46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[Call Me Jay]

It looks like 46-30 cranks are a favorable of RBW owners (I've reviewed the group archive).  I'm interested in getting the insight of folks that are using them in moderately hilly terrain on an unloaded road bike.  I live in northern Connecticut and occasionally

do mixed surface rides but bike isn't a "gravel bike"---second hand short reach custom road with 11-30 cassette and 700x30 tires.  Is it worth a swap from a 50-34?  Should I just toughen up and join Zwift? While most of my road riding is solo or with my young kids, will I be under geared on casual club rides?  Will the less aggressive gearing be too much overlap with other bikes in my Riv stash---Homer with a triple; Legolas on order that I'm planning on specing with a 46-28 as a pure dirt road/CX bike?

[Garth]

Favorable by some(like those who write about it), far from all, like those all who don't bother writing about it since their setup works just fine and give it no thought, whatever that happens to be :)  Statistics and votes and counts could never account for the whole story .....

Worth it ?  Meaning a new crank and/or new changing rings ?  A larger cassette and chain may be simpler if it can work with your current RD.  '
Worth it, as in I'd rather spend my money elsewhere, or I want to spend just because ..... ?  
Worth it ? As in am I not able to pedal up certain hills and I don't really like that ?  Is that big deal if that really happened, or maybe I'm just afraid of 'what if it might' ? 

[Patrick Moore]

If you are asking if a 46/30 will give you sufficient range or close enough gaps, that's something only you can decided. What do you find wrong with the gearing you have? At any rate, it's hard to see how you'll be undergeared at about 113 gear inches.

OTOH, you might be able to adjust your cassette from the 11-30 to something like a 12-34 and get the same range with the 50/30. Generally, it's cheaper and easier to swap cogs or even cassettes than cranksets. Miche (QBP?) sells individual cogs for many different sorts of cassettes.

I assume that you are shifting the 11-30 with a long cage rear derailleur that should be able to handle a 34 t cog.

At any rate, as with most things, you will want to identify particular problems to be fixed, then arrange the particular changes to fix them. Doing things "in general" is likely to result in more problems and wasted money.

FWIW, I used a 44/30 pulling a 14-23 7 speed on my former Ram which was fine for hilly, not mountainous, terrain. For purely aesthetic purposes I swapped this drivetrain for a very pretty Dura Ace 7410 crankset 52/38, 130 bcd) pulling a (IIRC) 16-29 9 speed cogset which gave me much the same range and jumps.

Right now, , my only multispeed bike is a "sort of gravel bike" with a 42/28 and a 14-27 10-speed cassette -- 29" wheels; or it will be if and whenever the parts ever arrive from QBP. Range about 87" to 30" with small gaps.

Happy new year, all.

Patrick Moore

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Call Me Jay <callme...@mac.com> wrote:

It looks like 46-30 cranks are a favorable of RBW owners (I've reviewed the group archive).  I'm interested in getting the insight of folks that are using them in moderately hilly terrain on an unloaded road bike.  I live in northern Connecticut and occasionally

do mixed surface rides but bike isn't a "gravel bike"---second hand short reach custom road with 11-30 cassette and 700x30 tires.  Is it worth a swap from a 50-34?  Should I just toughen up and join Zwift? While most of my road riding is solo or with my young kids, will I be under geared on casual club rides?  Will the less aggressive gearing be too much overlap with other bikes in my Riv stash---Homer with a triple; Legolas on order that I'm planning on specing with a 46-28 as a pure dirt road/CX bike?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

****************************************************************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The cross stands motionless while the world revolves.) Carthusian motto

It is we who change; He remains the same. Eckhart

Kinei hos eromenon. (It moves [all things] as the beloved.) Aristotle

[Joe Bernard]

I don't think the gearing overlap with other bikes is an issue. You're likely to ride the same roads on the custom as the AHH; but on a lighter, unloaded bike; so the difference will be in the frame/tires/load. I long ago lost any romance for "road bike gearing" which made the hills around here too miserable to climb.

The one unanswerable are club rides, which can get competitive no matter how "casual" they're intended to be. I use a 46 big ring on my Appaloosa, but I only ride solo and feel no pressing need to make a fast descent faster by pedaling through the top gear. You'll need to do a mental checklist of how often you're pushing a close-to-top gear now on those club rides, then decide if you think dropping 4 teeth in front will keep you in the range needed.

