Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-22-13, 07:15 PM   #201
Bandera 
Ding!
 
Bandera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Texas Hill Country
Bikes:
Posts: 3,765
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathanC View Post
Bandera can stick to his penny-farthing and be done with it.
Nathan,

How very snide.

Although I do of course own a penny-farthing and a very nice unicycle it seems that you are implying Luddite tendencies to myself due to my considering the current crop of E-shifters somewhat less than optimal. A bit funny to me actually as I have over the last 40 years been an "early adopter" and promoter of a few cycling innovations. Here's a list in no particular order that bucked the cycling status quo:

Clipless Pedals
Hardshell Helmets
Dura-Ace Components
130 BCD/ 39T
Indexed Shifting
American Framesets
High Performance Clincher Wheel Sets
Cassette Gear Sets
Aero TT Bars
Aluminum Race Frames
Cyclo-Cross Racing
Moulded Saddles
Mountain Bike Racing
Cyclo Computers
Aero Brake Levers
Moulded Shoe Cleat Mounts
Synthetic Chamois

All of the above received a hearty "that's not how it's done" in the community but now they seem the obvious norm to those who weren't there and don't know the technical history of the sport. I've never jumped on the band wagon of the latest fad, and there have been lots of them that never went anywhere, just because it was new/cool and massively marketed. Successful innovation involves requirements planning, cost/benefit analysis, extensive field testing and sometimes several generations of design. Good mechanics are both skeptics and open minded, some find current fads amusing, the answer to the question that no one asked or simply overpriced Fred magnets. Some don't.

Must go adjust the spoon brake on the Penny-Farthing, good thing it's not hydraulic actuation.


-Bandera
__________________
'74 Raleigh International - '77 Trek TX900FG - '92 Vitus 979 - '10 Merckx EMX-3- '11 Soma Stanyan

Last edited by Bandera; 05-23-13 at 06:35 AM. Reason: editing
Bandera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 07:21 PM   #202
Bandera 
Ding!
 
Bandera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Texas Hill Country
Bikes:
Posts: 3,765
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug View Post
I'm much more concerned about low-end than high-end.
42/24

"For climbing, a narrow range of gearing was the norm, but also bigger gears than those used today. Eddy Merckx, for example, was a big fan of the 44-tooth chainring (typically paired with a 53) for climbing with a 6-speed freewheel 13-19; for particularly tough mountain races or stages he would opt for a 13-21.

By Hinault’s time, the chainring set-up was typically 53-42 with a 7-speed cluster. Hinault’s gear evolved from a low gear of a 42-22 to a 42-24 (47.3 inches compared to 45.8 inches for today’s popular 39×23) as he changed his climbing technique to focus more on seated efforts. As he said: “I sit further back and pedal more smoothly.”"


http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/18
__________________
'74 Raleigh International - '77 Trek TX900FG - '92 Vitus 979 - '10 Merckx EMX-3- '11 Soma Stanyan
Bandera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 07:28 PM   #203
spectastic
Supreme Adrninistrator
 
spectastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: inside my body
Bikes: a few
Posts: 3,511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
someone brought up a good point. With a compact, most people would be able to use a fuller range of the cassette while on the big ring, and use the 34 as more of a bailout for really steep climbs.
spectastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 07:37 PM   #204
svtmike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Bikes: S-Works Roubaix SL2^H4, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
Posts: 2,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RT View Post
Unless something has changed with this new dark magic, big/big will create the same chainline on any drivetrain where the cassettes are the same width, regardless of cog count. I could be wrong.

I bet BDop could jump in here and blow our minds with drawings, graphs and anecdotes.
I was thinking with chain rub, the chain is deflected to the edge of the derailleur over a shorter distance and therefore at a higher angle.

