Andycapp

Found a pretty informative link explaning the how, why and when of it all - https://bikehugger.com/post/view/the-...-compact-crank

ThermionicScott 

Twister didn't seem as bad. Maybe the crowd was more spread-out or I was in better shape this year. (Oh man, that "Last smoothies before KILLER HILL" sign afterward was evil...)

BTW, what time of day do you generally do your riding? I keep hoping to see more ordinaries and unicycles on the route, but I must go at the wrong times...

- Scott

OldsCOOL

My Trek 460 being their entry level racer has the typical 52/40 crankset and the middle of the road gearing on the freewheel, 14/24. Still, it is no granny gear. More akin to jezebel's sister by time I get to the top of a steep one.

blaise_f

Twister was about 1% steeper, but had a much better run (for those who can coast -_-). Twister also had about 5% of the crowd Potter did. Literally about 20 people on the entire climb, where Potter had hundreds and nowhere for a person actually riding to go.

We leave between 7 and 9 in the morning and ride about 12-14mph depending on wind and such.

ThermionicScott 

Heh, maybe a lot of people who had been traumatized last year just decided to skip it this time around.

Okay, cool. Generally on Ragbrai, I get on the road by 6-6:30 and try to make decent time. Maybe if the weather is milder next year I'll consider stretching out a little.

- Scott

JohnDThompson 

Regardless, the stock crank on the OP's bike would have had a 144mm BCD.

zandoval 

Believe it!

If your dérailleur can handle it this 14-34T can be a life saver at 20 bucks and don't forget going to a 34T ring on your crank if its a 110mm...

Picchio Special

Of course. I just don't like to let obvious misstatements of fact just sit there. They tend to accumulate veracity that way - this being the internet and all.

sillygolem

I thought this was C & V.


Suntour AG FTW

John E

The low gear on my Bianchi and on my Peugeot is 42/26; Capo #1 has a very similar 38/23. These admittedly will not get me up Fargo St. (Los Angeles), but they work for everything I encounter around here. The Bianchi came geared 52-42 / 13-23, which I dropped by 10% across the board for the Capo, to 47-38 / 13-23. That 10% decrease in ratio is quite noticeable.

If you are stuck w/ a 144mm BCD crank, consider swapping the rear cluster, chain, and rear derailleur -- 42/34 or even 42/32 will let you conquer most hills. Alternatively, a 48-34 compact double makes sense.

khatfull

I agree:

irwin7638

Ok, I mispoke, the smallest chainring on common production road bikes was...

Sorry

Marc

Robofunc

If you can find one of these (or something similar), you may be able to have your triple, keep things vintage and not break the bank.

Sugino AT

MKahrl

52-42 chainwheels, 14-28 rear clusters were common throughout the 1970's bike boom but even then knowledgable writers like Fred Delong and Frank Berto were complaining about them. Buying a higher end bike back then just got you a narrower range rear cluster (since you were supposed to be racing it). We didn't complain because we all had 17 year old knees and didn't mind mashing up a steep hill with all our leg hinges screaming. Experienced cyclists who knew the value of spinning on a long tour equipped their bikes with triples from Stronglight or T.A. where chainrings were available in every tooth size and so were freewheel cogs so a gear-head could put together his perfect combination.

The 1980's produced some nicely equipped touring bikes with triple chainwheels like some of the ones already pictured. Seek these out, they can be great bikes on many levels (tire choices, fender and rack mounts).

I don't consider a compact double to be an improvement on a triple for C&V bikes. With a triple you can set up the large and middle chainring to provide a tight range of gears for the riding you spend the majority of your time in. The small chainring is available for steep uphills or regular uphills when you've loaded your bike with extra gear. The small chainring doesn't need a great chainline to the rear cluster; it's usually used with only the three or four largest cogs anyway that it already lines up well with.

Triples are considered too clunky on modern bikes only because modern brake/shifter click shifting mentality did not match the nuances of front derailleur cage placement necessary on a triple. There are some brake/shifters that can do a good job of placing the front derailleur cage but that can't be operated with the same mindless abandon that a rear derailleur can.

With a compact double its most used gears in the middle range are achieved with severe cross chaining, large chainwheel/large cog and small chainwheel/small cog combos. Going from one chainwheel to the other always involves a large gear change in the rear cluster. This can be mitigated somewhat with a smaller large chainwheel, 48 or 46 tooth, that you use for most riding with the 30 tooth in reserve for hills.

I agree that a compact double is the cheapest and also a pretty good solution to putting lower gears on an older bike.