[ted]

It may help to think about how what you have that matches what you are considering feels.

A 46x11 high gear will be the same as the 50x12 that you probably currently have as a 2nd highest gear. Is that high enough for you?

A 30x30 low gear would, of course, be one to one. Do you have a one to one combination on another bike? E.g. does your Homer have a 24t small ring and a 24 tooth cog. Does that one to one gear on another bike seem low enough to you?

Going from a 50x34 crank to a 46x30 will basically cost you one gear on the high end, and get you one more gear at the low end. Is that trade off worth it to you?

An alternative way of getting something similar would be an IRD 9sp 12-34 cassette, though the rather large 6t step from the 28 to the 34 may be bigger than you want.

[Bill M.]

What about the 50/34 does not suit your needs?

For me, a 50/34 left me riding cross-chained too often.  I have since used 46/30, 44/28 and 42/26 combinations that let me run on the big ring in the middle of the cassette most of the time, with the small ring as a bail out when I have to climb something steepish.  That works much better for me.  

My rule of thumb: IIRC Eddie Merckx rode a 52 x 14 gear to set his hour record - 100 inches spinning 100 RPM for 30 MPH. My current 'sportiest' bike runs 44/28 x 12-28 for a 99 inch top gear.  Your proposed 46 x 11 = 113 inches is probably plenty (!) for most "casual" rides.  

Top gear doesn't matter much to me.  When I was able to ride much more aggressively, I had a Calfee with Campy, and to get a low enough bottom gear for our steepest hills I was stuck with 50/34 x 13-29 gearing (didn't want to spend the $ to go to 11 speed just to get a 12 on top).  I did spin out of that 104 inch top gear once in a while on descents, but at that speed I would just tuck and coast and didn't really lose ground on the group.  I hated the 50/34 combo on the flats.

Bill

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Call Me Jay wrote:

[lum gim fong]

If you can't push a 50-36 and keep up in club rides you're going to have to train in order to do it. If you're not the kind of person to train then:

XD2 triple you can go anywhere. 26-36-46
13-30 in back
or 13-32 ormore teeth.

If you're worried about club rides, they say that pedaling over 22 mph is futile. Because of wind resistance. Better to tuck and coast down hill.

[ted]

"If you're worried about club rides, they say that pedaling  over 22 mph is futile. Because of wind resistance. Better to tuck and coast down hill."

Form my personal experience with racing oriented club rides "they" are wrong, at least in the context of fast club riding. Groups like that routinely roll along at 22+ with lots of drafting going on. If you have the fitness to keep up but are constantly spinning out (or close to it) you are going to benefit from a taller gear.

[lum gim fong]

Yes they could very well be wrong. That info was just for going downhill. I didn't explain Goodnuf.

Sounds like only 4 issues here:
1. Can he keep up on club ride with whatever crankset he's going to use?
2. If he can't keep up he's going to have to train to keep up. Is he willing to train for that?
3. You can go fast on any crankset the only issue is spinning out if his concern is keeping up on club rides going that fast not spinning out.
4. Overlap with other bikes.

These first 3 questions can only be answered by the OP. There are some clubs that have group rides are depending on average speeds. So the OP could sign up for the speed group he is in then he could keep up with whatever crankset he happens to be using.

The only other alternative is the train for speed to keep up with whoever it is he's trying to keep up with and whatever crankset he's going to be using on his bike.

I wouldn't worry about overlap on other bikes because one can only ride one bike at a time. So even if the gearing is the same on every bike, if it's the right gearing that is the riight gearing for that bike.

[Benz, Sunnyvale, CA]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:31:18 AM UTC-8, lum gim fong wrote:

 If you're worried about club rides, they say that pedaling  over 22 mph is futile. Because of wind resistance. Better to tuck and coast down hill.

I believe your numbers are off. The cutoff point is easily twice that. No less an authority than Jobst Brandt talked about this.

[Tim]

I lived in CT for three years and rode my Homer all over the Northeast, doing 2 full brevet series and many thousand miles. My gearing is 52-42-30 with 12-30 cassette. I found the gearing to be fine for the hilly CT terrain and mountainous areas of VT,NH and MA. I used my 52x12 gear often on downhills. I found I consistently gained or retained my speed with that gear up to around 32mph. That was where I tended to tuck and coast. I'm (was then anyway) around 200 lbs so 40+mph descending is not unusual. I haven't done a club ride in forever (I don't count brevets as such) but 5-10 years ago when I often did, I would not have been happy with a 46 tooth big ring. I have a 50-34 compact on my Roadeo.

