Why 46/34 rather than 48/34? If you lay out the ratios in a chart, you will quickly se that the 48/34 has more consistent jumps between gears with a simpler shifting pattern. If you don't know how to lay this out, I can help you. A difference of 10 between rings consistently yields a single step on the cogs, and a difference of 14 yields 2 clicks, but a difference of 12 is neither one nor the other.
Personally, I find the ramps on chain rings way over rated. These shifting aids have real value add on cogs, but I haven't experienced enough benefit on rings to go out of my may to buy them. Michael On Feb 9, 9:22 pm, Mike <mjawn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm in the process of changing out cranks on my Hilsen. I'll be > switching from a Sugino triple to a Sugino compact double. The double > has 48/34 rings but I think what I want is 46/34. My Rambouillet has a > 46t chainring on it that I might cannabalize but I'm thinking of just > using the 46t ring off the triple. The 48t ring is clearly ramped and > pinned. The 46t ring on the triple does not look ramped at all. Is > that correct? It seemed to shift fine. I notice that the Sugino > chainrings that Riv uses have "no ramps or pins", are those the same > as the chainrings that come on the crank? > > --mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
