Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.

My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
34 50 39 53
13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3

To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?

I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.

Cheers

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 5:01:16 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.
>
> My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
> 34 50 39 53
> 13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
> 15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
> 17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
> 19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
> 21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
> 24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3
>
> To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?
>
> I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.
>
> Cheers
I always need a bail out gear and that is 34-28. I a standard double I would want a 30 rear. That is jus me I like to spin don't want to get off and walk.
Deacon Mark

On 9/4/2021 6:01 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.
>
> My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
> 34 50 39 53
> 13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
> 15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
> 17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
> 19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
> 21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
> 24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3
>
> To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?
>
> I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.

Well, you know how you ride. With half step, I pick a cog and adjust via
the half step chainrings if needed. With a 9 speed triple, I pick a
chainring and adjust via the rear cogs. I do like to know where the next
lowest or highest gear is. I'd have trouble with either scheme, having
to switch between chainrings PLUS shift two cogs to get a slightly lower
gear.

I wonder if the choices you showed are the only choices available.

Personally, I might prefer a wider freewheel, say 13 to 26 or 28. (I
could use the low gear.) And I might look into what other chainrings
could fit to give more non-duplicate gears.

Lots of personal preference at work here. Not to mention trial and error.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 8:11:58 p.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 6:01 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.
> >
> > My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
> > 34 50 39 53
> > 13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
> > 15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
> > 17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
> > 19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
> > 21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
> > 24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3
> >
> > To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?
> >
> > I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.
> Well, you know how you ride. With half step, I pick a cog and adjust via
> the half step chainrings if needed. With a 9 speed triple, I pick a
> chainring and adjust via the rear cogs. I do like to know where the next
> lowest or highest gear is. I'd have trouble with either scheme, having
> to switch between chainrings PLUS shift two cogs to get a slightly lower
> gear.
>
> I wonder if the choices you showed are the only choices available.
>
> Personally, I might prefer a wider freewheel, say 13 to 26 or 28. (I
> could use the low gear.) And I might look into what other chainrings
> could fit to give more non-duplicate gears.
>
> Lots of personal preference at work here. Not to mention trial and error.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

All I'm asking is which of those two setups has the best shifting pattern. I'm not interested at all in other combinations.

Cheers

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 6:01:16 p.m. UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.
>
> My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
> 34 50 39 53
> 13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
> 15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
> 17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
> 19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
> 21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
> 24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3
>
> To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?
>
> I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.
>
> Cheers

ACK! The spaces between the numbers were removed for whatever reason.

Let's try it again with dashes and underscores.

34-------------50----------39---------53
13 69.0___101.5___79.1____107.5
15 59.8____87.9___68.6_____93.2
17 52.8____77.6___60.5_____82.2
19 47.2____66.4___54.1_____73.6
21 42.7____62.8___49.0_____66.6
24 37.4____55.0___42.9_____58.3

Hopefully those will allow the data to be posted in columns.

Cheers

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 7:54:41 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 6:01:16 p.m. UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.
> >
> > My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
> > 34 50 39 53
> > 13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
> > 15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
> > 17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
> > 19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
> > 21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
> > 24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3
> >
> > To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?
> >
> > I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.
> >
> > Cheers
> ACK! The spaces between the numbers were removed for whatever reason.
>
> Let's try it again with dashes and underscores.
>
> 34-------------50----------39---------53
> 13 69.0___101.5___79.1____107.5
> 15 59.8____87.9___68.6_____93.2
> 17 52.8____77.6___60.5_____82.2
> 19 47.2____66.4___54.1_____73.6
> 21 42.7____62.8___49.0_____66.6
> 24 37.4____55.0___42.9_____58.3
>
> Hopefully those will allow the data to be posted in columns.
>
> Cheers

To be honest, the shifting pattern is identical with this particular freewheel (13-15-17-19-21-24) and either of your chainring choices (53-39 or 50-34). With either chainring option, you shift down through the first four cogs and then shift to the inner ring and shift the freewheel two cogs. The jumps between cogs is close enough to not matter. 1-2 gear inch differences between the ring combos. Your real choice is how high you want your top gear to start and how low of a small gear you want. You get a little lower on both the high and low gears if you go with the 50-34 rings. Or a little higher on both the high and low with the 53-39 rings. How old and decrepit are you? How fast and swift are you? Answer those two questions and then you will know which chainring combo to get.

On 9/4/2021 8:45 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 8:11:58 p.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/4/2021 6:01 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> Just playing with some possible combinations of cranksets and 6-speed freewheels I have.
>>>
>>> My freewheels are 13-15-17-19-21-24 and the possible choice of chainrings are either a compact 34-50 or a 39-53
>>> 34 50 39 53
>>> 13 69.0 101.5 79.1 107.5
>>> 15 59.8 87.9 68.6 93.2
>>> 17 52.8 77.6 60.5 82.2
>>> 19 47.2 66.4 54.1 73.6
>>> 21 42.7 62.8 49.0 66.6
>>> 24 37.4 55.0 42.9 58.3
>>>
>>> To me it looks like the 39-53 combo has the better shifting pattern although not as low a gear as the 34-50.Does that sound reasonable to any of you?
>>>
>>> I don't care about the lowest gear if it comes at the expense of having a poor shifting pattern.
>> Well, you know how you ride. With half step, I pick a cog and adjust via
>> the half step chainrings if needed. With a 9 speed triple, I pick a
>> chainring and adjust via the rear cogs. I do like to know where the next
>> lowest or highest gear is. I'd have trouble with either scheme, having
>> to switch between chainrings PLUS shift two cogs to get a slightly lower
>> gear.
>>
>> I wonder if the choices you showed are the only choices available.
>>
>> Personally, I might prefer a wider freewheel, say 13 to 26 or 28. (I
>> could use the low gear.) And I might look into what other chainrings
>> could fit to give more non-duplicate gears.
>>
>> Lots of personal preference at work here. Not to mention trial and error.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> All I'm asking is which of those two setups has the best shifting pattern. I'm not interested at all in other combinations.

Seems like the "pattern" is about the same. I wouldn't like either one.
But you know how you ride.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I have settled upon a 34 - 50 compact crankset and a 26 - 12 cassette, which I really like even though it requires a double shift when changing chainrings and has a repeat gear or two, because of the smooth gear progression in each 'ring. My granny gear is about 35 inches, my top gear about 112, and I never really use the gears above 90 or so because I'm too freakin' weak!

"...and I never really use the gears above 90 or so because I'm too freakin' weak!"

On second thought, maybe I can't use those big gears because, as a former Berkeley hippie in good standing, I'm a weakened freak! Take your choice. They both roll off the tongue nicely.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:40:01 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> "...and I never really use the gears above 90 or so because I'm too freakin' weak!"
>
> On second thought, maybe I can't use those big gears because, as a former Berkeley hippie in good standing, I'm a weakened freak! Take your choice. They both roll off the tongue nicely.
You're no different than most sports riders. If you live in the bay area and climb hills with gearing like that you are stronger than most.