[ted]

"For me, a 50/34 left me riding cross-chained too often."

If I had a 50/34 crank I think I would immediately swap the 34 for a 36. When I went from 53/42 to 53/39 it took a while to get used to the bigger jump with the with the 14 vs 11 tooth difference between rings. I doubt I could learn to like a 16t jump for a bike with "big" gears, and with the 36t and an 11-xx cassette I wouldn't spin out the small ring on easy spinning rolling rides whereas with the 34t I think that would be a problem. I also like the tight gearing the 1t cog jumps on the small part of the cassette give with a big enough small ring.

I currently ride a lot with a 46/30 set up, but i ride that like a 1x with bail out for serious climbing. That works great for a lot of things but for fast bunch rides and hamerhead pace lines I prefer tighter spaced cogs than I use with the 46/30. With the prevalence of 11-xx cassettes these days I think I would prefer a 50/36 crank to the 53/39 (similar gears to what I get with a 12-xx cassette). But for race oriented club rides I think the "real" 2x crank with a >48t big ring works best.

Didn't Hinault write that "Eddie loved the 44 tooth ring"?

[John Hawrylak]

Jay

I would get a crank to give 100GI with existing 11-30 for Large ring/small cog or change the cassette to get 100GI for large ring/small cog, for example

Current Crank & Existing Cassette,   46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros

Current Crank & New Cassette,         46-12 = 103GI, still higher than 100GI

                                                            46-13 = 95GI, maybe a tad too low

New Crank & Existing Cassette,         42-11 = 103 GI, better but same as 46-12, still too high

                                                             41-11 =  100GI, the magic number from 52-14 days of 130BCD cranks

                                                            40-11 = 98GI, pretty close to the magic 100 and matches RBW's 40-26 XD2 offering.  the 14 tooth difference (40-26) should shift OK

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[ted]

John, I don't think there were ever any "... 52-14 days of 130BCD cranks". A nerdy quibble I know, but please bear with me ...

I believe the venerable 52-14 high gear dates from early 144 bcd crank days when Campi ruled and the Japanese copied Campi, when a common racing chainring combination was 52/42, freewheels had 5 cogs starting with a 14t, and cassettes were several years off. Back then (when I was younger and lived in a flatter area) I had a bike with 52/44 rings and a 14-18 straight block. That was really nice. Later on 53/42 was quite common before the 130bcd 53/39 cranks took over (and 14t small cogs went out of fashion). Then came the "compact double" 50/34 (110bcd?) cranks sold as the more reasonable alternative for non racers who for whatever reason did not want a triple. These days I hear that the 52t big ring is making a resurgence on "mid-compact" cranks with 52/36 rings (on 110bcd?). On the other end small cogs went from 14 to 13, 12 and then settled at 11 for quite some time (as the number of cogs grew form 5 to 10) before SRAM started offering 1x drive trains with cassettes that started with a 10t cog (with the number of cogs at 11 and looking towards 12).

Be all that as it may, aside from being a nice "round" number there is nothing special about 100 gear inches, or 52-14 (which, by the way, doesn't give a 100" gear with the tires people raced on back then). Plenty of folks have no use for a gear that large, and plenty of folks who are not professional racers find gears larger than 100" to be quite useful and like to have them.

Anybody interested in "optimizing" their gears owes it to themselves to figure out what high, and low gears they like through introspection and experimentation. Cruising gears too. Along the way they will also figure out what size gaps between gears they like, and then they can choose a combination of rings and cogs that strikes the compromise they are happiest with. Said compromise may or may not be the same for any number of bikes they may own. In the case of the OP, he currently has a 50/34 crank and a cassette that starts at 11. He should have no trouble figuring out how big a gear he wants just by paying attention to what he uses.

Of course as RBW points out (at least I think they used to, I cant find it on the site now), you can't go far wrong with a 46/36/24 triple and an 11-32 cassette and anybody not inclined to obsess about their gears really ought not feel bad about not doing so.

