Myosmith

How does a 39T chainring x 28T cog compare to the gearing that most of you experienced road riders actually use for the majority of hill climbing? I'm setting up the drivetrain on my first road bike and am trying to decide how important keeping the granny gear on a triple would be, as it would require me to replace a perfectly good rear derailler.

The gearing my Trek 1400 came with is a 52-42 double coupled with an 11-23 cassette so I'd be dropping three teeth up front and gaining five in back even running the new 53-39-30 DA crankset as a double.

My experience is limited and all I have to compare it to is my light touring bike with a triple with a very low end 26T ring x 28T cog. I don't have a lot of steep hills around here, but even uphill into a strong headwind, I've never dropped down to my lowest 3 gears even though my touring bike is about 5 pounds heavier than the road bike will be.

Smokinbbl

I would say that most experience riders would use a compact crank... Being a 50-34 double, and they will probably run a 11-25t cassette. I am not as strong of a climber so I just changed my cassette from a 11-25t to a 11-28t. That way I can try to spin faster to get up the hill. I live in Okinawa Japan and on a typical 40 to 50 mile ride we average about 2500 feet of climbing.

.
https://connect.garmin.com/activity/109605053.

Retro Grouch 

That's really a question that only you can answer. Lots of road riders routinely go up almost anything with a 39/27 or even 39/25. Some prefer easier gears.

Frankly, other than style points and a tiny bit of weight, there's no real drawback to a triple crankset.

bradtx

Myosmith, A road triple makes sense when the usual riding condition is a combination of flat/rolling hills with the occasional steep climb combined with a close ratio rear. Before my touring bike I used a triple with similar gearing to what you're considering on my distance bike. A triple generally requires a medium or long cage RD as would an extreme combination using a compact crankset.

Compact crankset usage is increasing for a couple of reasons. OEM manufacturers can often combine two models of similar bikes, except for one a triple and the other a double into just one model and many cyclists like them if the usual riding is mostly climbing and descending with little in between.

Brad

BentLink

Play with a gear calculator, maybe Sheldon Brown's, and look at the gear inches in what you ride and what you're thinking of. If your solution isn't enough, you can sell the used cassette or rings and try again.

Here in the Appalachians, I'm OK with my 39x26 configured bikes (=42x28), but really prefer my compact's 34x28 setups for steeper climbing. This helps my mind more than my legs, just knowing I've got it.

HillRider

I ride in similar conditions and I have triples on everything, with the cranks geared 52/42/26 and 9 or 10-speed 12x27 (Shimano) or 10-speed 13x29 (Campy) cassettes. The triples lets me have a reasonably close spaced cassette but allow very low bail-out gears for the 20% and more hills I have around me. I see absolutely no downside to a triple crank other than a tiny weight penalty. Shifting between the two larger chainrings is just as good as a double.

cruisintx

As mentioned in another thread, after much thought and paying very close attention to my efforts on hills I have landed on this combination.

Front:52-41-28
Rear: 27-25-23-21-19-17-15-13-12

I am very happy with the tight ratios as they allow me to adjust for the variations of hills combined with sometimes vicious headwinds.

HillRider

A 41T middle ring? That's unusual. I use the same cassette as you list but in 10-speed which adds the 16T cog that I really like. I also custom built a 13x27 9-speed cassette which deleted the 12 and substituted a 16T. A 52x12 combination (117 gear-inch) is useless to me and substituting the 16 makes the cassette much closer spaced.

