), but so far I haven't. I've found that I can leave it in the middle ring longer which is what I wanted. I was afraid it would be more trouble/finicky shifting up onto the bigger cog but it wasn't even an issue. Didn't even have to readjust the derailleur.

    I've got a couple of stupid steep, long climbs up in the high hills that won't be open until May that I'm looking forward to using the 34 on aslo. I can do them most of the time once I get in top shape... but just barely and one takes two or three rests and they always kill. I'm getting old enough that proving I can do it with a 32 cog isn't that important.

  5. #5
    Do It Yourself
    Reputation: Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by seachicken11
    What are the benefits????
    Go with the 11-34. If you can get away with 11-32 you might as well upgrade to 8-speed. The 34T is the only possible advantage 9 speed has over 8.
    Long Live Long Rides

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    662
    OK, heres a new question on the subject, centered arounf the claim that I can stay in the middle ring longer.

    Its clear this is true. But by staying in the middle ring longer, wouldnt you then be running an extreme chainline more of the time and therefore be increasing wear and tear on components?

  7. #7
    ride hard take risks
    Reputation: dogonfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    25,589
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedThrills
    OK, heres a new question on the subject, centered arounf the claim that I can stay in the middle ring longer.

    Its clear this is true. But by staying in the middle ring longer, wouldnt you then be running an extreme chainline more of the time and therefore be increasing wear and tear on components?
    The drive line is under a great load, alot of people recomend replacing chains like 1-2 per year, sprockets & cogs 1 per year. I run a 22-32 & 11-34, front sprockets are 2 years old & look good, cog is 2 years old & looks good, chain is 1 1/4 years old might get a new on for spring. Either im a tender foot or just lucky .

  8. #8
    The devil is an angel too
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,326
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedThrills
    OK, heres a new question on the subject, centered arounf the claim that I can stay in the middle ring longer.

    Its clear this is true. But by staying in the middle ring longer, wouldnt you then be running an extreme chainline more of the time and therefore be increasing wear and tear on components?
    Well, yes, in theory. A 32-34 combo gives you a ratio of .94, to get a similar ratio with the granny ring -22T standard- you'd be running a 22-24 or so combo -for the sake of simplicity, I'm sticking to gear ratios, rather than gear inches.

    A 22-24 combo will give you a "extreme" chainline as much as a 32-34 one. So I don't think that the increased wear is going to be signifficant.

    Now, about 8spd set ups. The reason behind 9spd is not only so you can have a bigger spread -11 to 34 instead of 11 to 32- but also to give you more closely spaced cogs. By having more gears to select from, you are more likely to find the "ideal" gear at any given time. Is like putting more gears on a car, it is not give you a lower or higher top gear, is so you can more efficiently use the engine output. And you know who the engine is on a bike
    Not to downplay the "benefits" of 8 spd, or to argue about the real world necesity of a 9th speed, but, i t does go beyond having a lower gear.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenK
    Well, yes, in theory. A 32-34 combo gives you a ratio of .94, to get a similar ratio with the granny ring -22T standard- you'd be running a 22-24 or so combo -for the sake of simplicity, I'm sticking to gear ratios, rather than gear inches.

    A 22-24 combo will give you a "extreme" chainline as much as a 32-34 one. So I don't think that the increased wear is going to be signifficant.

    Now, about 8spd set ups. The reason behind 9spd is not only so you can have a bigger spread -11 to 34 instead of 11 to 32- but also to give you more closely spaced cogs. By having more gears to select from, you are more likely to find the "ideal" gear at any given time. Is like putting more gears on a car, it is not give you a lower or higher top gear, is so you can more efficiently use the engine output. And you know who the engine is on a bike
    Not to downplay the "benefits" of 8 spd, or to argue about the real world necesity of a 9th speed, but, i t does go beyond having a lower gear.
    I did a bit of reasearch on this...looking at what the ratios are compared to an 11-32. Ive found that often, matching my ratios from what I had on 11-32 would mean I go further IN (down) the 11-34 cassette to match a ratio I had on an 11-32 and would run a BETTER chainline more of the time. Youre actually in the center of the cassette more often with 11-34.

    So much for my theory (thankfully)......Im goin' 11-34.
    Last edited by RkFast; 01-17-2006 at 12:14 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,209
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenK
    The reason behind 9spd is not only so you can have a bigger spread -11 to 34 instead of 11 to 32- but also to give you more closely spaced cogs.
    If this is true, why doesn't someone make a cassette with closer spaced lower (bigger)cogs? I'd love to have the lowest four go 28-30-32-34. I'd get a lot more use out of that, than the closely spaced higher (smaller) cogs.

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,303
    In 22+ years of mtbing I have never found the need for a gear lower than 24 x 32. My favorite setup used a 28 x 34 low.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    Do It Yourself
    Reputation: Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedThrills
    OK, heres a new question on the subject, centered arounf the claim that I can stay in the middle ring longer.

