Playing with the Aventure's gearing.

[Jason Knight]

When I got my Aventure one of the first things I noticed was the highest gear was weaksauce, and the lowest felt way WAY too low for me. The proverbial feet going like crazy to give my ass a ride.

So I put the largest cheap chainring I could find that fit around the chainstays, a great big old 53 tooth.

It confirmed a suspicion, and the past few months has proven me wrong on another.

The confirmed suspicion is that the highest gear ratio was indeed too weak. 46:12 on a 750 watt motor came up short which is why my feet were going like crazy at the top speed instead of a more comfortable rate. 53:12 was better, but it felt like there was still a hair more wiggle room.

Where I was wrong was on the low end. And I discovered this the most painful way -- accidentally running the battery out because I got lost on a path I don't normally take. Unpowered -- something I really hadn't done with it to that point, 53:32 is not conducive to an enjoyable ride on a 70 pound bike with the drag of the motor on it.

So I grabbed a cheap 11:36 cassette.

Which took a bit of finagling. Somehow the derailleur got out of whack -- one of many bike technologies I have trust issues with -- but held off on straightening out until the new cogset arrived. Because it's a tech I generally avoided and only ever had headaches with as a kid, and my being 20+ years out of date on bike tech, I tried just generically playing with the limits and adjustments, and very quickly made things worse.

Giant shout out to ParkTools for their instructional videos. Normally I can't learn from videos, but theirs was concise and "lacking in ego" enough to actually figure it out. Their "start with the low limit" approach worked like a charm.

The biggest hurdle was that the Acera is only really rated up to 34 tooth cogs, but the extra diameter was easy enough to get working by simply inserting the B screw the whole way. I have a couple derailleur hanger extensions in my parts bin, but I didn't want to resort to that if I didn't have to as that too seems a bit... sketchy... Just more possible points of failure. I also think my swapping the large 13 tooth plastic cogs on the derailleur for 11 tooth aluminum ones gave enough extra spacing for the larger cog.

I didn't up the chain length yet, as I wanted to test it more before I started playing with other factors. Easy enough later on since I've got those two master links in there and a bin-full more. I have this horrible habit of doing everything in bulk.

Wow, I really need to clean my rims. Pic taken straight after the test ride.

You can also see how I also swapped out the cranks for aluminum 170mm. Their website claims it comes with 170's... bullcookies. But that's like the "forged' cranks mine came with I swear are cast pig iron by weight alone. Much less the flash lines and casting sand texture.

I ran it up to top speed -- a nice clean 35mph -- and I still wasn't really struggling, but at least it still felt like there was tension on the cranks meaning I was going more muscle than motor. Which honestly is to me what an e-bike should be, even in the highest assist. It's called assist after all.

I also test rode it a quarter mile power off, and 53:36 is way better than 53:32. I could do that for miles if I had to. Which is good since I'm thinking on building a camper trailer and going a wee bit further out into the world.

I also took the time since I had the bike flipped over to put one of the aftermarket skid plates on it.

Aventon Aventure (1st GENERATION) Skid Plate MADE IN USA Original by RAMCO | eBay

The Aventon Aventure is ready to explore the trails and pathways with you! Bad experience.". Their product is plastic (not Kydex) and shorter in length.

www.ebay.com

Which went on easy. Really well designed and thought out, even if the zip ties holding the rear are a bit sketchy when the bolt for the rear fender could have done double-duty just as the controller bolt-down does at the front. It's nice to cover up all those exposed wires on the bottom of the frame, which is IMHO one of the weakest points in the Aventure's design.

Overall it pedals smoother than it ever has -- that's probably just dialing in the limits and index -- and so far at least the gear range feels more natural and fits my riding style better. And since the second highest gear is 32T, in PAS 3 I can do the nice leisurely 18-20mph I had gotten into the habit of when trying to go longer distances.

 

[Stick369]

I noticed the same thing at the high end. No resistance. I went with a 52t front chain ring. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08NXD3T5D/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1&psc=1
I've been looking for a different cassette for the rear where did you you find your 11:36?
What are your thoughts on going to a 152mm crank arm? Will I be sacrificing too much top speed for better clearance when pedaling in the corners?

 

[Jason Knight]

I've been looking for a different cassette for the rear where did you you find your 11:36?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09DKN9SJP

Cheap but it's something that's kind of hard to screw up in manufacturing. Fit on perfectly with no hassles.

That seller has a whole slew of different sizes and gear ranges, the 8 speed 11:36 was spot-on.

What are your thoughts on going to a 152mm crank arm? Will I be sacrificing too much top speed for better clearance when pedaling in the corners?

Crank arm length is a very personal thing. Personally I can't ride short crank arms, they don't line up with my strength or desired "cadence" -- despite my being 5'4" tall. In theory I should be on shorter arms due to my height, but it just doesn't work for me.

You might have different results. One thing I like about amazon is that they're very generous with their return policy, so you could try getting a pair from them, seeing if you like it, and if not back it goes.

