Originally Posted by
tigrrrtamer
Richard, you have LOTS of overlap in terms of duplicate gears. LOTS. Sit down and make the calculation yourself.
Yep, lots of overlap, no need to do any calculations, it's obvious on the ride. However, with the gearing I have, I can sit on the large ring for fast work, the middle ring for slow or uphill work and, of course, the granny for the monser hills and there are lots of them in my area - if I ride more than 10kms, I will need that granny to get home (why are the big climbs always on the home leg?).
I like my configuration because I can go from one chain ring to the other without excessive messing about with the rear gears - widen that seperation and every change on the front will necessitate changes on the rear. Further, reducing the middle ring will just make it less useful on the roads I use - I can say that without fear as my commuter has a middle ring similar to a compact setup.
Note: I monitor my cadence pretty well and like to stay in the mid to high eighties - slowing that cadence down or spinning frantically is foolishness I save for my fixed gear bike.
Nope, for me and my riding, compact cranksets are just a recipe for inefficient gearing, but you do need to remember that I have a rather wide range on the back and genuinely need that granny gear.
If you are strong enough to push a 52x11, you don't need a granny gear period: But maybe you are geared incorrectly to begin with. Do you really need that x11? Or even a x12?
With all the hills around here, the 11 gets used quite a bit. I can't pull it on the flat but tilt the earth the right way and it gets a workout. In fact, I use my entire range of gears. I like to climb with a cadence in the 90's and don't like having to stand to climb - it does horrible things to my heart rate.
Of course, standing's not an option on the bent and I'm selective of my hills with her - mind you, with the twist grip gear change, I wouldn't want the mucking about that a compact crank set woould entail (if I ever get a bent to work for me, twist grip shifters WILL be replaced with something that works). If I rode it more, I wouldn't have to worry about hills as I'd be able to spin up them, but I'm not riding it much and hence am not bent strong.
I'm sure you could find a way to make your range on a double optimal and just as good as with a triple, by simply thinking out your gears on the rear cassette.
Sorry mate, the gearing on my df sportster is optimal already ... for my purposes. Based on my previous ride, I did a lot of thinking when I built the sportster and chose my gearing accordingly (she was built up from a bare frame).
You're no young spring chicken... how's your back? Mine is terrible. Don't ergonomics count for anything in your book?
My df sportster causes me no back problems at all because the bars are at saddle level, the saddle is far enough back to give me a balanced sitting position, the reach has been tinkered to suit me and the cleats have been set back as discussed by Steve Hogg (aussie fitting expert). Add to that a Brooks saddle (so I don't need padded pants and, in fact, never use them) and I've got a very comfortable bike ... along with its optimised gearing (sorry, couldn't resist a tease).
Teasing aside, Steve Hogg talks a lot about back issues and, unless you're carrying an injury (like my dicky shoulder), back problems are usually associated with a poorly fitted bike - using KOPS and similar, old school fitting methods cause me no end of trouble and pain. Steve's methods remove pain.
The bent, on the other hand, has a seat that doesn't support my back properly because it's hard and the wrong shape for me, the pad is slightly too wide for my shoulder blades and causes trouble, the head rest fouls my helmet (compulsory here) which leads to neck pain and I slide forward everytime I hit a bump ... hence I find a shorter than optimal leg reach is needed to keep me on the thing. It's not major but it's bloody annoying. It's probably sortable too but I've yet to find a solution that doesn't involve making new bits for the bike.
I encourage you to re-think your position on this. Annoyance is a personal decision, as to what course of action one adopts in the face of something... in other words, it's more a question of personal attitude towards a phenomena than the phenomena itself.
Cheers! Timm
You won't convince me on compact cranks. I have considered them but for me and my riding, my triple setup is optimal.
The bent? If I had someone here who knew what to look for and what he was talking about, AND I had spare money to spend on the thing, I could probably get it right or at least a lot better. But I don't have either the support or the money. It doesn't help that my sportster is sooo darned comfortable and well set up nor that my commuter is much better suited to the commuting I do than the bent. The thing's has been relegated to 'toy' status ... which is not what I envisaged when I bought it.
Richard