The problem with building a 9-speed 13x27 these day is you can't find single 16T cogs any more. The only way to do it is to combine a 13x25 9-speed with a 12x27 9-speed and swap the 21/24/27 group from the 12x27 for the 21/23/25 group in the 13x25. That gets expensive and is one reason I upgraded to 10-speed.

cruisintx

Yeah, when I first got it back from the LBS last Feb. the changes they made were to install the 28T granny ring and switched me to a new 26-12 cluster. I rode it that way for a few hundred miles before deciding on further changes. I tried to be fully aware of my efforts on hills and flats in order better judge what might work for me. The thing I noticed most was the difficulty in shifting from the granny up to the 42T middle ring so I went online to get the 41T middle ring and installed it. That made upsifting considerably easier. I was still not 100% satisfied with the ratios and spacing of the gears. A few hundred miles later, I also switched the rear to the one listed and obtained from Universal Cycles online. They have a very wide selection of components for the custom builder. My primary reason for that last switch was because I simply did not like the big jump from the largest to the next cog (26 to 23) and felt that jumps of 2 would be more suited to my specific likes & dislikes. I also felt that just a little bit lower granny gear was in order to tackle my normal hills, some of which are 12% to 14% boat-ramps. The tightly spaced rear cluster starting at 27 along with the new combination on the front, has proven to be exactly what I needed for my steepest hills and to minimze shifting overall, allowing me to stay on the middle ring a lot more than the original gearing of the F80. I'm very happy with the results.

HillRider

Whoops, I failed to notice your "custom" range of cogs. I'd certainly not want to do without both the 14 and 16T cogs that are missing from your cassette. I'm quite happy with the stock Shimano 12/13/14/15/16/17/19/ 21/24/27 10-speed. The jumps between the largest three are fine with me since when I downshift to those cogs I want a noticable change in gearing but I want the smaller ones as close together as possible.

Looigi

I use a 34-50 crank and 11-28 cassette. I've done some serious climbing with this, but it depends on the max grade of any length you're going to run into.

FBinNY 

That's the wrong question.

Each rider's requirements are different based on their condition and where they ride. What's right for Hillrider in Pittsburgh, may be wrong for another rider in the same area, or for Hillrider if he moved to Florida.

What matters are the gears you actually use, and you can compare different ratios by simple division. Simply divide the front by the back to compare ratios, ie.a 36/18 combination is the same ratio as a 44/22. So simply figure the gearing you're actually using now, compare available cassettes and see if a 39/xx can match your presently used low gear.

If you're moving or planning a long tour, it gets complicated since you have no good baseline, so I'd suggest leaving the granny on for a while until you know you can live without it.

Myosmith

Agreed, but being I'm a relative flatlander who has ridden mostly hybrids and a light touring bike, I wanted to get an idea of what other riders in various hilly conditions find to be adequate gear ranges. I want to start taking my bike(s) on vacation and other trips, such as for organized charity rides, where the terrain will be different than the rolling hills around here. I hoped to gain some insight as to how to set the bike up to handle a variety of conditions that I don't have the opportunity to test locally. The Badlands of South Dakota and North Dakota, the Montana Rockies, and the various steep climbs along Lake Superior near Duluth are all appealing and this information helps me get pointed in the right direction without wasting time and money.

After all of the information gathered from my three related questions, I plan to set the Trek 1400 up with the DA triple crankset used as a 53-39 double with a 13-28 cassette. Worst case scenario is that I get somewhere and find the hills too steep so I have to pop $100 into a long cage derailleur at the LBS to allow me to use the granny gear. If I find the hills managable, I saved $100 and kept a perfectly good 105 short cage derailleur.

Thanks everyone for your input.

ThermionicScott 

If I had to run a double, I'd be much happier with the 39 and 30 from the triple, rather than the 53 and 39. YMMV.

Bill Kapaun

Just my take-
IF I were to travel 100's miles to ride my bike, I wouldn't want to waste a day? trying to get a new RDER installed at a LBS during what may be their busy season.

Retro Grouch 

I don't know why you're afraid to spend the last nickel for the "right" derailleur but you'll probably be OK anyway.

