Fifty Plus (50+) - Fred Triple Crank

My Fuji Absolute 1.0 flat bar road bike w/105 group set, came with a 52/39/30 triple crank. I nearly always ride on the 39 and only had it on the 52t ring one time, just to test it for a mile. No use having a ring that one never uses, so I looked around for a smaller ring. I found a 46t that was made to be a part of a 46/38 cyclo double crank. It fit perfectly, looked like a matched set.

However it goofed up my front derailleur and I couldn't adjust it to get it to work.

So as my bike still had a free tuneup coming and it needed a few other adjustments, I took it back to the LBS and let them adjust everything. Now it shifts pretty well.

Thus I now have an odd 46/39/30 triple crank, paired with a 10-speed 12-27 rear cassette. I think this will work well for me. At least I might use the "big" ring once in a while. This gearing isn't much different than a lot of hybrids that have 48/38/28 triples, but most of those don't have GXP external bearings.

Sounds like a good combination to me. Unless you go down some long hills or ride in a pace line you can pretty easily get along without a 52. My commuter has a 46/38 which seems a little odd. I would prefer a little more spread like a 48/34. My ride is pretty flat but there is one hill on the way home that I spin out on the way down and a slightly bigger ring would be better.

I have put a Deore Hollowtech II 48-36-26 crank w/ external BB on two bikes, so far. The crank set is getting kind of scarce to find. The first one cost me $70, the last one cost $130. I plan to buy a couple more to keep for a while. The front D/R is a little trickier and has to be compatible with the arc but I really like that crank set combination.

I've seen that Deore on eBay. That is a nice crankset. In my case, everything else about my Truvativ crankset was fine, it had 170mm crank arms, decent quality, GXP bearings, and the 39/30 rings were fine. When I found the 46t that matched it for $22, it seemed a lot simpler to just swap the big rings than to change out the entire crankset.

In my case, I doubt I will ever spin out at 46:12. I haven't topped 29 mph since getting back into riding. I usually start easing on the brakes at around 27. I'll probably let it get up to 30 sometime just because that sounds better as a top speed.

The bigger question is if the chain will ever be on both the 46 front and 12 rear at the same time.

What I've got my eye out for right now is a road triple with 165mm crank arms, for my RANS recumbent. I love this bike, except that it has 175mm crank arms. Sure wish there was a way to easily swap the arms for shorter ones. I have 155mm crank arms on my Sun recumbent, and I like those better than 175 arms.

Tom, your routes must be a lot gentler than mine.

My Jamis wears 52/39/26 on the front and 11-32 on the back and every time I ride to work or uni or a soccer game or anything that involves heading north, I use every gear! Mind you, only one hill is responsible for that, the infamous Flagstaff Hill, all 3km of it. There's no bike lane going down so you have to ride with the cars ... which explains my max recorded speed every trip of something in excess of 60km/hr and then coming home, I have to get back up it - I flick onto the 26 ring at the bottom (literally, the first 400m is a killer) and stay there till I hit the top with most of the trip done on the 32 cog as well.

Mind you, darned near everything else outside of those 3km is done on the middle and top ring with the middle ring doing most of the work.

Like you, I'd like to change my cranks to something more sensible. Both my Europa and the Trek have 170mm cranks and while the Jamis is only 172.5, the difference is still noticeable in a negative way.

I spent a happy half hour playing with my front dr last night. The cable had shifted in its clamp which stuffed up the adjustment somewhat and I'd had to ride home holding the front shifter lever over so the chain wouldn't rub - that increases the 'grump index' rather quickly. I took the opportunity to give the entire gear system a tune up (you shouldn't adjust the front dr without adjusting the rear first anyway) and she's possibly perfect - I say 'possibly' because, of course, it's pithing down with rain outside and I'm too old and grumpy to choose to ride in the rain.

Richard

I ran a 26/36/48 triple for several years, ususlly with a 12/26 rear gear. This worked equally well for my road bikes and my flat/fast dirt road MTB bikes.

