Gear Ratio to wheel travel- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    www.justthebonnet.com
    Reputation: Capt_phun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,475

    Gear Ratio to wheel travel

    Ok maybe I'm dumb (probably) but if I run 32:16 and 34:17 it is still a 2:1 gear ratio. But this is my question is the travel of the bike, ie. distance on the ground I move in one pedal revolution the same? I know this is a newbie question, but hey I'm burnt so work withme here. Cause if it isn't then it would reason to make sense to run 34:17 versus 32:16 or is it easier on 32:16.
    Ok simplify the question, why would one run 34:17 versus 32:16?
    thanks
    the capt.

  2. #2
    hand me the dice
    Reputation: TryAndStopMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt_phun
    Ok maybe I'm dumb (probably) but if I run 32:16 and 34:17 it is still a 2:1 gear ratio. But this is my question is the travel of the bike, ie. distance on the ground I move in one pedal revolution the same? I know this is a newbie question, but hey I'm burnt so work withme here. Cause if it isn't then it would reason to make sense to run 34:17 versus 32:16 or is it easier on 32:16.
    Ok simplify the question, why would one run 34:17 versus 32:16?
    thanks
    the capt.
    the gear inch, ratio and travel is the same for those 2 configurations. the only reason for running the 34:17 would be that it wouldn't wear as fast as the 32:16.

    there's a nifty java gear calculator at chainrings.com
    "pain is only a pulse...if you just stop feeling it"

  3. #3
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,650

    Same-o, same-o

    Quote Originally Posted by Capt_phun
    Ok simplify the question, why would one run 34:17 versus 32:16? thanks the capt.
    The gear ratio is the same, therefore the distance traveled will be the same.

    One good reason to use a larger ring and larger cog is that the larger equipment will wear ever so slightly slower. Chains, cogs and rings are expensive. Alternately, the larger equipment weights ever so slightly more.

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gearless Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6

    Not al 2:1 are the same

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    The gear ratio is the same, therefore the distance traveled will be the same.

    One good reason to use a larger ring and larger cog is that the larger equipment will wear ever so slightly slower. Chains, cogs and rings are expensive. Alternately, the larger equipment weights ever so slightly more.

    --Sparty
    It's a bugger of a math problem, but low and behold there are mechnical advantages to running a larger 2:1 than a smaller one (i.e 40:20 vs. 32:16). It has to do with the distance of the drive and lever arm from the point of rotation (BB spindle). Ask any mechanical engineering prof and he could probably explain it better than I. In practice the improved output (watts) from the same input (pedal stroke power) using a larger 2:1 is probably negated by the increased weight of the larger rings and longer chain. Dave

  5. #5
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Gearless Dave
    It's a bugger of a math problem, but low and behold there are mechnical advantages to running a larger 2:1 than a smaller one (i.e 40:20 vs. 32:16). It has to do with the distance of the drive and lever arm from the point of rotation (BB spindle). Ask any mechanical engineering prof and he could probably explain it better than I. In practice the improved output (watts) from the same input (pedal stroke power) using a larger 2:1 is probably negated by the increased weight of the larger rings and longer chain. Dave
    2:1 is 2:1. The only "mechanical advantage" of the larger 2:1 is that it is slightly more efficient (and some can even tell the difference in terms of smoother pedaling). You will require very slightly less effort to go a given distance, but it will still take the same number of crank revolutions to achieve that distance.

    - Dan

  6. #6
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,650
    Quote:
    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Gearless Dave
    It's a bugger of a math problem, but low and behold there are mechnical advantages to running a larger 2:1 than a smaller one (i.e 40:20 vs. 32:16). It has to do with the distance of the drive and lever arm from the point of rotation (BB spindle). Ask any mechanical engineering prof and he could probably explain it better than I. In practice the improved output (watts) from the same input (pedal stroke power) using a larger 2:1 is probably negated by the increased weight of the larger rings and longer chain. Dave </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    2:1 is 2:1. The only "mechanical advantage" of the larger 2:1 is that it is slightly more efficient (and some can even tell the difference in terms of smoother pedaling). You will require very slightly less effort to go a given distance, but it will still take the same number of crank revolutions to achieve that distance.

    - Dan
    I wonder if you guys are saying the same thing.

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

Similar Threads

  1. New 24/3.0's!
    By Darknut in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-23-2004, 11:17 AM
  2. How much travel does your fork really get?
    By Structure in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-14-2004, 07:02 PM
  3. disc + freewheel + fixed gear?
    By qtip in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-13-2004, 08:04 PM
  4. HTML/VbCode test thread: View at your own risk!
    By FireDog46 in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-03-2004, 10:27 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 12:09 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.