View Full Version : Happiness is 34/48
Swapped 39/52 and 13/23 for 36/48 and 12/23. It's good.
Same high gear, lower low, nice size big ring. And it all
weighs less. And when I swap to 10 spd shortly I'll have
36/48 and 11/23 for the same top gear I normally race on
(52x12) but keeping the same nice low.
Just seems to work nicely when riding - keep it in the big
ring most of the time and spin nicely up the steep stuff.
Oh, and the TA Vega Light I bought has got some waaaay pimpy
gold coloured chainring bolts. Bling bling!
So, at least for me, this new "compact" trend is a good
thing and not just a pointless marketing exercise.
Ok, it's not earthshattering but it keeps me happy :)
Arthur
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
"Arthur Clune" <ajc22@york.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c6tmfr$nus$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>...
> Swapped 39/52 and 13/23 for 36/48 and 12/23. It's good.
>
> Same high gear, lower low, nice size big ring. And it all
> weighs less. And when I swap to 10 spd shortly I'll have
> 36/48 and 11/23 for the same top gear I normally race on
> (52x12) but keeping the same nice low.
I'll probably have to go along the same route when I
finally pluck up the courage to tackle the serious stuff on
my road bike. I can't see me doing it with a 39/52.
(They've beaten me before I've started!)
--
Simon M.
Hi Arthur,
I'm a newbie to road bikes and finding it a bit tough on 39/23 up here in the Lothians, some short but sharp hills.Do the "compact" chainrings raise issues with chain length / front mech. Is this a better way to go than to stick with 53/39 chainrings and getting a 13-29 cassette do you think ?, How much does the chainset option cost by the way as the new cassette can be got for £16.Originally posted by Arthur Clune
Swapped 39/52 and 13/23 for 36/48 and 12/23. It's good.
Same high gear, lower low, nice size big ring. And it all
weighs less. And when I swap to 10 spd shortly I'll have
36/48 and 11/23 for the same top gear I normally race on
(52x12) but keeping the same nice low.
Just seems to work nicely when riding - keep it in the big
ring most of the time and spin nicely up the steep stuff.
Oh, and the TA Vega Light I bought has got some waaaay pimpy
gold coloured chainring bolts. Bling bling!
So, at least for me, this new "compact" trend is a good
thing and not just a pointless marketing exercise.
Ok, it's not earthshattering but it keeps me happy :)
Arthur
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
toerag wrote:
> Hi Arthur, I'm a newbie to road bikes and finding it a bit
> tough on
> 39/23 up here in the Lothians, some short but sharp
> hills.Do the "compact" chainrings raise issues with
> chain length / front mech.
A link or two could possibly be removed if using a smaller
big ring, otherwise no change to chain length required.
Standard road double front mech should be ok (the rings
aren't /that/ much smaller). You might have to be extra
careful about avoiding the small-small gears if using a
particularly small inner ring, with a large outer ring, with
a short cage rear mech. A different BB might be required,
depending on make/model of new cranks.
> Is this a better way to go than to stick with 53/39
> chainrings and getting a 13-29 cassette do you think ?
It comes down to personal preference/suitability. You have
to decide what range you want (do the sums) and what jumps
between gears are acceptable.
Personally, after using a compact double for years, I now
prefer triple chainsets. Lots of low gears, high gears and
medium gears! Most usefully, the good chain angle from the
middle ring means you can stay on it most of the time, and
use the smaller, closer-spaced rear sprockets at the end
without having to worry about cross-over.
Note: A longer chain may be required if using larger rear
sprockets with existing chainrings. With anything,
chain needs to be long enough for the big-big. (Even
if you don't intend to deliberately use that gear, you
might accidentally ram it in one day).
~PB
Pete Biggs <pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
: A link or two could possibly be removed if using a smaller
: big ring,
You will need to do this, at least if going from a 52 to a
48. Might get away with it with a 50. With a 34 inner you'll
need a shorter chain though to avoid the small-small combo
being too slack for the mech to handle. A couple of links
shorter is easy to do though.
Standard front mech works fine. I found I needed to tweak it
carefully to deal with the gap between small and big ring
since a normal road mech is curved to fit a larger ring. Not
a serious problem though - just requires car.
:> Is this a better way to go than to stick with 53/39
:> chainrings and getting a 13-29 cassette do you think ?
It depends. If you are already on Campag 10 speed then just
going 13-29 is cheaper (especially if you just stick with a
short cage rear mech which will work with the 13-29).
: Personally, after using a compact double for years, I now
: prefer triple chainsets. Lots of low gears, high gears and
: medium gears! Most usefully, the good chain angle from the
: middle ring means you can stay on it most of the time, and
: use the smaller, closer-spaced rear sprockets at the end
: without having to worry about cross-over.
Or, to look at it the other way, using my 34/48 I can just
spend all day in the 48 :)
Arthur "the big ring is for crusing"
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
"Arthur Clune" <ajc22@york.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c70vs8$koi$2@pump1.york.ac.uk>...
> Or, to look at it the other way, using my 34/48 I can just
> spend all day in the 48 :)
I've found this, too; whilst rebuilding my road bike (at
long last), the only chainset I had to hand was a 39/48
Campag I'd previously used for 'cross. For gentler and/or
shorter hills that can be tackled in the big ring, a 48
seems to make a world of difference compared to the 53 I
used to ride on the road, but without affecting speed
downhill or on the flat. You do find yourself pedalling at
fractionally higher revs in the latter instances, but it
helps to develop a more fluid pedalling style.
David E. Belcher
Originally posted by Arthur Clune
Swapped 39/52 and 13/23 for 36/48 and 12/23. It's good.
Same high gear, lower low, nice size big ring. And it all
weighs less. And when I swap to 10 spd shortly I'll have
36/48 and 11/23 for the same top gear I normally race on
(52x12) but keeping the same nice low.
Just seems to work nicely when riding - keep it in the big
ring most of the time and spin nicely up the steep stuff.
Oh, and the TA Vega Light I bought has got some waaaay pimpy
gold coloured chainring bolts. Bling bling!
So, at least for me, this new "compact" trend is a good
thing and not just a pointless marketing exercise.
Ok, it's not earthshattering but it keeps me happy :)
Arthur
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
I don't know..there's just something ethereal about hammering along in a 53/12..it seems right..totally classic
crystal_tears_ <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
: I don't know..there's just something ethereal about
: hammering along in a
: 53/12..it seems right..totally classic
Yeah, but personally I need a decent sized downhill to do
that. And I'm not that slow.
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