The new flatbar road bike is set up with a 50/34 compact double and next week will get its new 11/34 cassette. Where some will not like the "wide range" transmission for pace line work, I find this gear spread to be just about perfect. It has everything from a 50-11 top gear to a 34-34 hillclimber.

I guess we could call it the Fred Double

Sounds fine.

I use 30-40-50 for long-distance (http://www.veloweb.ca/randopages/randoratios.html). I have 24-36-46 on my tourer.

I've played around with different gear combinations quite a bit over the past few years. My best results have come from the 30/40/50 Campy triple with 12/24 rear and my current Sugino 26/36/48 triple. Right now I'm running a 12/28 cassette which has been good while I am rebuilding my strength. But I find myself using the 26 tooth ring less and less. Today I rode 51 miles of moderately hilly roads without ever using the 26. I think that after BRAG I will switch back to the 12/21 cassette which gives me a wide range of gears and a nice and tight spacing between ratios. I use all three rings on most rides with that setup. It is worth noting that these combinations are with a 7 speed rear. Eventually I plan to join the 21st century and get a new bike with a 10 speed rear end. I think a 34/48 or 34/50 compact double and a 11/27 cassette will work very well for me with the 10 speed setup.

I've been using a 46-36-26 on my Atlantis for five years. I've found that I shift the front d. probably a third less than I used to, because i used to feel like I SHOULD be using the 52, so I'd go into it, but I didn't need it. Any time I can turn a 52-12, I'm going to be coasting. The bike's much more useful and versatile since I switched.

I have put a Deore Hollowtech II 48-36-26 crank w/ external BB on two bikes, so far. The crank set is getting kind of scarce to find. The first one cost me $70, the last one cost $130. I plan to buy a couple more to keep for a while. The front D/R is a little trickier and has to be compatible with the arc but I really like that crank set combination.

I have an XT version of this which was a special order item from Shimano in March 2007. It came with a matched front derailleur and is the smoothest, most reliable triple in my stable (I have three different triples. Four if you count my wife's) although they are all pretty much flawless. Apparently, Shimano has "downgraded" it to LX and this year sells it only in Europe.

Indeed, a hard crank to get but 48/36/26 is a great range for ultra-distance or touring. Just can't understand why these types of cranks aren't more popular.

OK, I'll argue the other side.

I don't have anything against having lower gears, but it doesn't look to me like you've gained anything.

It looks to me like you dropped a couple of gear ratios that you'd probably never use. You replaced them with a couple of other ratios that are duplicates, or near duplicates, of ratios that you already had. I'm thinking that you may never use the new ratios either.

10-speed rear cassettes can combine both a wide range and pretty close ratio spacing. It seems unlikely to me to improve your gearing options very much through a single chainring swap.

OK, I'll argue the other side.

I don't have anything against having lower gears, but it doesn't look to me like you've gained anything.

It looks to me like you dropped a couple of gear ratios that you'd probably never use. You replaced them with a couple of other ratios that are duplicates, or near duplicates, of ratios that you already had...

I look at the different front rings as giving access to different "ranges" of gearing. Level and down hill is for the biggest front ring for the high range; A long uphill grade or into the wind, it's on to the middle ring for the middle range; A long, steep hill then bring on the granny gear for the low range. The rear cassette is for "fine tuning" within a range.

Duplicate gears can be a very nice thing to have. If I am cruising along in the big ring and I come upon a slight incline or a headwind that slows me down a bit, it is nice if my gearing allows me to go low enough in the big ring to maintain a good cadence until the road flattens or the headwind subsides. I hate when I have to downshift the front ring just to get one ratio for a short time and then have to upshift the front ring to resume my previous pace. It's not the end of the world, but it is better when I can avoid it.

I look at the different front rings as giving access to different "ranges" of gearing.

That's my point.

Tom's 39 chainring with the 12/27 cassette pretty well has him covered for most situations. His granny ring gives him 2 or 3 (if you don't use the 39/27) additional hill climb ratios. The 52 gave him 4 additional downhill ratios including one with 117 gear inches that he would almost surely never use.