Anyway, I don't worry my little head about cross-chaining. I don't do it that often, so I expect that the wear from normal riding will bring me to chain replacement long before any theoretical additional wear from cross-chaining.
svtmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 07:37 PM   #205
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Bikes: Cervelo S1
Posts: 8,617
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectastic View Post
someone brought up a good point. With a compact, most people would be able to use a fuller range of the cassette while on the big ring, and use the 34 as more of a bailout for really steep climbs.
That's exactly what I do - 50t with the 12-27 covers most things, and I drop to the 36t for nasty climbs.
Bah Humbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 07:39 PM   #206
svtmike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Bikes: S-Works Roubaix SL2^H4, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
Posts: 2,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandera View Post
42/24

"For climbing, a narrow range of gearing was the norm, but also bigger gears than those used today. Eddy Merckx, for example, was a big fan of the 44-tooth chainring (typically paired with a 53) for climbing with a 6-speed freewheel 13-19; for particularly tough mountain races or stages he would opt for a 13-21.

By Hinault’s time, the chainring set-up was typically 53-42 with a 7-speed cluster. Hinault’s gear evolved from a low gear of a 42-22 to a 42-24 (47.3 inches compared to 45.8 inches for today’s popular 39×23) as he changed his climbing technique to focus more on seated efforts. As he said: “I sit further back and pedal more smoothly.”"


http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/18
I don't think the gearing that the pros use or used to use is in any way relevant to the gearing that most of us mortals need (especially at the low end). I certainly wouldn't expect to ride up mountains using Merckx's gearing.
svtmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 08:23 PM   #207
oldbobcat
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Bikes: '79 Gios, '80 Masi, '06 Felt, early '60s Frejus
Posts: 2,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxYacht View Post
I'm a bit surprised for the lack of love for a 50/36 12-23 setup. The crankset has the same 14t gap, and the cassette has a very usefull 1tooth increase from 12-19.

How often do you really need 119.5 GI instead of 109.5 GI?
Not too often, but with 9 other cogs on board it isn't like the 11 is taking up too much space. If I wasn't living and riding in Colorado, 50/12 would be plenty.
oldbobcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 08:25 PM   #208
buffalowings
Senior Member
 
buffalowings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's silly how people equate standard gearing to stronger riders, some people are more comfortable spinning a lower gear than trying to grind through a hill with a only a 23, if you spin at a higher cadence, you can go just as fast as someone on a harder gear.
buffalowings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 08:31 PM   #209
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Posts: 19,663
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by banerjek View Post
Not really. When you consider how much many people spend on bikes, a bit more wear and tear is no big deal.

A better reason not to cross chain is that it limits your ability to shift to an optimum gear. I see people riding in the bottom two cogs on the big ring all the time. Except when you have reason to believe that you'll only want to upshift, that's just not a great idea. Being in the top cog in the small ring is also not great for the same reason, though I see that less frequently.

+1. Way to many folks ride almost exclusively on the big ring for whatever reason - machismo - I don't know. When I ride with folks like that, I do a quick mental calculations and figure at the speed we're travelling they can't be turning the cranks faster than 60 RPM. That's not good.
rpenmanparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 08:56 PM   #210
oldbobcat
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Bikes: '79 Gios, '80 Masi, '06 Felt, early '60s Frejus
Posts: 2,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug View Post
What was the biggest, typically? I'm much more concerned about low-end than high-end.
The limiting factors were the capacity of rear derailleurs to take up chain slack and clear the largest cogs. If memory serves me, Campy Record and SunTour Cyclones were pretty maxed out around 26t. Super Record gave a little more latitude than Nuovo Record. The other consideration was trying to maintain 1t changes at least into the middle of the cluster. That got a little easier with 7 cogs.

By today's standards we were all hopelessly over-geared at the low end.
oldbobcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 09:17 PM   #211
telebianchi
Senior Member
 
telebianchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 5.2, 2003 Fuji Cross, 2010 Giant Trance, 2006 K2 Mod 4.0, 2010 Schwinn Madison
Posts: 1,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by svtmike View Post
I don't think the gearing that the pros use or used to use is in any way relevant to the gearing that most of us mortals need (especially at the low end). I certainly wouldn't expect to ride up mountains using Merckx's gearing.
Actually it kind of is relevant to us mere mortals when you see that Contador and Saxo Bank used SRAM Apex with a 34x32 low gear in the 2011 Giro on the big climbing days. (http://road.cc/content/news/36163-gi...ador-goes-apex). While I know that on a climb that kills me with 34x28 a pro rider could crush with 39x25, if those guys see a need for compact chainrings and big cassettes then I see no reason that I can't use the same gearing to get over the little mole hills near my home.
telebianchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 10:38 PM   #212
spectastic
Supreme Adrninistrator
 
spectastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: inside my body
Bikes: a few
Posts: 3,511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
I feel like I'm missing something... Why is riding a 52 correlated with lower cadence at all? The only difference between them is 1 extra gear on both ends of the spectrum. Everything in the middle is comparable. A quick Excel table shows you nothing about having to pedal at a lower cadence with a 52 (didn't include small chainring for simplicity's sake). just click up 1 gear with a 50 and you'll get the same thing.