[John Hawrylak]

Ted

I am sorry, By 52-14 I meant a 52T large ring and 14T smallest cog.  This gives a 98 to 100GI value for 27x1" to 27x1-1/4" (common in the 70's) and also for 700x25 to 700x32.  the 2GI difference is insignificant.

The 100GI top value is the same as Schwinn explained in the their 70's catalogs, a top gear for 'normal" people. Of course racers would use a higher gear.  I found a 93GI to be about a half step too low, so a 98 to 100GI top is very reasonable.  I agree 100GI is arbitrary, but was recommended by Schwinn as a good starting point for normal people.

I simply do not see any logical reason for a 50T large ring and 11T small cog (current setup of the OP, I thought he had a 46)   at 122GI.  Even a 46/11 combination gives 113GI.  RBW now offers a XD2 Wide Low Double of 40T/26T which puts the 40T ring and 11T cog at 98GI, which should set the upper range fine. 

I simply pointed out what RBW is trying to say with the 40x26 Wide Low paired with a 11T cog giving a reasonable top gear for a 700C tire.

Of course YMMV, but I felt a 98 to 100GI top was reasonable advice.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[ted]

Hey John,

My tone was inappropriate, and I got way off the point right off the bat. My bad, I apologize.

I agree that 98 to 100 inches for a top gear is reasonable advice. Many riders probably find a top gear like that ideal.

However, as you note, YMMV. I think many riders would find a top gear larger (or smaller) than that ideal. I think the notion of "normal" people takes in a range of fitness levels and cadence preferences that result in preferred top gears ranging over more than 2 gear inches. Honing in on a 2" range that is about plus or minus 1% is quite narrow, rather specific.

Luckily for the OP, he can easily determine for himself what his ideal top gear is.

All he has to do is ride the bike he has, equipped the way it is, on the kinds of rides he wants to do with it, and pay attention to what gears he actually uses. If one of his current combinations hits his sweet spot, that is it. If one of his combinations is a tad too big and another is a tad too small, then half way between those two is it. I seriously doubt he will want something taller than the 50-11 he currently has. This approach is very reliable, simple, and costs him no money. Once he knows what top gear he wants, he can decide how (or if) he wants to realize it.

I think that is really all there is to it, but I can't resist going overboard on gear inch minutia.

Anybody not amused by, or interested in, such nonsense (possibly including John) may want to stop reading now, if they haven't already.

The OP said he had 700c 30mm tires. By measuring roll out, I've gotten 26.26" and 26.86" as the effective rolling radius for 23 and 33mm 700c tires respectively. Based on that I estimate the OP's effective radius is 26.7". So for the OP's wheels I get:

  40-11  =   97.1

  41-11  =   99.5

  42-11  = 101.9

  44-11  = 106.8

  46-11  = 111.7

Making both 40-11 and 42-11 very close to the "magic number" of 100 GI, with 42-11 being closer to it than 40-11. (does anybody make 110BCD 41t chainrings?)

For a 700c 23mm tire I get:

       53       50     48      46

11  126.5  119.4 114.6 109.8

12  116.0  109.4 105.0 100.7

13  107.1  101.0  97.0   92.9

14   99.4    93.8  90.0   86.3

John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see the term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a bicycle. I was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle aged local cat 4 racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 700c 23mm tires) useful on group rides with a local racing oriented group. So I think John seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. It wouldn't surprise me if competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way from pro caliber) found a 50-11 combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.

Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"

I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take it thats what 70's Schwinns had. Learn something new every day.

I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 130BCD standard emerged much later to allow the 39t small ring (as opposed to the previously prevalent 42) of the 53/39 cranks that were ubiquitous on "racing" bikes before 50/34 110BCD "compact cranks" came on the scene. By that time I believe cassettes typically started at 13, 12, or even 11 teeth. So I didn't think there was ever a time when 52-14 top gears and 130BCD cranks went together. Not that that is of any importance, just saying thats what I thought.

If anybody is still reading, I apologize for the impending snarkyness but it seems I can't help myself.

John recommends 98-100 inches which is 99" plus or minus 1". He also says 2" is insignificant, and says 103" is too high. I find all that rather inconsistent. If 3" too many is too much, I wouldn't think 2" is insignificant. Does the transition from insignificance to excess occur in a delta of <1%? If 2" is insignificant, why not 97 to 101"? If the target is 99" why all the talk about a magic and recommended 100" value that he seems to treat more like an upper bound than an actual target?