Swapping the 52 for a 46 cut the number of additional downhill ratios to 2 the biggest being 103 gear inches which is probably still plenty. That part is fine. His other 8 ratios, however, are all near duplicates. He got rid of some gears that were irrevelant, but I don't see that he's gained anything.

Then again, his bike isn't responsible for making me happy so I guess it's OK.

I still like my 1.5-step gearing: 50-42 / 14-16-18-20-23-26, but I could use one additional cog to fill the gap at 90 gear-inches, viz: 50-42 / 14-15-16-18-20-23-26. I find a top gear in the upper 90s to be perfectly adequate and have no need whatsoever for something like a 53/11.

What it does is give me more gears that I can use when I'm on the 46t. So that I can switch to it and ride a wider range of terrains.

Let's say the highest gear I tend to use runs into the high 80s in gear inches. With a 52t, that leaves me with 5 usable gears (can't use the smallest one as that is cross-chaining). With the 46t, I now have 7 usable gears if I'm on that ring, and still have two taller ones should I ever need to use them. In particular, I now have two lower gears that will entice me up onto the "big" ring more often.

At the least, I can now switch off the middle ring and decrease the wear on both it, and the rear cogs that I tend to use the most with it. I can spread the wear around a bit. On one of my other bikes, I had to replace the rear cassette because two cogs wore out.

All I gave up was two gears that I was never, ever going to use.

I grant you that it is not a big change, but it is one that makes my bike more usable to me.

What it does is give me more gears that I can use when I'm on the 46t. So that I can switch to it and ride a wider range of terrains.

Let's say the highest gear I tend to use runs into the high 80s in gear inches. With a 52t, that leaves me with 5 usable gears (can't use the smallest one as that is cross-chaining). With the 46t, I now have 7 usable gears if I'm on that ring, and still have two taller ones should I ever need to use them. In particular, I now have two lower gears that will entice me up onto the "big" ring more often.

At the least, I can now switch off the middle ring and decrease the wear on both it, and the rear cogs that I tend to use the most with it. I can spread the wear around a bit. On one of my other bikes, I had to replace the rear cassette because two cogs wore out.

All I gave up was two gears that I was never, ever going to use.

I grant you that it is not a big change, but it is one that makes my bike more usable to me.

You have a point. I hadn't considered the possibility of minimizing individual cog wear by using different combinations to yield the same ratio. Regardless of how much importance one puts on that factor, the fact is you didn't really have to surrender anything that you valued to get it.

True. But in that sense, it didn't matter what I did to the big ring in any case. I could have removed it and it still would not have impacted my rides, because I was never using it.

I seriously considered putting a sheath of some sort around it, like a stretchy nylon belt. That would have turned it into a chain guard. That would probably be the best use for it. Guess I could still do that with the 46t, if it turns out that I'm not using it anymore than the 52t.

But since I believe I will now use it a bit, I'll feel better about having a "big" ring.

You have a point. I hadn't considered the possibility of minimizing individual cog wear by using different combinations to yield the same ratio. Regardless of how much importance one puts on that factor, the fact is you didn't really have to surrender anything that you valued to get it.

That is a theoretical advantage, I guess, but the real advantage of overlapping duplicate gear ratios is the convenience of not having to shift out of the middle ring for that one higher gear or out of the big ring for that one lower gear.

Indeed, a hard crank to get but 48/36/26 is a great range for ultra-distance or touring. Just can't understand why these types of cranks aren't more popular.

You can get all the cranks you want right here: http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/cranks_bottom_brackets#product=12-190
I have these on two bikes, and they're terrific, especially for the cost.
As for why they aren't more popular, I've said for years (at least 20) that they ought to be, but pro racing is what drives sales, and the pros run 53-39 or so. That's what marketing people put on bikes, and most casual (and many semi-serious) riders don't know enough to protest. Check the gears people are actually riding in on your next group ride, and you'll see a lot of fresh, shiny, barely touched big rings.