I can say that the stock cranks on the Aventure are trash. They say 170, what I got are stamped 175, but they are 10mm shorter than the 170's I put on the bike.

Don't even get me STARTED about the weight.

I also think they play fast and loose with the word "forged" since they have the sand texture and flash lines of being cast. Not that you can't smack it around after casting, but... no. It's bad when you take 2.5 pounds off a 70+ pound bike just by swapping the crankset and chainring.

 

[Stick369]

I tried the 152mm arms for a bit but ended up going back to the 170mm. I also went with these crank arms due to the pedal thread on the stock arms getting chewed up. My left pedal backed out and before i noticed the thread was destroyed. Thank god for throttle.

I still have the 12:32 stock cassette and I'm thinking about the 11:42 in the link you provided. I also went with a 52t front chain ring.

 

[Jason Knight]

I still have the 12:32 stock cassette and I'm thinking about the 11:42 in the link you provided. I also went with a 52t front chain ring.

I went 11:36 and that's two more teeth than the stock derailleur is meant to handle, thus my having to wrench down all the way on the b-screw. To go up to 42 you'll either need a longer derailleur, or a derailleur hanger extension to lower it to make room for the larger cogset.

I'm probably adding the hanger to mine today because it's a bit sketchy dropping into the lowest gear even when "properly" adjusted. Though I'm tempted to get a better and longer derailleur with a clutch, just because I've had a couple slop-drops the past week. Once crossing a culvert sticking up in the middle of a dirt path, the other at a pothole. I mean that's typical for rides after heavy rains given how things wash out in these parts (it is a valley after all) but I'd rather take the precaution.

Though dealing with chain drops is another argument for the superiority of waxing. Bare hands, come away completely clean.

The Acera isn't a horrible derailleur for road / prepared path use where there are smooth transitions. Unfortunately smooth transitions between road and dirt, road and paths, road/paths and bridges, even road and road aren't really a "thing' here in Keene. Much like how many of the "prepared" paths -- like the Cheshire trail south towards Troy -- haven't been properly cleared or filled in five or six years, with nature taking them back over. Just crossing the college campus here at 12-14mph was enough to bottom out the stock fork... and giving 100mm of travel (out of 120) on my replacement.

I think Aventon knew this about the Acera, hence the free chainstay protector... it's little details like that which make me like their product, even if the support is basically bupkis.

Good product + bad to nonexistent support == bad product.

 

[eFeMGee]

I tried the 152mm arms for a bit but ended up going back to the 170mm. I also went with these crank arms due to the pedal thread on the stock arms getting chewed up. My left pedal backed out and before i noticed the thread was destroyed. Thank god for throttle.

I still have the 12:32 stock cassette and I'm thinking about the 11:42 in the link you provided. I also went with a 52t front chain ring.

This has been a very helpful thread. I have only had my Aventure for a little more than a month, but going up to a 52T front chainring is what I needed for the type of riding in my area (mostly flat, dirt/gravel trails/surface streets when I have to) and the problem of wishing I had one more up shift.

I also ordered a 122 link chain to go along with the larger chain ring, but that still seems a bit short even though i am able to make the shift to the highest cog. I am ordering a second chain so that I can extend the chain length appropriately. If I had gone to a 50T front chain ring, that might have been perfect.

I am not going to mess with the rear cassette until I get more miles on my bike and can figure out what would make a difference.

 

[Jason Knight]

I also ride a adventure by aventon. I would assume you ride mostly on higher pas settings.

I end up using all the settings since there are no long uniform runs of terrain anywhere I can even ride. From roads where going less than 30 will get you harassed, run off the road, and possibly killed JUST to even try to get to a bike path (crossing main street and/or rt 101 for example), to multi-use paths where I drop to assist 1 or 2 so I don't endanger the foot sloggers, to wooded paths hilly enough I need assist 3 just to not drop below 10mph (even though on flat that delivers 22mph), to hills where I drop down into 3rd gear in PAS 5 just to try and maintain an 8mph climb needing every drop of juice.

I use a 42 ring on my rig.

That kind of horrifies me given how much ghost pedaling that would be in PAS 3 at the highest ratio unless you swapped out the cog to something like an 8... which I don't think anyone even makes. Do you not find the bike racing out from under you with zero contribution, or do you literally just have no need of the 750 watts?

Louisiana, my location is mostly flat.

That's a likely contributor then.

Now to explain the lower chain ring. I ride mostly pas 1 or 2. Usual speed is 14mph on pas 1 and 18mph on pas 2.

With a 42 front and 12 rear, even in the highest gear that would/should/has to be 100% what people seem to be calling ghost pedaling. You don't find that the bike races out from under you, your pedaling having zero back-force and your feet just whizzing around doing nothing, even at the highest gear ratio?

