I love you guys.

Bill: re: gearing, I was afraid you all would laugh at me if I said how low gearing I want. Right now my set-up is 26-36-48 in front and 11-32 in back. The first time I went up the hill to my house in my lowest gear, I giggled because I couldn't imagine wanting a lower gear, or staying upright in a lower gear if I had one (without spinning a zillion rpm). But I have since changed my mind, after going up some unfamiliar and steeper hills with my full load of groceries; and now wouldn't mind one gear even lower than what I have now. So although like you I don't use the 11t cog much, unlike you I DO use the 32t already.

But most of my riding is between 40 and 75 gear inches (is that how you say it?). I can and do use the third ring now, especially just before stopping, so I can downshift a lot by just moving to the middle ring, rather than shifting a bunch on the rear cogs. But I don't think it's an absolute necessity for me, if the middle ring is big enough to give me gearing range; and I MUST have a chain guard, given how clumsy I am. I assume it's possible, depending on the bash guard, to install it WITH a big third ring on a new crankset; but I guess I thought if I don't need a third ring, why not lose it? After diddling a bunch with Sheldon's gear calculator, I was thinking of 24t-38t in front, and keeping 11-32 in back. This would give me gearing even lower than my current lowest, and the 38 front/11 back combination would be more than required by even my most desperate speeds! Actually the main issue is that if I go faster, my reaction time is not quick enough to respond evasively to the car drivers here who either don't see me or don't care. I wouldn't mind even going to 11-34, except that in combination with the 24-38 rings in front, it created a lot of redundancy, which bugs me a little bit (though I'm not sure it should). I suppose I could still go lower in the cassette, like a 12-36; but I haven't seen much besides 11-32 or 11-34 in my online shopping so far. What do you think?

Skydog: two main reasons for wanting a whole new crankset rather than replacing worn chainrings, the first being aesthetic. That Acera crankset is ugly and heavy. Re: the latter, I'm not a weight weenie in terms of riding my bike, wanting to go faster (obviously not, if I'm willing to lose the big chainring), etc., but because in order to put my bike on the rack at the front of the bus, I have to lift it to my shoulder height. This is already almost beyond my utmost capacity, straining every muscle I have; and in so doing I usually bash my head and hands, staggering and teetering under the weight, until I get my bike on there. (And for what it is, my bike is on the lighter side, isn't it?) So while weight is not a primary consideration in upgrading, if, while I'm at it, I can decrease weight even the tiniest bit (without a great deal of extra trouble or $), that can only be a plus. 24t/38t shouldn't be a problem for my mtb FD, should it?

I think I might eventually, as you suggest, just try out the Stronglight on the BB I have now and see if it works; and maybe also order a 127mm BB just in case? Do square taper BBs commonly come in lengths longer than that? The name Phil Wood somehow sticks in my mind...spendy, though.


dsbrant: so my shifter should "think" that the middle chainring is the outer ring, and the granny gear is the middle ring? Do I understand this correctly? So that if I forget and move the shifter to 1st position, what happens = nothing. <-- Stuff That Would Never Have Occurred To Me!