[TABLE="width: 704"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64"][/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]14[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]15[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]16[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]18[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]20[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]22[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]52[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.0[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.9[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.6[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]50[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]4.2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.6[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]3.1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, align: right"]2.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

It's not very complicated.
spectastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-13, 11:13 PM   #213
Dunbar
Senior Member
 
Dunbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Posts: 2,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker View Post
+1. Way to many folks ride almost exclusively on the big ring for whatever reason - machismo - I don't know.
Unless you can spot the difference between a standard and compact crank I don't think you can do accurate mental calculations. The reason I leave my compact on the big ring most of the time is purely functional. The small ring is pretty much "spun out" at about 18-20mph which is precisely where road cyclists spend a lot of time (at or above.) I can't believe riding around on the small-small (or second to last cog) is good for the drivetrain either. The big ring on a compact is completely usable down to about 14mph IME and that's staying off the bottom three cogs to avoid cross-chaining. And lastly, who wants to constantly be shifting the front rings if it can be avoided?

A standard crank is going to be different since the 39T small ring is usable up to a higher speed.

Last edited by Dunbar; 05-22-13 at 11:18 PM.
Dunbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 04:41 AM   #214
Campag4life
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 10,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectastic View Post
someone brought up a good point. With a compact, most people would be able to use a fuller range of the cassette while on the big ring, and use the 34 as more of a bailout for really steep climbs.
I think this is a great point. A fuller range cassette also is more forgiving to say using a 50/38 compact like I do...makes the 50 more usable and the 38 is more usable with bigger cogs in back. The downside of more of a pie plate cassette of course is loss of tight cog spacing shift to shift. To me, since there is no gearing utopia, give up of slight tight gear spacing in back is better than the less tolerant 50/34 gap in front shifting which I never liked.
Campag4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 04:44 AM   #215
Campag4life
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 10,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
Unless you can spot the difference between a standard and compact crank I don't think you can do accurate mental calculations. The reason I leave my compact on the big ring most of the time is purely functional. The small ring is pretty much "spun out" at about 18-20mph which is precisely where road cyclists spend a lot of time (at or above.) I can't believe riding around on the small-small (or second to last cog) is good for the drivetrain either. The big ring on a compact is completely usable down to about 14mph IME and that's staying off the bottom three cogs to avoid cross-chaining. And lastly, who wants to constantly be shifting the front rings if it can be avoided?

A standard crank is going to be different since the 39T small ring is usable up to a higher speed.
This is why I opt for neither full size or pure compact...but made up a 50/38 which is pretty easy to do with any compact crankset. I just don't need a 52-53 big ring and a 50 with a wider cassette in back makes that ring more usable.
Campag4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 05:01 AM   #216
clausen
Senior Member
 
clausen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern Ontario
Bikes: Colnago Master XL, Bianchi Via Nirone 7, Marinoni Fango
Posts: 3,659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campag4life View Post
I think this is a great point. A fuller range cassette also is more forgiving to say using a 50/38 compact like I do...makes the 50 more usable and the 38 is more usable with bigger cogs in back. The downside of more of a pie plate cassette of course is loss of tight cog spacing shift to shift. To me, since there is no gearing utopia, give up of slight tight gear spacing in back is better than the less tolerant 50/34 gap in front shifting which I never liked.
I like the opposite 50/34 with a 12-23. Tight spacing and roughly the same gears as a 53/39 with a 13-26. The FD shifting issues with a compact are a non issue for me, it's little extra push when double shifting but I don't need to shift it that often.
clausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 05:29 AM   #217
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Posts: 19,663
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
Unless you can spot the difference between a standard and compact crank I don't think you can do accurate mental calculations. The reason I leave my compact on the big ring most of the time is purely functional. The small ring is pretty much "spun out" at about 18-20mph which is precisely where road cyclists spend a lot of time (at or above.) I can't believe riding around on the small-small (or second to last cog) is good for the drivetrain either. The big ring on a compact is completely usable down to about 14mph IME and that's staying off the bottom three cogs to avoid cross-chaining. And lastly, who wants to constantly be shifting the front rings if it can be avoided?

