53-11 alltheway

Do you guys see any problems with building a bike with a close ratio triple.

Im thinking of 54-45-36 ( 9 tooth jumps)--total spread 18 teeth.

53-11 alltheway

How about 50-42-34 (18 teeth spread)?

catatonic

I was thinking of doing this, jsut to make use of that third chainring on my bike.

Maybe put some insane chainring on the outer, then the middle be a 53, then a 46, but I dunno if I could even fit those on like that...

53-11 alltheway

That 30 ring isn't too useful for anybody in shape. I wrote a lot about this recently in other threads....go read them if you are interested in changing the configuration. I was thinking of a 54-45-36. You could also make a 52-44-34 that is probably more reasonable. I still think the 36 ring is perfect for me as a starting point.

One advantage the middle ring has is that you can use any gear on the casseette and not get a lot of chain deflection. With a double, you have to be careful about using the outer gears with the inner ring due to chain deflection.

AndrewP

54-44-36 gives fairly even ratios of 1.2:1 and 1.22:1

John E

I happily used 50-47-44 / 14-16-19-23-26 for several years; how's that for a close-ratio triple, with 13 evenly-spaced ratios (no cross-chaining allowed!)? I currently have 48-45-34 / 13-15-17-19-21-23, which I like even better, on the PKN-10. However, today's spiders are too thick to accommodate half-steps -- the chain will hang up between the rings.

I like your 50-42-34 idea alot, because it will work superbly with a 2-tooth progression, such as 13-15-17-19-21-23, in back. If you don't like the ratiometric gap at the top, try 13-14-15-17-19-... .

qmsdc15

53-11, you don't want a 50t big ring! The 54-44-36 as Andrew points out gives even ratios, each about 20% change. The middle ring as you pointed out can be used w all cogs without a lot of chainline problems, although you'll get less wear if you avoid the smallest and largest cogs w middle ring. Anyway I use my middle 90% of the time and with all 9 cogs, I only shift front for big hill up or down. With 44x11 you will be able to spin 30mph, when that's not fast enough you break out the 54! And the 36x23 should get you up most paved climbs, though I've seen top pros use lower ratios on crazy steep Vuelta climbs. Go 36x26 low gear if you want to compete or tour on the steepest paved mountain passes.

Michel Gagnon

There is something on the Rivendell site (I think) about close range triples and half-step plus granny triples. In a nutshell, they suggest using a modern road double for that purpose, because it would shift better than a modern road triple. Dig up their site at https://rivendellbicycles.com

53-11 alltheway

then again,

I guess I could keep the stock triple chain rings and throw on a 11-21 "corncob" 10 speed cassette....that would give me 1 tooth shifts. I would have a 30-21 as my low gear.

My problem is I want the high gears, but still want to keep some versatlity in my ride without wasting gears on stuff that is toooo low.

Phatman

one problem with using odd-sized chainrings is that they wont shift as well as a stock shimano or campy setup becuase they stock rings have ramps and pins that make for easy shifting to their matched other ring. just somthing to think about.

I think the idea of a close-ration triple is a decent idea, you end up with closer ratio spacing, however, you might end up with a lot of overlap in the gear ranges. try using a gearing calculator like the one on sheldon brown's site https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/