I never get used to it when some people get all worked up about what someone else rides. Weird! Here in Australia we have a name for someone like that - wanker. :lol:

Pics of people walking up a hill isn't evidence as some riders are sprinters and others are hill climbers. I often find MTB walking uphills and they have the shortest gears in the business.

http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/upload...ike-uphill.jpg

https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/disp...-672641344.jpg
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/1478917038...ike-h3e5d7.jpg

When you are spinning an 8-10% grade, it helps.

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home..."
Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corp.

I mean while we're quoting famous last words, I might as well join in. :lol:

:roflmao2::thumb:

I say, anyone not riding an ordinary, and nothing but, is weak, and that includes me!

It's not about that. Deep down you just want what you like still to be available when you're ready for a new one. A good example is myself! In BMX we used to have laid back or drain pipe seat posts to give you more room and comfort. Well the kids these days slam their seats so they don't make laid back seat posts anymore. So for myself I can't enjoy riding a new BMX because I can't sit down. So I then went back to riding my old BMX, but I found that in my 20 year absence all the standards had changed! I found it difficult to get tires, gyro brake levers etc. it's so bad that guys pay $500+ for a set of original BMX tires because no one was making them for a long time.

So people just worry that someday they won't be able to get a new version of what they already like.

I usually buy multiples of bits that I really like. It's the he man 53-11 types I was referring to.

Don't look now, but the single chainwheel crank is gaining a lot of momentum. Some may regret the passing of the old style, compact crank as the soon to be "good ol' days".

So maybe don't get worked up about he-men and their 53-11's.

Beryl Burton preferred a 62-13. 129 gear inches. Not a wanker or a he-man ;)
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u.../660248717.jpg

53-11 has always been cool. Even when it's just wheel diameter.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._bicycle02.jpg

Wow, pretty jaded view of reality. Sure that could be(or apparently is) an argument, but its filled with some serious bias.

Perhaps the typical American cyclist is less fit now than before and aging quickly. Couple points though-
- compact cranks are a GLOBAL trend so it isnt just Americans by any stretch of the imagination who use compacts.
- those who age typically do benefit from less resistance when riding, so yup- compact cranks are great.

As for the claim that aging unfit Americans are desperate to identify with having an active outdoor lifestyle...is that really so terrible? Would you rather the group identify with being lazy and sedentary? People identify with what they strive to be- that is hardly new and certainly not unique to American cyclists.

Your last point I really dont disagree with- triples would be much better. Unfortunately, they are also extremely limited in availability. The component groups triples are still available for are heavier, less refined, and less adjustable in use. Furthermore, road triples are what was always on road bikes and by your specifying touring triples, im guessing you mean triples with even easier gearing that a road triple. Again, I agree that a touring triple would be best for a decent group of riders, but that means either flatbar bikes for them or lower component groups.
And ultimately- if a touring triple isnt realistically available to recreational riders who would benefit from one, then is it really the riders who are to blame(like you have done)? I certainly dont think that is an accurate group to blame. SRAM doesnt even offer triples on their road bikes. And sure, it could be argued that manufacturers design what the public wants...but that is only true in some instances. The industry also creates and sets trends then self fulfills those trends by people adopting the trend out of a lack of other options.

Eddy Merckx himself rides a compact crank these days. Just sayin'.

Eddy Merckx: 'Campagnolo is kwaliteit'

Triples made sense when freewheels had 5 or 6 cogs. With a wide range 10 or 11 in the back, it really is silly. Does anyone really need 33 speeds??? An argument can be made for them for MTBs, since ultra low gears are sometimes required to get up muddy very steep hill. Likewise some tourists still prefer them because they like to stay in the center chainwheel most of the time, yet have the range on either end as an option. But for most regular road riding, a compact double makes more sense. A 30/46 will give all the range of a vintage triple setup, and more usable gears.

Just for reference/info going forward, I have done numerous weight tests between 1X, 2X, compact 2X, and 3X within a company's offerings. (Where the company offered every option) I've done it with Shimano 105, 600, Ultegra and Suntour. Most recently I did it with SRAM in the 41 forum on a thread titled something like "When will we see 12 speeds." The fact of the matter is that when the 2X systems have a big rear cog 32+/huge RD, they become heavier than the triple with the same range and a standard RD. In the case of the SRAM 1X with the WiFli/Hollow cassette the only weight saved was 1 less shifter. That's comparing systems with the same amount of cogs on the cassette. If you compared a modern 1X/2X-10 or 11 speed with a 3X-7 or 8 made out of the same modern cassette family, the triple would be even lighter. It appears those pie plate rear cog/huge capacity RD combos are heavier than a small third ring/bolts/spacers/bigger BB spindle/triple FD.

That being said, the main reason I ride triples/5-8 speed cogs is because it gives me the standard 52/42-40 double that is great for most riding. The 3rd ring is only used if needed. You can also jump all around through the ratios easier. Not as much going up or down the ladder with a double. Easier to skip rungs. 52-42/40-30 paired with a 12/28 7-8 rear is pretty hard to beat. 2 tooth jumps, except for the biggest 3 cogs.(on the 7 speed, better with 8) Now some people may say a 52-12 is a really tall gear. I agree, but that 12T runs really good on the 42/40 ring. You can't say that with a 34/11-12T 10-11 speed.