[John Hawrylak]

Ted

I used Jim Youngs Gear Calculator for the GI values for a 7000x32.   http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/gearcalc.php

You asked;  (does anybody make 110BCD 41t chainrings?)     Yes TA Specialties and RBW has 43T Silver and a 40T Sugino.  GP has a good write up in the Silver ring section about too high gears.   RBW even has a XD2 with 40T and 26T as the wide/Low double

A range of 97-101 is fine.  A 46-11 and 50-11 are clearly higher than the suggested range.

I totally agree with riding and seeing what you need.  The OP probably has done this.  Most people complain about never using the top gears on 9-10-11 speed cassettes with 11T small cog.  I am merely pointing this out with a suggested 97-101 GI range.

[Call Me Jay]

Lots for me to ponder here.  Thanks everyone.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-5, Call Me Jay wrote:

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/02/2017 06:37 PM, ted wrote:

John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see the term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a bicycle. I was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle aged local cat 4 racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 700c 23mm tires) useful on group rides with a local racing oriented group. So I think John seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. It wouldn't surprise me if competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way from pro caliber) found a 50-11 combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.

Use cases for 50x11 (or gears that high in general):

- tandems
- sprinting at the finish of a race
- very strong riders riding fast in a pace line
- pedaling while going down several mile long hills

Making your living riding has nothing to do with it.

Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"

I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take it thats what 70's Schwinns had.

1970s Paramounts had Campagnolo Record cranks.  144mm BCD, I think.

Learn something new every day.

I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 130BCD standard emerged much later to allow the 39t small ring (as opposed to the previously prevalent 42) of the 53/39 cranks that were ubiquitous on "racing" bikes before 50/34 110BCD "compact cranks" came on the scene. By that time I believe cassettes typically started at 13, 12, or even 11 teeth. So I didn't think there was ever a time when 52-14 top gears and 130BCD cranks went together. Not that that is of any importance, just saying thats what I thought.

If anybody is still reading, I apologize for the impending snarkyness but it seems I can't help myself.

Work on it.

John recommends 98-100 inches which is 99" plus or minus 1". He also says 2" is insignificant, and says 103" is too high. I find all that rather inconsistent. If 3" too many is too much, I wouldn't think 2" is insignificant. Does the transition from insignificance to excess occur in a delta of <1%? If 2" is insignificant, why not 97 to 101"? If the target is 99" why all the talk about a magic and recommended 100" value that he seems to treat more like an upper bound than an actual target?

All snarkiness aside, I had a 104" top gear on my 1972 P-15 Paramount as originally delivered.  I found it way too high.  I changed the freewheel (had no choice, really: the shop destroyed the Regina Oro when trying to remove it for the first service) to one with a 15T that brought the top gear down to a 97" and found that it made a huge difference: top gear was now usable.  It made as profound a change in the usefulness of the bike as switching the granny to a Merz 31.  That was a 27 x 1 1/4" wheel, 54T big ring.  Make of that what you will.   And back then, I lived in the Catskills, where we did have some big long mountains to ride down, unlike now where most of my "downhills" are stream-cut gorges no more than 150' deep and 0.3 - 0.6 mi.

These days, everything of mine is in the 96 - 99" range (except the Moulton, which is in the mid-80s).  

[ted]

John,

Thanks for pointing out that TA makes 41t chainrings. Im well aware of GPs writings re too big gears. One of my bikes currently has Silver 25 and 43 rings sandwiching a TA 33 on Sugino arms I got from RBW. Prior to that it was set up as a 26/40 with chain guard, and before that as a 24/40. I originally paired the 24/40 with a 8sp 11-32 based on a suggestion attributed to Kevin (I think), saying it gave "all the low you need, and all the high you need" or something close to that.

Sounds like we are in complete agreement about one thing: if you don't like your 11t cog because it is "useless", your big chainring is too big.

Too bad that gear calculator you use doesn't support 700x30 wheel size, though the math is so simple its easy to do it yourself.

[ted]

Steve writes:

"... I had a 104" top gear on my 1972 P-15 Paramount as originally delivered.  I found it way too high.  I changed the freewheel (had no choice, really: the shop destroyed the Regina Oro when trying to remove it for the first service) to one with a 15T that brought the top gear down to a 97" and found that it made a huge difference: top gear was now usable.  It made as profound a change in the usefulness of the bike as switching the granny to a Merz 31.  That was a 27 x 1 1/4" wheel, 54T big ring.  Make of that what you will. ..."

