View Single Post
Old 09-16-13, 08:03 AM
  #17  
surreal
Senior Member
 
surreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
[QUOTE=wirides;16069954]Surreal, that is extremely helpful, thank you. I considered that but I was left with the impression the crank swap would give me a better climbing ratio and it appears it does. What I don't know is how the numbers translate to real life. Here's the thing, I am basically finding myself at or near the top of the cassette in the big ring or too far down the cassette while in the small ring. I am trying to accomplish too things: 1) better / easier climbing and 2) find gearing that will put me more in the middle of the cassette during my normal riding conditions.[/QUOTE

play around here: http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/ You'll find it offers you to play with the theoretical math without spending any money, but of course there's no substitute for actually riding a given setup. TBH, even if it weren't cheaper and easier, I think the closer-spaced ratios of the 53/39x12/28 would be preferable to going compact-- it obviates the highest and lowest ratios given by the 50/34x11/26, and gives you more to work with in the center of the cassette. Plus, if you're already spending a lot of time in smaller cogs while on the 39t ring, moving to a 34t ring will just exacerbate that problem.
surreal is offline