Duplicate gears can be a very nice thing to have. If I am cruising along in the big ring and I come upon a slight incline or a headwind that slows me down a bit, it is nice if my gearing allows me to go low enough in the big ring to maintain a good cadence until the road flattens or the headwind subsides. .

This is what I was talking about in my first post. I'm not embarrassed to ride in any gear I need (my early-season cassette is the size of a personal pizza), but with a 46-36-26 I shift the front a lot less, whether I'm in the large or middle ring. There probably are some duplicate gears, but it doesn't bother me and I've never cared enough to check.
And I still say not one cyclist in 50, tops, can turn a 53-12 on the flat without straining. For 90++ percent of riders, the top two or three gears, at least, are useless.

You can get all the cranks you want right here: http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/cranks_bottom_brackets#product=12-190
I have these on two bikes, and they're terrific, especially for the cost.


Even better when you can get them for even less (http://cgi.ebay.com/SUGINO-XD-600-CRANKSET-165mm-48-36-26-110-74_W0QQitemZ120412912929QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCycling_Parts_Accessories?hash=item1c092b3d21&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116).:)

Yeah, I've seen that Sugino XD600 w/165 crank arms. It tempts me.

Trouble is, on my recumbent, I like the 52t ring and use it. 26" rear wheel. And this is where I want 165mm arms.

But I should probably give it some thought. That would probably serve me fine.

True. But in that sense, it didn't matter what I did to the big ring in any case. I could have removed it and it still would not have impacted my rides, because I was never using it.

I seriously considered putting a sheath of some sort around it, like a stretchy nylon belt. That would have turned it into a chain guard. That would probably be the best use for it. Guess I could still do that with the 46t, if it turns out that I'm not using it anymore than the 52t.

But since I believe I will now use it a bit, I'll feel better about having a "big" ring.

Maybe replace the big ring with a bash guard? You could even take the old 53 ring, grind all of the teeth off, and readjust your high limit screw to match. That's the kind of experimental thing I like to do.

10-speed cassettes make me rethink the need for triple cranksets. My retro grouch bike has a 52/42/30 triple with a 12/32 8-speed on the back. I very seldom use the big ring and I can't remember the last time that I used the granny. It clearly has more range than I need but the gaps in the wide range cassette don't offend me either. I've toyed with the idea of switching to a different crankset, maybe a compact double. When I start to think about it, however, I always come back to "What's the point?"

Yeah, I've seen that Sugino XD600 w/165 crank arms. It tempts me.

Trouble is, on my recumbent, I like the 52t ring and use it. 26" rear wheel. And this is where I want 165mm arms.

But I should probably give it some thought. That would probably serve me fine.

I didn't even notice that the one I posted had 165mm arms. Mine has 175.

There is an XD300 model which is the same crank with steel rings. It costs a few dollars less and is a good choice if you plan to change the rings anyway. You could put a 52 or 53 tooth ring on it if that was what you wanted.

...And I still say not one cyclist in 50, tops, can turn a 53-12 on the flat without straining. For 90++ percent of riders, the top two or three gears, at least, are useless.

These top gears are not useless if you are trying to draft a tandem down a 2% grade. :thumb:

There are a bunch of 48/ 38/ 28, 170mm cranksets out there, and some have steel rings on them.
Are these things gonna work ok with a 10 sp chain/ casette???

Bud

There are a bunch of 48/ 38/ 28, 170mm cranksets out there, and some have steel rings on them.
Are these things gonna work ok with a 10 sp chain/ casette???

Bud


I've never spotted any that do. Or at least claim to.

There are a bunch of 48/ 38/ 28, 170mm cranksets out there, and some have steel rings on them.
Are these things gonna work ok with a 10 sp chain/ casette???

Bud

Good point. One I've never needed to consider for my own applications. The Sugino XD cranks are claimed to be good for up to 9 speed chains.

Good point. One I've never needed to consider for my own applications. The Sugino XD cranks are claimed to be good for up to 9 speed chains.