Of which I make

Steve believes a 27x1-1/4" wheel has an effective radius of 27"

That he found the 54-14 104" top gear on his 1972 P-15 Paramount too high for his liking.

That the ~7% smaller 97" gear he got by replacing his 14-xx freewheel with a 15-xx one suited him much better.

[Garth]

While I am not familiar with every type of casette, but are not the smallest/lock ring cogs individual and easily replaced with a 12 or whatever on most cassettes ? Ceratainly a bit more simple than trying to configure rings around a cog/cogs you do not want or need. I would rather have gears I could actually use on the top end myself .

[ted]

Garth,

I suppose, sure. Though really its the gear (ratio of chainring over cog) that you don't want, so you can blame it on either the cog or the ring. Are you configuring rings around a cog you don't want, or cogs around a ring you don't want? I suppose either point of view is equally valid. Whether or not reconfiguring off the shelf cassettes is simpler than picking chainrings is probably a matter on which reasonable people might disagree. Also cassettes seem to wear out more frequently than cranks/chainrings, so if you choose the route of reconfiguring cassettes you may have to deal with the matter more frequently.

[Belopsky]

This is similar to my issue - I have 48/30 up front, with a 11-28 rear (11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,24,28). I think I want to buy a 36 chainring but also not sure if this is the crank I will be running long term on this bike or if I should get a different compact double and save the 48/30 for my rando GB..

[Steve Palincsar]

I know one can readily replace a 1st position 12 with a 1st position 13 tooth sprocket - I've been doing it for the past 15 years - but I'm not 100% certain you can as easily replace an 11 with a 12.  I've asked that question on the forums and have received equivocal answers; perhaps some can be and some cannot.  But even there, it all depends on what's next in sequence.  If the 2nd position sprocket is a 12 then replacing the 11 with a 12 makes no sense.   Although this is a standard way to customize 9 speed cassettes, nor does removing the 2nd position sprocket in order to add a larger one at the end because with the 10 speed Shimano cassette design you can't slip a flat sprocket behind the 10th.

As to which is easier, customizing cassettes or chain rings: long term if you can get exactly the gearing you want by using a standard cassette and changing the chain rings, provided the front shifts OK then this is by far the simpler in the long run.  In the short run, of course, changing chain rings is much more expensive and complicated than swapping cassettes.  What's more, standard cassettes shift better than modified ones. 

[Steve Palincsar]

Yes, that's what I said.

[John Hawrylak]

Belopsky

A 36 front 11 rear gives 87GI for a 700Cx28.  You may want a higher top gear.  However, the front shifting would be good, only a 10T difference, like 52 to 42.

The Sugino XD2 Wide/Low 40T-26T double RBW offers (https://www.rivbike.com/collections/cranks-bbs/products/sugino-xd2-wide-low-double-crank-40t-x-26t) gives your 11-28 a range of 96GI to 25GI (700Cx28) with the 2 chainrings at the max recommended 16T difference for decent front shifting.   This is quite a wide range. 

The RBW Sugino Wide/Low uses a Chain Guard in place of the outer ring.  The 40T is the middle and the 26T is the 74mmBCD ring.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Deacon Patrick]

I've no idea what Zwift is. But riding single speed helped me greatly expand my range per gear (duh). It increased my power and technique with low RPM high torque pedaling (climbing) and it increased my spinning ability on descents. Perhaps ride at least a ride a week in poser single speed mode? Pick a gear and don't shift the entire ride? (or Poser QuickBeam mode, pick two gears and swap between them?)

With abandon,

Patrick

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/03/2017 06:15 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote:
> I've no idea what Zwift is.

http://zwift.com/

some kind of trainer-cycling with an online component that one article
spoke of as "gamification"

[Deacon Patrick]

Ah. Thanks, Steve. I'm too much of a Fred to be a Fred on Zwift. Grin.

With abandon,

Patrick

[David Person]

I run a 44-28 on my Hillborne with an 11-32 in the rear and like the combination very much.  

I found this article from Jan Heine very helpful, particularly his advice on selecting the Base, High and Low gears.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/how-to-choose-your-chainrings/

David