53-39T vs. 52-39T

What's the difference really between these two? Besides the obvious of about one gear inch.

I'm considering switching out my current compact crankset... 50-34T Ultegra Sl & a 12-25 cassette on the back at present.

I'm experiencing the same problem first hand I have read about others having here sometimes... finding a happy spinning gear with the compact. Versus my old ride had a triple 50-39-30T & 12-27 cassette. Used the 30 once. 50 rarely. Mostly all the 39 ring. Well, I think my legs are missing that 39 ring:(.

So... on the compact, I've ridden the 50 all the time to feel like I'm "getting anywhere". The 34 ring is just frustrating... "getting no where fast" is best I can describe it.

I'm just not sure if the full 53 ring will be too much for me? I didn't even know Shimano made a 52... it's available in my Ultegra sl gruppo.

Does anyone own this? Can you tell the diff? I've never pushed a 53 first hand. I think I could do it. Just don't want it to be too hard on the knees either. Btw, midwest local here... no CO mts to climb or anything.

Just trying to decide what's best?:confused:

TYIA:).

EDIT ADD: I should also say that there has been a couple times when I have run outta gears with the 50-34T: 1) descending, 2) sprinting standing. FWIW.

I have had both a 52 and 53 chain ring on my bike and did not notice the one gear difference. I also had a 50/39/30 on my Ruby and absolutely hated it. I was definitely missing the bigger chain ring and swapped it out for a 52. If you think the 50 was too much for you, you won't like the 52 or 53. Do they make a 50/39? That would probably be a better option for you.

It's 53 x what that's the question.

Your tallest gear will be taller. But gear by gear, they'll just be different. First thing I'd do if I were you is look at a gearing chart, figure out which gears give you the most trouble (e.g., when you're in your 50, do you wish you had a 16-1/2 in back), then find a gear combination that will give you a happy cadence at a happy speed.

I think if I were you, I'd put a 39 in front in place of the 34, and go back to the 12-27 (or 11-27 if you want a taller high gear). But before doing that I'd figure out how many of the low gears, that you do use, you'll be losing.

You don't have to swap out the whole crankset. Since you said you don't really use the 50 that much, why not try swapping out the 34 for a 36 or 38 and leave the 50 alone.

I found the 34 w/ 12-15 (700c wheels) annoying and swapped for a 36. I didn't want to go bigger because I do have some hills where I get in my biggest cog.

There's nothing wrong with running 50/38 up front w/ only a 12 tooth difference. 'Cross bikes often come with just a 8 tooth difference (46/38 is common).

Cost would be less than $30-40.

http://www.amazon.com/FSA-Road-110mm...7804090&sr=1-2

Thx for the replies.

I asked the lbs about just getting a 39 ring with the current 50 and the bolt pattern /sizing is not the same. It will not fit. Thx for the link that's posted... but has same issue... states will only work w/52 ring.

Hmmm... now I wondering what gear people normally spin in now?:confused:

It was on my OLD bike that I never used the 50 ring. I used the 39 to spin.

On my CURRENT bike... I am riding the 50 ring all the time... just my cadence is not up to spinning speed. The 34 ring is fine for cadence... but not enough speed (getting no where fast).

So, do most people spin in their big 52 or 53 rings then?:confused:

I'm kinda thinking my guy buddy spins in his 39? Unless really cranking it out big time for a specific purpose etc.

I asked the shop mechanic this today... which ring he spins in (read this post earlier before shop trip, but no time to reply)... and he said "it depends". OK, I can see that. Oh... he also had the same comment that he could not tell the diff between a 52 or 53.

I spend 90% of my time in my 52 ring. I only shift to the 39 when am climbing. I think it is just a matter of personal preference and what is the most efficient gear for your speed and cadence.

On the flats, most people I know with compacts spend most of their time in their big ring.

I've got a triple. When I had a standard double (53/42) I was in the 42 most of the time. And my legs were stronger then... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miranda

Thx for the replies.

I asked the lbs about just getting a 39 ring with the current 50 and the bolt pattern /sizing is not the same. It will not fit. Thx for the link that's posted... but has same issue... states will only work w/52 ring.

---

You can use the 38 with a 50. You don't have to use it with a 52; that's just a suggestion (a 14 tooth jump is typical of a road setup). They make all those various chainrings so people can pick what combo they want. Running a 50/38 means you'll have less of a jump between gears when you go between chainrings. SRSLY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miranda

the bolt pattern /sizing is not the same. It will not fit. Thx for the link that's posted... but has same issue... states will only work w/52 ring.

---

110 mm, 5 bolt pattern? Don't they use the same bolts? If 50/34 isn't too big a jump then 52/38 shouldn't be either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

110 mm, 5 bolt pattern? Don't they use the same bolts? If 50/34 isn't too big a jump then 52/38 shouldn't be either?

---

I think it suggested a 52 because a 14 tooth difference is typical for a road setup.

The 50/34 compact has a 16 T difference, which is about the max a FD can handle. I found the difference too big because I'd have to switch a bunch of cogs when I switched chainrings, so went to a 36. If I lived somewhere where I really needed the 34 and didn't need top-end speed, I'd probably have switched to a 48 with a 48/34 setup.

Another nice think about a compact setup is that if you switch out your cassette to get the same range of gears as you had with a regular (e.g., 53/39) you'll use a small, more tightly spaced and lighter cassette. And smaller chainrings weigh less, too.