If you're putting together a high end touring bike check out this crank offering from Compass Bicycles; Rene Herse Crank. It will be available in triple with a wide variety of chainring sizes and low Q.

bbattle

My experience with a compact crank does not match that of MKahrl. 50-34 and 12-27. I spend the majority of my time riding in the big ring and can use all ten cogs; today's modern chains aren't bothered at all. If I need to climb, I use the small ring. 50-15 to 50-19 is a very popular range and happens to be in the middle of the cassette with a very nice chainline. I ride the same way on my bike with the traditional crank except I move to the small ring a bit sooner and my favorite range is 52-17 to 52-21 for most flat to rolling roads.

The difference in gearing between a 53-39 and a 50-34 is not so much; not nearly the big deal some people make it out to be. One less gear at the high end in exchange for 1.5-2 gears at the low end. As for the triple, the 30T ring gets you another gear or so at the low end over the compact.

But everyone is different; we ride on different roads, terrain and have different capabilities. So get out the gear calculator and figure out what works best for you. sheldonbrown.com/gears

Where are the pics of the quad cranksets?

Picchio Special

It's not a big deal. More a matter of how folks interpret "back in the day," which is a vague term. Depends on the day - certainly if the "day" is the era of the OP's bike, you're correct, for all intents and purposes. But folks could interpret "back in the day" to refer to the "vintage era" more generally. I didn't want the impression to linger that a 42-tooth inside chainring was somehow a limit imposed by older technology - as a lot of older cranksets clearly demonstrate. If the "day" was the 1950's, for example, even a lot of "common production" road bikes would have had doubles with smaller inside chainrings than 42. But as I say, with respect to the era of the OP's bike, your observation is generally valid.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the Trek catalog from 1983 - the year the OP attributes his bike to - shows a number of models with SR cranksets with 40-tooth inner chainrings - surely the Trek 400, 500, 600 of the day qualify as a "common production roadbikes."

tk1971

For what it's worth, it's very possible mix and match parts with non-indexed downtube shifters. I converted my Nishiki Prestige from the original Sugino VP 165mm double crankset 52T/ 42T with 6 gear cassette 13T - 26T, to a triple crankset and new wheels with a mtb cassette/rear derailleur. It was surprisingly cheap and easy.

Original drivetrain, with which I couldn't make the Santa Anita/Chantry Pavement climb.


This is a summary of my mods:

1) 48/38/28 triple 170mm square crankset up front (took the 52 from the double crankset to replace the 48, $16 used).
2) Re-spaced the rear triangle to accommodate my new Maddux wheels (135mm, $60 new wheelset). Tires kept slipping off original wheels anyways.
3) 12-32T 8-speed cassette (SRAM PG-850, $20)
5) Old MTB 8 speed XTR rear derailleur (lying around in the garage, free!)
6) 68 x 127mm BB. Eyeballed and measured up the spacing required to accommodate the triple (Shimano UN-54, $19). This part cannot be underestimated. The original 116mm BB
with a triple would not work. The granny front ring would literally mash into the rear
chain stay and not allow the cranks to rotate.
7) SRAM PC-870 chain (8 speed, $15)

$130 with almost all new drivetrain parts, along with a new bottom bracket and a new wheelset. Shifting is like butter with the non-indexed shifters. The bike still weighed under 24 pounds and I'm able to make the Chantry Pavement climb 50% faster than guys with mountain bikes.

Here it is now (more or less):

jan nikolajsen 

20grit - while a 39T might suffice, don't be mistaken about inclines in SoCal! My riding enthusiasm is fueled by climbs. The longer the better. When I visit my wife's family in LA, I hop on the bike right from their house and do some really steep, long roads. Continuous stretches of 4-6000' vertical is not uncommon in LA's San Gabriel mountains.

For me 39 front-28 rear will do most things except the oddball 15-20% hump some guys were writing about earlier. As my knees age I'm starting to see the compact advantage, though. Either the 39 ring or the switch to a compact crank/new BB is not too costly. Long cage classic Suntour derailleurs are still affordable on eBay.

Good luck!

sailorbenjamin

Turns out I work at an old folks home at the top of a steep hill. I'm really into granny gears. Sounds like I'm joking but it's true.
Go to the dump and get an old dead mountain bike and steal the triple off of that. Here's one on my old Raleigh;

Or steal the big cog off of an old dead freewheel. Drill it out and bolt it up. Here's one on my old Raleigh;

repechage

What are the other guys riding? Might be time to just ride more. A low gear might get you up a hill, but probably not with the "group", especially with testosterone involved.
Build a base on the flats, or ride the bigger lower loop of the PV Drives and Western.

