Timeline for Why is 53/39 known as "standard" for road bikes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2016 at 1:04 | comment | added | andy256 | @R.Chung See data.stackexchange.com/bicycles/query/342730/… | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | gaurwraith | Since there is no standard it must been the creators of cycling parlance who referred at the 53/39 as standard, and probably because it was / is the most widespread in races, because of the reasons mentioned, and to differentiate it from compact and semixompavy, which also are standard in a way | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 15:07 | comment | added | Ealhmund | Ah, gotcha - didn't realize that Shimano were the originators of 130BCD...makes sense, given their dominance. Campy's 135BCD might explain why 39t is the small ring within "standard" gearing, since that might be the smallest ring you can fit on 135mm (38t barely fits on 130mm)? That's pure conjecture... | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 14:57 | comment | added | R. Chung | @altomnr Well, 130BCD really began as a Shimano standard. Campagnolo uses 135, so 130 is a reflection of the dominance of Shimano in the OEM component market. | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 14:29 | comment | added | Ealhmund | Yeah, I'm looking for a who or what answer, more like "In 1952, Campy decided..." or something like that. I'm sure the answer predates the internet, which makes it more difficult to find anything concrete. @gaurwraith - Google "cycling standard crank" or "standard crankset". | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 13:28 | comment | added | R. Chung | @andy256 Yeah, I'm not quite satisfied with that answer either (and I didn't know the other thing). I'm still doing some research on it. I may edit it when I get a better handle on it. gaurwraith: we know that 130BCD is a standard, and we know that the 39 tooth chainring is usually the smallest that can be used there. Is your question about the 130BCD (and thus the 39 chainring) or about the 52 or 53 chainring? | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 8:25 | comment | added | gaurwraith | Again, that 53/39 is "the standard" should be established/proven somehow | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 4:54 | comment | added | andy256 | Hmm. I'm really disappointed with this answer; it's just not up the the standard you usually maintain (did you know you have the highest per-answer average score on this site for regular users?). From my point of view, it doesn't answer the meat of the question Why is this the case? How did 53/39 become the standard? | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 4:31 | history | answered | R. Chung | CC BY-SA 3.0 |