A standard crank is going to be different since the 39T small ring is usable up to a higher speed.
Yes, that discussion was aimed at standard 53/39 cranks.
rpenmanparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 06:17 AM   #218
RT
The Weird Beard
 
RT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: COS
Bikes:
Posts: 8,554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerull View Post
People bring up cable failures due to arguments that assume mechanical systems are perfection incarnate and never ever have any issues at all, while electronic systems are likely to explode at any moment.

Cables fail. Not very often, but it happens. But you know what also almost never happens? Di2 failures. And you don't even have to replace most of the system every 6 months to get that reliability.
This is just more Kool-Aid. Cables do fail, but under extreme circumstances. I can only base this on the extremely sparse volume of cable-breaking threads in the history of this forum, and my personal experience, which features no cables breaking.

Would you trust electronic braking? I certainly would not.
RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 06:51 AM   #219
Gerry Hull
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1x10.
Gerry Hull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 06:56 AM   #220
Gerry Hull
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A bit of an aside but since were talking about Koolaid i figure it's ok:
Man, that new DA 9000 11 speed chain shifts better and runs quieter on my ten-speed system than anything I've ever seen.
Gerry Hull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 07:01 AM   #221
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Bikes: Cervelo S1
Posts: 8,617
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectastic View Post
I feel like I'm missing something... Why is riding a 52 correlated with lower cadence at all? The only difference between them is 1 extra gear on both ends of the spectrum. Everything in the middle is comparable. A quick Excel table shows you nothing about having to pedal at a lower cadence with a 52 (didn't include small chainring for simplicity's sake). just click up 1 gear with a 50 and you'll get the same thing.

It's not very complicated.
At least for me, it's not about the 52, it's about the 39 going up steep hills. I'd have no issue running a 52 except that I still want a 36 for some of the nasty climbs here and want to stick to a 14t shifting gap.

However, your point is also damning to the "deferred success gearing" crowd. A compact is just another gear or two at the low end. If you use it with a smaller cassette, or don't usually drop to your biggest cog or two... it's like running a standard with a bigger cassette or using the biggest cogs. Gear-inches are gear-inches, and you don't go slower because you use one method of getting there vs another.
Bah Humbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 07:04 AM   #222
RT
The Weird Beard
 
RT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: COS
Bikes:
Posts: 8,554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry Hull View Post
1x10.
I had a feeling we would see the GH sooner or later!
RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 07:06 AM   #223
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Bikes: Cervelo S1
Posts: 8,617
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RT View Post
This is just more Kool-Aid. Cables do fail, but under extreme circumstances. I can only base this on the extremely sparse volume of cable-breaking threads in the history of this forum, and my personal experience, which features no cables breaking.

Would you trust electronic braking? I certainly would not.
Sure, but it does happen. The argument we have is that Di2 batteries suddenly leaving you without shifting is also extremely rare, in that the only examples of it I've seen are when people were intentionally testing its battery failure mode. Even in the cases of people who (presumably) had a short and excessive battery consumption they just had to charge it more often, on the order of weeks instead of months.
Bah Humbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 07:06 AM   #224
RT
The Weird Beard
 
RT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: COS
Bikes:
Posts: 8,554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW, after stupidly trying to adjust a 2x9 lever to a triple crank yesterday (I had forgotten the levers were not 3x), I had to tune out the 30t to make it work, and work it did. 42t even around here is plenty with a 12-27.

Why not 53/42 with a 14-25 in the back for 9 speed?
RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-13, 07:07 AM   #225
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Bikes: Cervelo S1
Posts: 8,617
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry Hull View Post
1x10.
1x11. Get with the times, please.
Bah Humbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 PM.