GaryinLA

THe other people are mostly on modern road bikes with easier gearing than my Trek 760. One person has a Trek 2200 road bike that was modified with a modern triple setup with a granny gear. Another person has a modern high end Trek road bike. Another person has a Trek 7.5Fx. Another person has a Cannondale H600 I think, which is similar to a Trek 7.5Fx. Another person has an 80's steel framed road bike but its lower end so it has easier gearing than my Trek 760.

It's a beginner friendly group. Sometimes there's someone on an older steel framed hybrid, like my 2 hybrids. I have done the ride with my 2 hybrid bikes, my problem is the Trek 760 gearing which is inordinantly difficult.

GaryinLA

IF anyone's interested if you google Palos Verdes and biking you can see info on rides and elevations re these hills. It looks like the highest point is about 1400 feet above sea level. The ride i am doing starts at sea level but doenst go to the highest point of PV but it isnt that far off. The ride I am doing has about 3 hills in succession that are pretty challenging for beginners.

GaryinLA

To recap info on my Trek 760 from above, it seems like my front cogs are 52/42 (which is harder gearing uphills than a bike with a compact double crankshaft) and my rear gearing is 12-21 (which is harder gearing going uphills than modern mountain bikes or roadbikes and also harder gearing than lower end 1980's road bikes not made for serious racing.)

So my problems stem from the gearing on the front and the back.

On the other hand, i have been riding this bike all around town on mostly flat surfaces and some very small rolling hills and it is an awesomely smooth ride and i like the smooth shifting (it has Suntour Supreme deraillers i think) and the close gears in back.

I think for the kind of group rides i am doing and want to do (ie the Solvang half century ride is coming up, and a prelude ride on the same course that is very hilly), I really would benefit from having a modern triple (or at least a bike with modern gearing in back and a compact double crankshaft in front.)

My local bike mechanic has said he can swap out gears on my Trek 760 either in back or in front, but i didnt ask and he didnt tell me the details of the parts he would use. If i do a swap out of parts in front or back, Im sure he can get me more useable gearing maybe low enough to go up the hills (which I can do now on my hybrid bikes but they are heavier) but I would lose the close gearing i like now, and the Trek 760 only has 12 total gears. He also said he could swap out all the gears with modern components front and back (for a price) but I am not sure i want to throw the money into this bike, particularly when it is really great riding as is (for everything but rides with steep hills.)

So I am thinking maybe of leaving this bike as is and getting something like a new Surly Pacer frame (which is steel) and having it built up with a modern triple setup, to use on group rides, charity rides etc, with big hills.

I like steel, but i was recently tempted with a used Trek Discovery Channel bike which i think was a 1500 model (aluminum with carbon forks) but with the discovery paint/limited edition. I test rode that (it has a triple) but (1) the ride is more jarring than my Trek 760 and 311 bikes (my 311 model is too small for me but i am having the headset stem swapped out/raised) and (2) this bike had tiagra components (deraillers and brifters) and i found them to be clunky (not sure if it was the deraillers or maybe the frame itself causing vibrations etc.) So i didnt like the aluminum framed Trek.

So i am considering Surly Pacer, Cross check (think i would prefer Pacer as it is lighter) or else buying another old steel frame to build up with modern triple....

GaryinLA

correction i have 7 gears in back on the Trek 760 not 6.

GaryinLA

Can anyone tell me if i got the 7 speed Megarange shimano cassette would i have to
1- change the rear wheel
2- change the deraillers front back or both?
3- change the chain?

Also does anyone have any experience using that on a bike like mine with 52/42 in the front? Will this be a good solution for me? Will it be useable for daily riding around town and also up and down steep hills with that big jump in gears to get to the mega gear? I mentioned this Megarange cassette to my repairman and he was negative on it, saying its a big jump to that easiest gear and he didnt like it as a solution.

The experienced riders on my group rides going up and down the very steep hills have instructed me to use my gears (I am on my hybrid bikes when i do this ride). Going up the hills i try to keep momentum and speed, downshifting gears as needed trying to keep same cadence, until i get down to the granny gear and then i just pedal as i can to reach the crest of the hill. Then going downhill, i shift through the gears trying to keep the same cadence as i upshift and gain speed. If i have that Megarange cassette it seems that this technique would go out the window because of the big jump in gearing, so this leads me to believe its not a good solution for me if i want to do a lot of rides on hills, that i would be much better off with a modern triple.