D
On Apr 21, 10:45 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Of course, whatever works for you, go for it. But the PO was asking
> about the feasibility of a "super-compact" double for the road, not
> about a triple.
Well... he was asking about "gears":
<I am interested in the concept of switching to compact crank setup
mostly as a way to get a tighter cassette ratio selection, AND a half
a gear lower than what I have used for years. Most of my rides are
pretty hilly, and I've always wished for about one more gear; and it
would be great not to lose the top end or get a real widespread
cassette.>
Tighter cassette ratio, lower gear, keep top end? Repeating, a triple
is one way to do that.
IME, a good way. Already mentioned, in addition to "keeping gears
you're used to", adding an inner ring (36) to my ancient Nuovo Record
touring setups (5,6,7sp clusters) worked very well for those three
requirements. I got two lower gears, with one a real "bailout" (at
least in days of youth and fitness) for semi-loaded touring and soft
roads, where it worked "just right". Seldom used, wonderful when
needed.
In modern times, with 30t inner rings available, and contemporary
gear, indeed you could tighten up the rear cluster and still get at
least one very low gear. And keep the top.
"I don't miss my 53" is fine, no problem here. I'd miss mine. End of
"argument" <g>.
There's a subtext of anti-racer sentiment here. Let's get it out and
let the fumes dissipate, shall we? Please? "Oh the horror of all that
bad and evil racer stuff that no ordinary cyclist needs", all that
crapola. The "compact" crankset is here; use it if you like it, point
out the advantages as you see them.
See Carl Fogel's post; "you don't need a 53" is baloney, at very least
for some riding conditions.
If you don't "want" one for your riding, or feel it's useful, fine.
(repeating an exchange, forgive missing attribution):
(Post):
> > Looking the other way, I have considered swapping the triple on my lightest
> > bike to a compact double. I may still do it. I doubt I'll do it on the
> > heavier tourer, as I can't see any double achieving a wide enough range.
(Reply):
> Well, comparing a 50/40/30 triple to a 46/30 double, the conclusion is
> clear. Low range is the same, and you lose the highest gear
> (essentially only the top one). But for loaded touring my experience is
> that there will always be a situation where a lower gear is better.
Dang. The only way you get a lower gear with the same toothcount inner
ring is to go larger on the back-- probably spreading ratios, and/or
going larger for the smallest cog. Both things the OP said he didn't
want.
> On my second tour, I tested out hanging a really low granny on my 46/30
> (a 22). I tried it out beforehand, and it was absurd to think of using
> such low gears, two of them below 1:1. But, I then went on the tour,
> and found myself out of the saddle climbing in that bottom gear. The
> load you are carrying makes a huge difference.
IME, so does altitude, living in the Midwest at 700' altitude and
climbing to 12,095 in the Rockies with tent, stove, extra warm/
waterproof clothes, a couple of days' worth of food and the evening's
liquid refreshment. That's where the bailout was useful a few times,
and where the next gear up (2nd largest cog, 36t ring) was very
useful, on the hard parts of the various uphills. Otherwise, I used
the gears I was used to.
Elsewhere in this thread, gear selection for terrain seen ahead while
riding is discussed. With unknown roads, familiar gears a nice to
have. This is "the beauty of the triple" IMHO. Opinion from experience
and stated as such.
wrote:
> Of course, whatever works for you, go for it. But the PO was asking
> about the feasibility of a "super-compact" double for the road, not
> about a triple.
Well... he was asking about "gears":
<I am interested in the concept of switching to compact crank setup
mostly as a way to get a tighter cassette ratio selection, AND a half
a gear lower than what I have used for years. Most of my rides are
pretty hilly, and I've always wished for about one more gear; and it
would be great not to lose the top end or get a real widespread
cassette.>
Tighter cassette ratio, lower gear, keep top end? Repeating, a triple
is one way to do that.
IME, a good way. Already mentioned, in addition to "keeping gears
you're used to", adding an inner ring (36) to my ancient Nuovo Record
touring setups (5,6,7sp clusters) worked very well for those three
requirements. I got two lower gears, with one a real "bailout" (at
least in days of youth and fitness) for semi-loaded touring and soft
roads, where it worked "just right". Seldom used, wonderful when
needed.
In modern times, with 30t inner rings available, and contemporary
gear, indeed you could tighten up the rear cluster and still get at
least one very low gear. And keep the top.
"I don't miss my 53" is fine, no problem here. I'd miss mine. End of
"argument" <g>.
There's a subtext of anti-racer sentiment here. Let's get it out and
let the fumes dissipate, shall we? Please? "Oh the horror of all that
bad and evil racer stuff that no ordinary cyclist needs", all that
crapola. The "compact" crankset is here; use it if you like it, point
out the advantages as you see them.
See Carl Fogel's post; "you don't need a 53" is baloney, at very least
for some riding conditions.
If you don't "want" one for your riding, or feel it's useful, fine.
(repeating an exchange, forgive missing attribution):
(Post):
> > Looking the other way, I have considered swapping the triple on my lightest
> > bike to a compact double. I may still do it. I doubt I'll do it on the
> > heavier tourer, as I can't see any double achieving a wide enough range.
(Reply):
> Well, comparing a 50/40/30 triple to a 46/30 double, the conclusion is
> clear. Low range is the same, and you lose the highest gear
> (essentially only the top one). But for loaded touring my experience is
> that there will always be a situation where a lower gear is better.
Dang. The only way you get a lower gear with the same toothcount inner
ring is to go larger on the back-- probably spreading ratios, and/or
going larger for the smallest cog. Both things the OP said he didn't
want.
> On my second tour, I tested out hanging a really low granny on my 46/30
> (a 22). I tried it out beforehand, and it was absurd to think of using
> such low gears, two of them below 1:1. But, I then went on the tour,
> and found myself out of the saddle climbing in that bottom gear. The
> load you are carrying makes a huge difference.
IME, so does altitude, living in the Midwest at 700' altitude and
climbing to 12,095 in the Rockies with tent, stove, extra warm/
waterproof clothes, a couple of days' worth of food and the evening's
liquid refreshment. That's where the bailout was useful a few times,
and where the next gear up (2nd largest cog, 36t ring) was very
useful, on the hard parts of the various uphills. Otherwise, I used
the gears I was used to.
Elsewhere in this thread, gear selection for terrain seen ahead while
riding is discussed. With unknown roads, familiar gears a nice to
have. This is "the beauty of the triple" IMHO. Opinion from experience
and stated as such.