Makes me wonder if your motor is defective and/or not providing as much power as it should. Seriously are you actually saying that in PAS1 you're actually using that 42:32 (1:1.31) ratio and keeping up with the motor? Because I can't even keep up with the motor in PAS1 at 53:36 (1:1.6). The only reason I even care about that low ratio is as a fallback if I lose the battery, motor or controller dies, or some other emergency situation where I have to go unpowered.

I absolutely hate that sensation that my pedaling contributes bupkis to actually moving. It's a bicycle for a reason, I'd rather have pedaling contribute something and extend my range. Otherwise, why even bother putting pedals on it?

The lower ring size allows for more speed than the 46 factory ring at my cadence.

What's your top speed in your highest ratio? 'Cause I've now been to 37 on a flat run (empty parking lot at 3AM) just to see what I could wring out of it.

It's been my experience going smaller just makes it worse in terms of the motor going faster than I'm pedaling, resulting in pedaling being so pointless one might as well remove the pedals entirely. When my feet are zipping around as at fast a cadence as I can muster in PAS3 at the highest gear ratio, why bother having PAS3 or higher and/or the ability to pedal in the first place?

I find on all my bikes to gear for my cadence allows for more speed than trying to push the big ring at lower cadence. We have more advantage with spinning than grinding.

Not when that spinning like a maniac contributes NOTHING at the wheel.

Most pro road bike riders use 50 or less teeth up front. Try the reduced ring size on and you might be surprised. Also note the smaller ratio is easier on the body.

You used an important word there: ratio. It all comes down to ratios. That's why I run an 11..36 cogset on that 53 tooth chainring. Let's assume your 42 is on the stock 12..32

  42 tooth         53 tooth
Cog   Ratio      Cog   Ratio
12    1:3.5      11    1:4.82
32    1:1.31     36    1:1.61

It's not about the size of the chainring, it's about the range of ratios you get out of the whole drivetrain. Even the 53:36 is near useless when powered, which is why the bottom two gears I have "reserved" for unpowered riding.

Sure we'll get the assclowns saying "these aren't meant to be ridden unpowered", which again begs the question "then why does it have pedals?" More so though, I've been out in the wild with a battery failure on the Aventure. Just like the double controller-failures in a row on the Naktos I had before it. When you're 2 miles from home the ability to drop into the lowest gear and pedal it "if you have to" is really nice to have.

Seriously though, the second gear on the stock cogset / cassette is what, 26 tooth I think? 28? Let's say it's 26... with a 42 tooth chainring that's delivering in your second from lowest ratio the same as my lowest.

And I've been thinking on switching to an 11..40, leaving my high ratio the same. 53:40 is 1.33, spitting distance from your 42:32!
It's not JUST the chainring. My lowest ratio is close to your second lowest, your highest is a hair higher than the third most high on mine. All I've done in switching things out front and rear is expand the range between gears and how high the high is. On the low end only losing a gear ratio that I wouldn't use ever even with power.

Doesn't mean I'm sitting there "grinding" with all my might on the pedals all the time. I want less struggle, I switch to lower gears in the same range as yours. 'Cause if you're in PAS 1 or 2, you really shouldn't be in your highest gear ratio.

I've heard that a lot from people "Oh you should try a smaller chainring for a higher cadence"... why not just downshift when I want that?

 

[Jason Knight]

I never use the 32 cog on this bike. With 80rpm cadence, average pace for me, the speed with the 42x12 is 20mph. I never stated anything about the 32 nor any other cog size and speed. I simply stated the speed I run at pas 1 and 2. Have a good one.

My point was that your 40:12 is roughly equal to my 53:15, the third highest on mine. My 6th gear equals your eighth give-or take...

Basically if I want the cadence you're riding at the same speed, I downshift. Making more of the cogs on the rear useful, whilst giving me a higher top speed since in PAS 5 I can hit 35, and I've been to 37. Something you'd be hard pressed to achieve with a smaller front. At the same time I've made more of the gears useful by lifting them all up, but I'm still within the same ratios as yours.

It's the ratios, not the size of the chainring. About the only disadvantage I have is that my ratios get spread further apart, but honestly for someone who spent the past decade riding a 3 speed, the 8 speed is so close together I question the need for that many unless again, I reserve two or three at the bottom for unpowered riding. Powered I have yet to need anything lower than the 53:24 (1:2.208)

Thus there is zero reason for me to be "reducing the ring size" as you suggested. That just makes the lower gears even more useless whilst limiting the high end. As you can see on this chart, your 12 cog is spitting distance from what my 15 is giving me. Thus my 15 would be roughly the same cadence on a 53 chainring. Smaller ring does nothing but limit your highest ratio and make your lowest gears even more useless.

Hell, your 40:12 is basically the same as the stock 46:14! If you're not using the largest cog, what has that 40 even gained you?

I would think with that 40 front if you're still on the stock cogset, that your bottom four gears would be damned near useless at any speed. I know in PAS 1 I really don't use my 28 or 36 often, reserving those for unpowered emergencies. For me at least, anything below a 1:2 ratio might as well not even be on the bike when powered.