Bigger vs smaller drivetrain combos (same gearing)

I'm going to be upgrading my fixie's drivetrain in a bit, and am currently considering my options regarding chainring / sprocket combinations. I noticed that I could have 50/18, 47/17, or 44/16 and end up with very similar ratios (2.78, 2.76, 2.75 - not necessarily going for this specifically, it's just an example). In order to decide, I'm currently aware of the following points:

• Larger components should wear out a little bit more slowly
  
• A larger chainring might not fit the frame above a certain size (but judging from a preliminary check, I should be good)
  
• A smaller chainring might give me more flexibility in terms of adjusting my gearing. I'm using the Miche system with the carrier, with 13t - 18t sprockets being available. A 50t chainring gives me ratios of 2.78 - 3.85, a 44t chainring a much more useful (to me) range of 2.44 - 3.38.
  
  

Am I missing out on some important factor / what would you guys recommend? Thanks!

EDIT: Suggested so far:

• Big is cooler
  
• Small is marginally lighter
  
• Big is marginally more efficient
  
• Whatever you have lying around / is cheaper
  
• Big might feel better?
  
  

Thanks for the help!

Am I missing out on some important factor

Big chainrings are cool

Goddammit I knew there was something!

Smaller components will be lighter (including a shorter chain), but (if I remember correctly) larger cogs are marginally more efficient. The effects are really minimal though.

i've always wondered about torque and force using larger chainrings vs smaller chainrings for a given gear ratio

it's always " feels " nicer to ride a larger front ring vs a smaller one imo

Is there much of a difference in terms of feel, regarding stiffness or something like that? I mean technically I'd expect smaller components to be a bit stiffer, but I doubt this is something one would notice below absolute pro level...

Overall, what would you vote for?

Overall, what would you vote for?

Whatever you've already got in your box of parts or, failing that, whatever's cheapest.

Fair enough, thanks!

it's always " feels " nicer to ride a larger front ring vs a smaller one imo

From my old road bike, I remember having that impression too. But I have not been able to come up with a good reason for it, so I'm not sure I should trust myself on that... in any case, you'd go for a bigger combo then?

Bigger has lower chain tension and spreads the load over more teeth so should wear more slowly but will be marginally heavier.

Assuming gear ratio (between chainwheel and cog) is the same ...... big is (overall) better!
more loading on small cog/chainwheel (and chain) plus less teeth (per revolution) to withstand the load. Also, greater 'movement' of chain with the reduced diameter (REF: 'larger jockey wheels').

Thanks mate, appreciate the input! That makes sense - will this mostly be measurable as reduced wear of the components along with a slight efficiency increase?

You should notice the reduced wear.......but whether you notice the increased efficiency is a different matter.

Yeah I doubt the efficiency increase will be noticeable at all, I'm not riding even close to a level where that would matter. Still, overall I'll take things that are supposed to be slightly more efficient over the other option when it makes no difference otherwise... and the reduced wear alone would be worth it. Cheers!

You could use a 3/32” chain and cogs etc if you wanted to lose weight

True, but I don't think I'll make that my priority, plus there seems to be more limited choice for a 3/32" system. Out of curiosity though, how much weight would you guesstimate one actually saves by switching from 1/8" to 3/32"? (If you have experience with that)

I'm fairly sure in any case that it's less than what I could save by laying off one or two recovery pints...

No idea. You could probably just do a big poo before you go out though.

I reckon that'd do it too.