The only thing that the long cage rear deraileur does for you is to take up all of the chain slack in the little/little combination. In real life you'll only use the granny chainring while grunting up hills with the biggest 2 or 3 rear cogs. As soon as you crest the hill, you shift back into the middle ring and you never get even close to the little/little combination.

cruisintx

This is something I was wondering about too. Some may do things differently but I never use the bottom four cogs of the cassette when on the granny ring. On the flip side of that, I never use the top three when on the large front ring. I do use all 9 rear cogs when on my middle ring. My reasoning (quirk) may be due to the fact the I get some noise or chattering from the derailleurs when the chain angle becomes too great like when using the little/little or big/big combination. I've also been told and have read some advice online about "cross-chaining". One experienced rider I know says it puts more stress on the chain so he manages his gearing much the same way I do. Is that part about more stress true? I don't have enough experience to know for sure.

Myosmith

I'm sure for some $100 looks like a nickel, and I could come up with it if I need to, but thanks to some big financial setbacks over the past few years, I'm watching my pennies quite closely. I got into cycling to improve my health and stay out of the hospital (big financial setback #1) and have been building and flipping bikes for the past year, keeping one rider at a time along the way. I volunteer at a community bicycle workshop which gives me access to tools and workspace as well as being a place to network to find good used or NOS parts. I'm actually better than even money on the light touring/hybrid I now ride.

I really shouldn't be building a second bike right now, but I needed some kind of recreational hobby over the winter and I want to get into more group and charity rides come spring. I got this Trek 1400 in excellent condition at a good deal. It's only problem is that the gearing is too high for me and the range of gears is too narrow. It also has Biopace rings (not going to start that debate, it's been covered) that I don't like and it has a cup and bearing BB that has been well maintained but has a lot of miles on it. The original plan was to just replace the chainrings with 50-39 or 36 and get a new BB and cassette but a friend at the LBS found me the DuraAce triple for about the same money as just replacing the chainrings on the old crank. Hopefully, I can get it set up fairly inexpensively so I have time to flip another bike or two while keep my eyes open for good deals for any additional upgrades it might need.

I'm looking forward to being able to take our first family vacation in 4 years this summer and every $100 I can save will help.

fr333zin

39 x 28 on 700c + 28 tyre will get you a 37 inch gear. Should be OK if you are reasonably fit, and don't plan on carrying much. I have bail-out gears of 31 and 26 inches below this, and have been really glad of them at the end of a tough day, I live up a pig of a hill. I find 26 inch is good for an extended 25% gradient, you can always zig zag for a bit; walking up hills in cleats is a rubbish experience, frankly. My top tip for improved climbing is to lose some weight :O) Maybe your LBS friend will find a long cage derailleur in due course, keep an eye on ebay as well.

Retro Grouch 

I'm not the kind of guy who goes around measuring such things but bending the chain more side-to-side sure sounds to me like it would wear more quickly.

Not using the big rear cogs with the big chainring sounds to me like a good thing to avoid, but it's easier to overlook while you're riding. If you ever accidentally shift into the big/big, and you don't have enough chain length to safely cover that combination, you can do some serious damage to your bike.

dedhed

You can pick up Mt. group long cage rears pretty reasonable.
https://www.jensonusa.com/!vmbwajp1eE...medium=organic

Myosmith

I've got Deore components on my touring bike. Any possible problems using them with indexing etc with downtube shifters on a road bike? If I had to replace the front derailleur to accomodate the triple, would Deore work there as well?

Drew Eckhardt 

It depends on the length and grade of hills where you live, your mean maximal power output, how much you weigh, preferred cadence range at various power outputs, what happens to your power output when you get outside that range, etc.

At 145 pounds in good shape I considered 42x28, 39x26, 34x23, and 30x21 sufficient to get over anything in the Colorado Rockies. With 8 cogs in back I ran 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 so I wouldn't want to change cogs depending on whether I was riding east or west from Boulder; with 9 cogs 50-34x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 (although the overlap between rings sucks and I should have stuck with 50-40-39); and with 10 cogs I'd probably go 50-39 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26.

At 180 pounds, the same fitness, and with similar but shorter hills I want two cogs larger with the same spacing through the 19 although on flat rides it doesn't matter.