    Its clear this is true. But by staying in the middle ring longer, wouldnt you then be running an extreme chainline more of the time and therefore be increasing wear and tear on components?
    It is more extreme chainline but also distributes the load over more teeth. I've never found it to be a problem.
    Long Live Long Rides

  13. #13
    ride hard take risks
    Reputation: dogonfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    25,589
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob
    If this is true, why doesn't someone make a cassette with closer spaced lower (bigger)cogs? I'd love to have the lowest four go 28-30-32-34. I'd get a lot more use out of that, than the closely spaced higher (smaller) cogs.
    Politics

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    In 22+ years of mtbing I have never found the need for a gear lower than 24 x 32. My favorite setup used a 28 x 34 low.
    nice. i figure you're younger and stronger than some of us here. i like 22x34 on some of the wicked climbs i encounter.

    [size=1]
    - Giant NRS Composite - Giant XTC2 - Giant TCRCzero - Giant OCR1 -
    [/size]
    [size=1]- nothing stock here - move right along now -
    - Geelong area, Australia -
    [/size]

  15. #15
    ride hard take risks
    Reputation: dogonfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    25,589
    Quote Originally Posted by shiny_car
    nice. i figure you're younger and stronger than some of us here. i like 22x34 on some of the wicked climbs i encounter.

    He's up their with the rest of us old guys he just rides strange bikes & alot longer consistantly then some of us. Alot of time in the saddle .

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    In 22+ years of mtbing I have never found the need for a gear lower than 24 x 32. My favorite setup used a 28 x 34 low.
    I was ok with 22 x 27 low but have gone back to MTB cassettes now which makes the 22t granny a bit pointless. I would probably like a 28 x 34 low as well but isn't a 29t ring the smallest you can go on a 94 mm BCD?

  17. #17
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,303
    Quote Originally Posted by shiny_car
    nice. i figure you're younger and stronger than some of us here. i like 22x34 on some of the wicked climbs i encounter.

    Ike was president (2nd term) when I was born.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  18. #18
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,303
    Quote Originally Posted by eurorider
    I was ok with 22 x 27 low but have gone back to MTB cassettes now which makes the 22t granny a bit pointless. I would probably like a 28 x 34 low as well but isn't a 29t ring the smallest you can go on a 94 mm BCD?
    I used a 28t inner ring on a 110/74 BCD crank, with a 44t or 45t in the middle position.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I used a 28t inner ring on a 110/74 BCD crank, with a 44t or 45t in the middle position.
    Oh ok. You would have needed a longer bb then if you wanted the 2 rings centered on the cassette. Or did you not bother?

    I've always thought 42t is large enough for a big ring though. Even Sauser runs a 42t and that's with a 12 -34 cassette. But I guess if you are bombing mountains...

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,303
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob
    If this is true, why doesn't someone make a cassette with closer spaced lower (bigger)cogs? I'd love to have the lowest four go 28-30-32-34. I'd get a lot more use out of that, than the closely spaced higher (smaller) cogs.
    When you could still build your own gear combos I used bigger gaps between the big cogs and tighter on the small cogs. The percent of difference between the # of teeth remained fairly constant.

    I think a 12-13-15-19-23-28-34 was what I commonly used.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,303
    Quote Originally Posted by eurorider
    Oh ok. You would have needed a longer bb then if you wanted the 2 rings centered on the cassette. Or did you not bother?

    I've always thought 42t is large enough for a big ring though. Even Sauser runs a 42t and that's with a 12 -34 cassette. But I guess if you are bombing mountains...
    I used whatever spindle length was needed. Every crank required something different at the time. Still tended to run the chainline based on the middle ring as I only used the inner ring with the 2-3 largest cogs.

    My high was a 45x12. Considered low at the time. You saw lots of 48 and 50t rings with a 12 or 13 small cog.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  22. #22
    Carpe Noctem
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    311
    When I used to race the course for at least two of the races and usually more started with 8 miles of climbing, some prety steep. I wouldn't use anything less than 12-34 and at the end of the season my granny would be shiny and unused. If you climb get the 34. Speaking of racing has anyone tried super d?
    Off season? What off season?

  23. #23
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,409

    Gotta Love The 50T Stock Big Ring!

    One of my XT 732 cranks came with a stock setup of 50-36-24.

    That 50-12 combo made for some fast fireroad runs to and from trails.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,882

    exactly what I'm thinking

    Quote Originally Posted by KRob
    If this is true, why doesn't someone make a cassette with closer spaced lower (bigger)cogs? I'd love to have the lowest four go 28-30-32-34. I'd get a lot more use out of that, than the closely spaced higher (smaller) cogs.
    I just posted on another thread here about how I like the 32-28-24 spacing of the 8 speed cassettes I have on two of my bikes as opposed to the 34-30-26 of my 9 speed ride. The gear spacing you suggest would be perfect for me given the steep sh!t I ride. It seems I'm always climbing climbing, which I actually love, and the extra close ratios in the upper range would benefit me more than 11-12-13 etc. I still wouldn't go into that 34 much unless it was at the end of a long ride with a killer climb to get back to my truck.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    43
    The reason I went to 11-34 was so that I could run some bigger rings on the front and get some more high end speed, while still maintaining a nice low range.

    I did upgrade from an 8 speed cassette with 11-30 at the rear and 22-32-44 at the front, so running a 34-46 up front and 11-34 at the rear gave me a slightly easier gear low down and a slightly higher top end than what I was used to on my 8 speed gear. Dropped the granny ring altogether....

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •