close ratio chainrings for my attack bike!!!!
09-19-04, 02:59 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have a double right now with a 11-23 cassette....but I'm dreaming up something for my next bike that I think would make it the perfect "attack" bike.
My idea of the perfect attack bike would be awesome acceleration under all considitions....To do this I think it would be perfect to mate closer ratio chainrings say 50-42-34 (or 52-44-36) to 11-23 gears for flat ground and SHELDON BROWN's high and wide 11-28 9 speed cassette for hilly terrain.
The benefits to the close ratio chainrings would be faster shifting....especially to the "granny gear" which isn't so granny if it is a 34 or 36. A 34 or 36 has fighting potential!!!
I think this set-up would dominate my 53-39 double and 11-23 cassette by giving my super hard shifts under all conditions....plus the rear derailler wouldn't have to wrap as much chain as the stock configuartion.
My end goal is too not only be able to upshift through the cassette but also through the chain rings more often than I do.
I think this would be the ultimate triple!!!!!!
My idea of the perfect attack bike would be awesome acceleration under all considitions....To do this I think it would be perfect to mate closer ratio chainrings say 50-42-34 (or 52-44-36) to 11-23 gears for flat ground and SHELDON BROWN's high and wide 11-28 9 speed cassette for hilly terrain.
The benefits to the close ratio chainrings would be faster shifting....especially to the "granny gear" which isn't so granny if it is a 34 or 36. A 34 or 36 has fighting potential!!!
I think this set-up would dominate my 53-39 double and 11-23 cassette by giving my super hard shifts under all conditions....plus the rear derailler wouldn't have to wrap as much chain as the stock configuartion.
My end goal is too not only be able to upshift through the cassette but also through the chain rings more often than I do.
I think this would be the ultimate triple!!!!!!
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-19-04 at 04:41 AM.
09-19-04, 07:53 AM
#3
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,155
Bikes: rockhopper, delta V, cannondale H300, Marin Mill Valley
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
You're giving away your top end? We gonna call you 52-11!? I don't think so! How about 53-44-36?
09-19-04, 08:25 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Full-power chainring shifts are more likely to cause the chain to drop or chainsuck. You are better off with a close ratio cassette, 11-21 or 12-21. and the appropriate chainrings. A goal of more chainring shifts is against conventional wisdom supported by empirical data. Why would you want to do more work (shifting) and risk dropping the chain more frequently?
In the old days of the 5 and 6-speed freewheels and cassettes, cyclists did indeed use a gearshift pattern called half-step, in which the difference between the chainrings was HALF the percentage difference between the adjacent cogs. So every other gearshift going up or down required a cog shift AND a chainring shift. As soon as it was possible to have 7 cogs, it was possible or close to possible to pretty much bridge the gap between the rings with decently small percentage gaps between cogs, and half-step went in the dumpster, and we proceeded pretty directly from the old Campy 144mm bolt circle which allowed a small ring no smaller than 42-41T (had to get 41T from Stronglight only), first to the Shimano 130mm bolt circle, and then Campy had to follow to 135mm (Campy can't stand to EXACTLY COPY the Asians even when they are right). Now with 8, 9, or 10 cogs on a cassette, circumstances even more favor the current wide chainring gaps and narrow cog gaps, because cog shifts are more reliable than chainring shifts and take less time than the frequent double shifts (front and back) of the old half-step shifting pattern.
The reason for the old 144mm bolt circle was that there was no need for anything smaller, because the size of the "small" ring was close in size to the large ring, because cyclists were using half-step gear patterns, because with only 5 cogs, it was the only way to get a reasonably wide set of ratios with fairly small and even steps between adjacent gears. Note that "adjacent" back then does not mean the same thing people think it means now, when much more often an "adjacent gear" does not just mean the next highest or lowest combination in terms of the distance covered per crank revolution, but also likely means the adjacent cog on the cassette.
Of course, the bolt circle wars aren't quite over. Owing to the recent use of 110mm "compact doubles" by racers, it's pretty much established (?) that next year Dura-Ace will be offered with three cranksets: the 130mm double, the 130/74mm triple, and the 110mm "compact double."
Initial starting conditions for most sprints on level ground begin with speeds in the low thirties, and finish with speeds between 37 and 48 mph, depending on who is sprinting and whether or not there is a tailwind. At 32 mph and 105 rpm, you are already on the 53 X 14T, and your best option for staying at peak power output is numerically adjacent cogs.
Unless the people you ride with are slugs, I suspect that while you are getting your chainring shift, they will dust you with their narrow-spaced adjacent consecutive cog shifts.
In the old days of the 5 and 6-speed freewheels and cassettes, cyclists did indeed use a gearshift pattern called half-step, in which the difference between the chainrings was HALF the percentage difference between the adjacent cogs. So every other gearshift going up or down required a cog shift AND a chainring shift. As soon as it was possible to have 7 cogs, it was possible or close to possible to pretty much bridge the gap between the rings with decently small percentage gaps between cogs, and half-step went in the dumpster, and we proceeded pretty directly from the old Campy 144mm bolt circle which allowed a small ring no smaller than 42-41T (had to get 41T from Stronglight only), first to the Shimano 130mm bolt circle, and then Campy had to follow to 135mm (Campy can't stand to EXACTLY COPY the Asians even when they are right). Now with 8, 9, or 10 cogs on a cassette, circumstances even more favor the current wide chainring gaps and narrow cog gaps, because cog shifts are more reliable than chainring shifts and take less time than the frequent double shifts (front and back) of the old half-step shifting pattern.
The reason for the old 144mm bolt circle was that there was no need for anything smaller, because the size of the "small" ring was close in size to the large ring, because cyclists were using half-step gear patterns, because with only 5 cogs, it was the only way to get a reasonably wide set of ratios with fairly small and even steps between adjacent gears. Note that "adjacent" back then does not mean the same thing people think it means now, when much more often an "adjacent gear" does not just mean the next highest or lowest combination in terms of the distance covered per crank revolution, but also likely means the adjacent cog on the cassette.
Of course, the bolt circle wars aren't quite over. Owing to the recent use of 110mm "compact doubles" by racers, it's pretty much established (?) that next year Dura-Ace will be offered with three cranksets: the 130mm double, the 130/74mm triple, and the 110mm "compact double."
Initial starting conditions for most sprints on level ground begin with speeds in the low thirties, and finish with speeds between 37 and 48 mph, depending on who is sprinting and whether or not there is a tailwind. At 32 mph and 105 rpm, you are already on the 53 X 14T, and your best option for staying at peak power output is numerically adjacent cogs.
Unless the people you ride with are slugs, I suspect that while you are getting your chainring shift, they will dust you with their narrow-spaced adjacent consecutive cog shifts.
09-19-04, 08:30 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by SDS
Full-power chainring shifts are more likely to cause the chain to drop or chainsuck. You are better off with a close ratio cassette, 11-21 or 12-21. and the appropriate chainrings. A goal of more chainring shifts is against conventional wisdom supported by empirical data. Why would you want to do more work (shifting) and risk dropping the chain more frequently?
Unless the people you ride with are slugs, I suspect that while you are getting your chainring shift, they will dust you with their narrow-spaced adjacent consecutive cog shifts.
Unless the people you ride with are slugs, I suspect that while you are getting your chainring shift, they will dust you with their narrow-spaced adjacent consecutive cog shifts.
09-19-04, 07:13 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I though of the chain rings were spaced closer together in number of teeth this wasn't as much of a problem. I think if you keep your wrap capacity under control the the rear derailler should always be able to keep good tension on the chain.
Sometimes I think the jump ftom 39 to 53 is a little too big. I also think the jump from 42 to 30 is too big for any kind of fast downshift.
Sometimes I think the jump ftom 39 to 53 is a little too big. I also think the jump from 42 to 30 is too big for any kind of fast downshift.
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-20-04 at 01:57 AM.
09-19-04, 08:02 PM
#8
hello
A triple********** You're kidding....
What you really need is a straight block, a double ring, and mean looking calves/quads.
What you really need is a straight block, a double ring, and mean looking calves/quads.
09-19-04, 09:05 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What's wrong with more gears?
The only reason the triple gets a bad name is because of the ridiculous 30 ring "granny gear".
My superior idea involves a 36 ring as the smallest....It's almost as big as the 39 on a double!!!!
A 53-45-36 triple is like having a "double" with an extra gear. Heck I might switch it to 54-45-36. Actually that's an even better idea!!
What's the big deal about having more gears on a road racing bike. I never hear people with 10 speed cassettes wish they had 8 speed cassettes!!! The same should go for cranksets!!!!
I'm telling you it's the 30 ring that gives triples there bad name.....THat 42-30 downshift has to be slow because of all the chain slack the rear dreraileur has to take up.
THrow away the 30 ring!!!!
P.S. You still need stronger legs for the 36-23 combo than you do for a 30-27 combo. In fact 36-23 isn't that much lower than the 39-23 on my current double.
The only reason the triple gets a bad name is because of the ridiculous 30 ring "granny gear".
My superior idea involves a 36 ring as the smallest....It's almost as big as the 39 on a double!!!!
A 53-45-36 triple is like having a "double" with an extra gear. Heck I might switch it to 54-45-36. Actually that's an even better idea!!
What's the big deal about having more gears on a road racing bike. I never hear people with 10 speed cassettes wish they had 8 speed cassettes!!! The same should go for cranksets!!!!
I'm telling you it's the 30 ring that gives triples there bad name.....THat 42-30 downshift has to be slow because of all the chain slack the rear dreraileur has to take up.
THrow away the 30 ring!!!!
P.S. You still need stronger legs for the 36-23 combo than you do for a 30-27 combo. In fact 36-23 isn't that much lower than the 39-23 on my current double.
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-19-04 at 09:10 PM.
09-19-04, 09:55 PM
#10
hello
Originally Posted by 53-11 alltheway
What's wrong with more gears?
Your middle ring is only good for use as a shifting ramp, to move your chain from the small to the big ring.
09-19-04, 10:24 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes it true that the middle ring does duplicate many gear ratios, but that is true on even standard triples.
What's wrong with having the middle ring.If you didn't you might have to go from 67 gear inches to over 102 gear inches on some upshifts and that will definitely mess up your cadence. How is that going to be fast? That's like shifting a car from 2nd gear to fifth. It bogs "the engine" down and takes forever to accelerate.
If you want to think of it as a shift ramp fine, whatever. It will be faster this way....nobody can make a 35 + inch gear jump and still stay fast!!!
I wish I had a mile per hour to cadence conversion chart because I would like to see how much your cadence would drop on some of these big shifts. A 36-16 to 54-16 shift has got to slow you down a lot.
Now a 36-16 (59.4 inches) upshift to 45-16( 74 inches) is still big but won't slow you down that much....and your cadence will speed up to 90 or so fairly rapidly. Now(in the 45-16 gear) you can either upshift to 45-14(84 inches) or upshift to 54-16 (89 inches) either one is a good choice.
I think now you can see the genius in my plan.
All calculation were made with a 54-45-36 triple set-up using sheldon browns 11-28 cassette( 11,12, 13,14,16,18, 21, 24,28).
My final gearing plan will be fine tuned a little more, but I definitely think this is the way to go. The only trick is if you space the chain ring ratio in a little closer you should space the cassette ratios out slightly.
Idealy shifts between chain rings would feel more natural (only 9 tooth difference on my system...most likely develop a 8 tooth spread in my final bike plan 50-42-34 with 11-28 cassette). Although chain ring shifts will always be bigger jumps (and therefore suck for speed) I think there is a way to may this transition better.
What's wrong with having the middle ring.If you didn't you might have to go from 67 gear inches to over 102 gear inches on some upshifts and that will definitely mess up your cadence. How is that going to be fast? That's like shifting a car from 2nd gear to fifth. It bogs "the engine" down and takes forever to accelerate.
If you want to think of it as a shift ramp fine, whatever. It will be faster this way....nobody can make a 35 + inch gear jump and still stay fast!!!
I wish I had a mile per hour to cadence conversion chart because I would like to see how much your cadence would drop on some of these big shifts. A 36-16 to 54-16 shift has got to slow you down a lot.
Now a 36-16 (59.4 inches) upshift to 45-16( 74 inches) is still big but won't slow you down that much....and your cadence will speed up to 90 or so fairly rapidly. Now(in the 45-16 gear) you can either upshift to 45-14(84 inches) or upshift to 54-16 (89 inches) either one is a good choice.
I think now you can see the genius in my plan.
All calculation were made with a 54-45-36 triple set-up using sheldon browns 11-28 cassette( 11,12, 13,14,16,18, 21, 24,28).
My final gearing plan will be fine tuned a little more, but I definitely think this is the way to go. The only trick is if you space the chain ring ratio in a little closer you should space the cassette ratios out slightly.
Idealy shifts between chain rings would feel more natural (only 9 tooth difference on my system...most likely develop a 8 tooth spread in my final bike plan 50-42-34 with 11-28 cassette). Although chain ring shifts will always be bigger jumps (and therefore suck for speed) I think there is a way to may this transition better.
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-20-04 at 12:02 AM.
09-20-04, 12:23 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 914
Bikes: Trek 1000, Giant TCR Composite 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 53-11 alltheway
Yes it true that the middle ring does duplicate many gear ratios, but that is true on even standard triples.
What's wrong with having the middle ring.If you didn't you might have to go from 67 gear inches to over 102 gear inches on some upshifts and that will definitely mess up your cadence. How is that going to be fast? That's like shifting a car from 2nd gear to fifth. It bogs "the engine" down and takes forever to accelerate.
If you want to think of it as a shift ramp fine, whatever. It will be faster this way....nobody can make a 35 + inch gear jump and still stay fast!!!
I wish I had a mile per hour to cadence conversion chart because I would like to see how much your cadence would drop on some of these big shifts. A 36-16 to 54-16 shift has got to slow you down a lot.
Now a 36-16 (59.4 inches) upshift to 45-16( 74 inches) is still big but won't slow you down that much....and your cadence will speed up to 90 or so fairly rapidly. Now(in the 45-16 gear) you can either upshift to 45-14(84 inches) or upshift to 54-16 (89 inches) either one is a good choice.
I think now you can see the genius in my plan.
All calculation were made with a 54-45-36 triple set-up using sheldon browns 11-28 cassette( 11,12, 13,14,16,18, 21, 24,28).
My final gearing plan will be fine tuned a little more, but I definitely think this is the way to go. The only trick is if you space the chain ring ratio in a little closer you should space the cassette ratios out slightly.
Idealy shifts between chain rings would feel more natural (only 9 tooth difference on my system...most likely develop a 8 tooth spread in my final bike plan 50-42-34 with 11-28 cassette). Although chain ring shifts will always be bigger jumps (and therefore suck for speed) I think there is a way to may this transition better.
What's wrong with having the middle ring.If you didn't you might have to go from 67 gear inches to over 102 gear inches on some upshifts and that will definitely mess up your cadence. How is that going to be fast? That's like shifting a car from 2nd gear to fifth. It bogs "the engine" down and takes forever to accelerate.
If you want to think of it as a shift ramp fine, whatever. It will be faster this way....nobody can make a 35 + inch gear jump and still stay fast!!!
I wish I had a mile per hour to cadence conversion chart because I would like to see how much your cadence would drop on some of these big shifts. A 36-16 to 54-16 shift has got to slow you down a lot.
Now a 36-16 (59.4 inches) upshift to 45-16( 74 inches) is still big but won't slow you down that much....and your cadence will speed up to 90 or so fairly rapidly. Now(in the 45-16 gear) you can either upshift to 45-14(84 inches) or upshift to 54-16 (89 inches) either one is a good choice.
I think now you can see the genius in my plan.
All calculation were made with a 54-45-36 triple set-up using sheldon browns 11-28 cassette( 11,12, 13,14,16,18, 21, 24,28).
My final gearing plan will be fine tuned a little more, but I definitely think this is the way to go. The only trick is if you space the chain ring ratio in a little closer you should space the cassette ratios out slightly.
Idealy shifts between chain rings would feel more natural (only 9 tooth difference on my system...most likely develop a 8 tooth spread in my final bike plan 50-42-34 with 11-28 cassette). Although chain ring shifts will always be bigger jumps (and therefore suck for speed) I think there is a way to may this transition better.
Why don't you just shift to a lower gear while shifting to the outer chainring? There certainly isn't any rule that specifies you must stay in gear while changing chainrings. I think your logic alludes us all.
09-20-04, 12:28 AM
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Why would you downshift when you are accelerating?? What kind of logic is that!! My cadence is maxed out so I downshift to a bigger cassette gear before I upshift, huh??
Remember this is an ATTACK BIKE....It will be designed by me for maximum performance and acceleration (not leisurely upshifting that takes too long!!!)
Remember this is an ATTACK BIKE....It will be designed by me for maximum performance and acceleration (not leisurely upshifting that takes too long!!!)
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-20-04 at 12:43 AM.
09-20-04, 12:28 AM
#15
hello
Originally Posted by 53-11 alltheway
Read the above post Fixer!!! I know you are still on tonight!!!
09-20-04, 12:43 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 914
Bikes: Trek 1000, Giant TCR Composite 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 53-11 alltheway
Why would you downshift when you are accelerating?? What kind of logic is that!! My cadence is maxed out so I downshift to a bigger cassette gear before I upshift, huh??
09-20-04, 12:45 AM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So if my cadence is 110 in a particular gear how am I going to be able to downshift without slowing down a lot???
I don't want to slow down...I want to keep going faster.
You're mistaken if you think the equivalent jump can be made by downshifting the cassette before upshifting the chainring....the jump is nearly the same. A 36 to 54 upshift will be heavy no matter what gear you are in on the cassette.
I don't want to slow down...I want to keep going faster.
You're mistaken if you think the equivalent jump can be made by downshifting the cassette before upshifting the chainring....the jump is nearly the same. A 36 to 54 upshift will be heavy no matter what gear you are in on the cassette.