My main concern, are the steel chain rings going to screw things up? or just last longer? I was going to
order the Sugino Impel 150x to replace my 52/42 DA .The sheet sez 7/8 speed compatible , But Sheldon sez It does not make any difference. (My 7200 series DA crank set from 82 works fine with 10 sp! )

Bud

I'm just an old Fred-type road rider by today's all-performance, all-the-time standards, but I think what you want most from a triple is a good range combined with good, close spacing of the gears in between... and for that, you need good spacing between the 3 rings in front. A 52 big ring is probably too big to be of much use unless maybe you're always riding slightly downhill. But, you could have just put a 50 on there instead. A 50 is something even I can use every once in a while. Personally, I would think that if I was using a 46 as the big ring, I would want smaller than 30 for the granny gear. 50-40-30 is good for a road triple, but if you want 46, then it makes more sense to have lower gears for the other two (like a mountain triple that might be used on a touring bike). Otherwise, I think you might end up with too many gears that are virtually the same.

If you're the kind of rider that likes to ride intelligently by taking maximum advantage of your gears so you never have to push too hard, it's best to avoid having too many duplicate gears.

My main concern, are the steel chain rings going to screw things up? or just last longer? I was going to
order the Sugino Impel 150x to replace my 52/42 DA .The sheet sez 7/8 speed compatible , But Sheldon sez It does not make any difference. (My 7200 series DA crank set from 82 works fine with 10 sp! )

Bud

I don't see how the material would make any difference, steel or aluminum rings. The difference between cranks meant for different speeds is the thickness with ten speed rings being slightly thinner to match the thinner chain. I tend to agree with Sheldon that it doesn't really matter. Just hype to get people to replace perfectly good parts.

If I could design my crank, I would pick something other than 46/39/30. Maybe 46/36/26. But given that I started with 52/39/30, and given that the 39/30 section has served me well, and given that all it cost me was $22 to "fix" the 52 into something I could use, it seemed the easiest & least expensive way to go.

A 50 would have been nearly as worthless as a 52. I'm not even going to use the 46 very much.

Over the last 100 miles I've put on this bike, I'd guess that about 2 of them were at speeds of 20+.

I have a 48/39 on my 1962 Follis road bike, with a 12/28 in back. Works for me.

If I could design my crank...46/36/26...

I have this on my touring bike. It's a Race Face crank. Also, 11/32 9spd cassette on the back with 26" wheels. A group of us just finished a 5-day tour down the Pacific Coast Highway from inland to San Francisco to San Simeon back inland to Paso Robles and the Great Western Bike Ralley on Memorial Day. I had to turn back after the fourth day to attend my daughter's graduation from USF. However, I was noticing how convenient it was to bomb downhill into the many ravines along the coast in the 46 chainwheel and then simply flick onto the 36 to climb out. This is about the same as downshifting in the middle of the cassette about two gears (from say 16 to 21 teeth)...A ratio of 1.28.

My Roubaix has a compact double with 50/34 and there is almost no transition on the front rings where it is not also necessary to simultaneously shift on the rear in an attempt to maintain momentum. The ratio here, 1.47, is just too large to be as convenient as what you suggest.

I am gonna give the 48/38/28 a shot for a while, probably just use 48/38 till I get around to change DR,, Right now I use 42 most of the time, and ride in the 60 to 80 inch range.The 38 will get me down to 37inches which is ok for what I have been doing, the 48 will will give me 5 in the 53 to 86 range and a top 2 of 99 and107..Thanks for the comments on the steel rings....
Bud

When it comes to triples, it's pretty hard to beat the typical combinations of gears that have been traditionally found on a touring bike. It's a setup that will get you up the same hills as the best road racing climbers, but with a load to boot. The only difference is that you won't get up the hills as fast as they do. But sure, in the meantime, ride whatever you have. It will still roll the same.

Just spotted an odd crank, for the short and strong-legged rider, on eBay. Kind of the opposite crank of what I like.

A Sugino 54/48 double with 165mm crank arms.

Just spotted an odd crank, for the short and strong-legged rider, on eBay. Kind of the opposite crank of what I like.

A Sugino 54/48 double with 165mm crank arms.

Ouch!