PSA diversion here. Spa Cycles has some great prices on Stronglight compact doubles and triples in classic silver. Beautiful, wide variety of lengths and rings. Cheap. No affiliation blah...

Here's a triple for 60 brit pounds.

You're in luck!
- Schlumpf speeddrive.
- Sturmey Archer CS-RF3 - 3 Speed Cassette Freehub
:P

I'm just glad we are having some modern but classic looking options nowadays.
http://ep.yimg.com/ay/ird/ird-defian...e-cranks-3.gif
- IRD Defiant Compact Road Double Cranks - 50/34
- IRD Defiant Wide Compact Road Double - 46/30
- Sunxcd

I'm restoring a randonneur that originally came with a drilled stronglight crankset but was replaced somewhere along the way with a modern Shimano crank.

I swapped out my Biopace 52/42 chainrings for 48/38 Suginos on 130 BCD Shimano tricolor cranks. I wanted to try compact, but didn't want to throw off the vintage vibe of my Cannondale. The 48/38 was the closest I could get. My rear cluster is 12-26. With the Biopace rings I spent more time toward the 26 end of the rear cluster. I just did a 100 bike ride and noticed I spent more time in the middle of the cluster with the 26 more reserved for steep climbs. I'm glad I swapped out to the Suginos. Although I probably need to be in better shape.

I have a couple of bikes with very high gearing - I also have other bikes with very low gearing. The trick is to know which one is the right tool for the job at hand.

I rode yesterday for a few hours on loose gravel and steep hills using 44/30-11/40 - riding that with 53/39-11/28 would be silly, in my opinion.

Beryl would be a wanker if he said that anyone who does not use 62-13 is weak.

I say - ride what you like and what suits the conditions.:thumb:

Got one, and still have my first-born, even! :)

http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/41t.jpg

True on a couple points.
My touring bime is 3x9 and i love having all the choices- i can run all 9 cogs when in my middle ring but still have bailout gearing when needed.

And a 46/30 adventure crank like what FSA makes would be great for many road bikes too(instead of just gravel bikes).
A 46/30 mated to an 11-38 or 11-30 cassette would allow for easy gearing, smaller jumps than whats on many current endurance bikes(11-32), and would keep the double crank to work with higher end groups.
And 46 up front with 11 in back is plenty for most riders.

I used to think the same thing :)
I'm guessing you're not past your thirties.
A dose of being 60 will cure you of this, and you may fall in love with smaller gears.
To fracture a Lemond-ism: It doesn't hurt any less, you just go slower :lol:

BikeCalc.com - Bicycle Gear Speed Chart

When you compare a old 52 (Which I have on my Nishiki) to a 38 and the same cog size of 11 the difference of speed is huge. 14.5 Km/hr. To me I would want the extra speed for flats.

What I don't understand is why isn't there a 9tooth cog which would give similar ratio's with a smaller chain wheel? We have 9t cassettes in BMX.

:thumb:

With 10-12spd rear spreads and 10-11t small cogs, a compact double gives you a great cruising range on the outer ring, and an easy dump onto the smaller ring for climbing. You could do a bunch of double-shifting if you wanted to, but having all those cogs in the back makes that pretty unnecessary. No muss, no fuss, wide-range crossover. I started with 34-50s, then over time dropped the outer ring to 48 or 46. If I'm going fast enough downhill to spin out 46x11, I'll be even faster just tucking down and coasting.

And, yeah, compact doubles may just be a re-emergence of older technology, but the newer availability of 2x the number of rear cogs makes it a lot more practical and useful.

When I saw how easy shifting a 36t or 40t rear was becoming, I figured why bother with a front derailleur at all? So now I'm converting a bunch o' bikes to 1x in the front. 40t or 42t for the faster ones, 34t or 36t for climbers.

You can call 1x a fad, or needless marketing-driven technology, but if I learned anything from the introduction of indexing 30yrs ago, then the wave of MTBs, then suspension, then hyrbrids, etc, is anything the mfrs do to make cycling easier for beginning/casual cyclists will not only find a place in the market, but potentially benefit us all. And if I can get the gear range I want without using double chainrings and a front derailleur, that's not a bad thing.

Going Compact on a 1957 Flying Scot?
 

If I had seen this thread earlier I would have just posted here instead of starting this: http://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...ying-scot.html

Given the deraillure on this bike, and the current set up, does anyone know what's the smallest ring I can add to the front (keeping the 49 tooth on there or replacing it as well) and what I'd need to do to make the most of it? (keeping the rear gran sport as is, keeping the 22 on the back (or can I go bigger?). I'm not a vintage campy expert (quite the opposite) but I'm curious to know what's the best climbing gear set up I can get given what's on here now?

At the moment there is a 49 tooth single cog up front with no derailleur, and a 13, 15, 17, 19, 22 on the back with swaps handled by a Campagnolo Gran Sport rear (does the inscription on the back mean that I can't go larger than a 26 with that size cage?).

Thanks!

1957 Flying Scot
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4349/...3611c5b8_b.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4440/...72cb8344_z.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4345/...832b9f61_z.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/...6f715e66_c.jpg