09-20-04, 12:56 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 914
Bikes: Trek 1000, Giant TCR Composite 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well, I didn’t feel like calculating it out for 110rpm’s, but if you run a 53/39 and are in a 39/13 (24.1mph @ 100rpm) and then shift to your 53 while shifting down to your 17 (25mph @ 100rpm)... That's a gain of 3.2 gear inches.
Saw your edit: Why do you need the 36. What's wrong with running a 53/39?
And if you are stuck onthe 36/54, 36/13 to 54/19 is a very minor jump (1.9 gear inches)
Saw your edit: Why do you need the 36. What's wrong with running a 53/39?
And if you are stuck onthe 36/54, 36/13 to 54/19 is a very minor jump (1.9 gear inches)
09-20-04, 01:07 AM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You system works only if you stop pedaling. My system works even if you keep pedaling. Upshifting while pedaling is more natural .Mine is faster. For your purposes the 53-39 double works fine.
I don't need a 36. If I could make a triple with a 39 as my small ring that would be fine too, but it isn't possible. I can't make a 54-46-39 triple even if I wanted to.
I don't need a 36. If I could make a triple with a 39 as my small ring that would be fine too, but it isn't possible. I can't make a 54-46-39 triple even if I wanted to.
09-20-04, 01:57 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 914
Bikes: Trek 1000, Giant TCR Composite 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'll just take the route of fixer and bow out of this. You're hopeless 
09-20-04, 02:02 AM
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You still can't understand, huh?
More likely you just don't like to admit I'm right.
Another advantage of my superior idea is that with the middle ring you can use any gear on the cassette without getting a lot of chain deflection. This cannot be said of the inner ring on a double....you start getting a good amount of chain deflection when you start approaching the outer gears (although I would never use the small-small combination in real life)
Man, This idea seems brighter and brighter all the time. I'll give my self a good pat on the back right now.
More likely you just don't like to admit I'm right.
Another advantage of my superior idea is that with the middle ring you can use any gear on the cassette without getting a lot of chain deflection. This cannot be said of the inner ring on a double....you start getting a good amount of chain deflection when you start approaching the outer gears (although I would never use the small-small combination in real life)
Man, This idea seems brighter and brighter all the time. I'll give my self a good pat on the back right now.
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-20-04 at 02:15 AM.
09-20-04, 05:55 AM
#23
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Towson, MD
Posts: 4,020
Bikes: 2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This entire premise is dumb. With 10-cog cassettes available, you currently have a gear for all reasons already. A triple is only necessary for those riders who can’t get up the climbs in their area on a 39/27 or a 39/29 if you want to give up the 12, which I would say is a good trade if you need a 39/29 to climb in. Not even the fast women around here ride a triple. Now, Maryland is not mountainous by any stretch of the imagination. But, in western Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia there are plenty of climbs with less than 1500 feet of elevation gain that are hard, hard, hard. Why? Because the roads were built before California was even a state…before the advent of heavy equipment. Serious gradients on the east coast….
09-20-04, 07:52 AM
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow!!! I don't think you realize the potential of running a closer ratio triple. You should read all the posts before responding.
I never said I wanted to use a 39/27 or god forbid those campy riders with their 39/28 gears(not even a 12 tooth!!!). I am a disciple of the 11 tooth, and my lowest gear option woukd be 39/23.
Another downside of a double is that using the outer gears on the cassette with the small ring (39) causes a lot of chain deflection. You don't have this problem with the middle ring of a triple.
Oh come on, You know I'm right........read all the posts before you respond this time.
I never said I wanted to use a 39/27 or god forbid those campy riders with their 39/28 gears(not even a 12 tooth!!!). I am a disciple of the 11 tooth, and my lowest gear option woukd be 39/23.
Another downside of a double is that using the outer gears on the cassette with the small ring (39) causes a lot of chain deflection. You don't have this problem with the middle ring of a triple.
Oh come on, You know I'm right........read all the posts before you respond this time.
Last edited by 53-11 alltheway; 09-20-04 at 02:49 PM.
09-20-04, 06:06 PM
#25
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,155
Bikes: rockhopper, delta V, cannondale H300, Marin Mill Valley
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I like your idea, but most chainring shifts should be accompanied by shifting rear dr to modify big change in gear inch. If you shift big ring without a compensating rear cog change even with smaller jumps (20%) between rings it's too big change to keep speed, cadence up. At least with 9 speed cogs you can change cog without shifting rings, I never could really figure half step, now I stay in middle ring, if I have to change rings I do change cogs at the same time to smooth the transition.
