Etape

[Rogerc]

Bought a new custom fitted bike in London, specifically
designed to assist an old man do the Etape with his son.

Campag Centaur equipment.

After considerable discussion on lowest gear that I might
need I thought we had settled on front triple 52/39/32 and
rear of 13 -29. Lowest ratio x
1.10 -- top of x 4.00

In practice they have fitted 50/40/30 ( which I did not
notice until I was home) -- giving a low of x 1.03 and a
high of x 3.84. I may well need the very lowest gearing --
but now the whole bike is geared a good bit lower.

Question was the discussion on 52 / 39 / 32 pointless as the
triple can never be set up that way -- and might / should
they have gone 52 / 42 / 30 which seems a more normal front
triple set up -- because if they had told me that I might
have asked for a 12 / 26 cassette -- giving a low of x 1.15
and a high of x 4.33. Rog

[Arthur Clune]

RogerC <cortis@no.spam.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

: In practice they have fitted 50/40/30 ( which I did not
: notice until I was home) -- giving a low of x 1.03 and a
: high of x 3.84. I may well need the very lowest gearing --
: but now the whole bike is geared a good bit lower.

Personally I really like 30/40/50. You'll not really need a
gear bigger than 50x13 anyway on a ride that long unless you
are *very* fit.

: Question was the discussion on 52 / 39 / 32 pointless as
: the triple can never be set up that way -- and might /
: should they have gone 52 / 42 / 30 which seems a more
: normal front triple set up

Depends. You can spend more time in the middle ring
with a 40 and it's a smaller drop to the little ring,
which is nice.

In practice, since it's there, I'd not worry.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

[Rogerc]

"Arthur Clune" <ajc22@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c96upb$hes$3@pump1.york.ac.uk...
>
> : Question was the discussion on 52 / 39 / 32 pointless as
> : the triple can never be set up that way -- and might /
> : should they have gone 52 / 42 /
30
> : which seems a more normal front triple set up
>
> Depends. You can spend more time in the middle ring with a
> 40 and it's a
smaller
> drop to the little ring, which is nice.
>
> In practice, since it's there, I'd not worry.
>
> Arthur

Thx Arthur for your assurance -- but when you are on
50/40/30 do you have a
12/26 on the back or this very low 13/29

Mind you -- old man -- etape -- may be I shall be very
grateful for the 30 /29 -- just seems weird at the moment --
mind you I do live in East Anglia so perhaps that has
something to do with it Roger C

[Arthur Clune]

RogerC <cortis@no.spam.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

: Thx Arthur for your assurance -- but when you are on
: 50/40/30 do you have a
: 12/26 on the back or this very low 13/29

Me? I use 34/48 instead of a triple with either 12/23
(normally) or 13/26 (for the alps/lakes etc). But I'm skinny
and climb well.

But note the top gear 48x12 = 52x13 which isn't that much
bigger than 50x13. And I TT, road race and do very fast
group rides on that.

: Mind you -- old man -- etape -- may be I shall be very
: grateful for the 30 /29 -- just seems weird at the moment
: -- mind you I do live in East Anglia so perhaps that has
: something to do with it

It never hurts to have a low gear you don't use. And if it
means you can keep riding after 120 miles in 30+C heat and
hills then it's really worth while.

For most people, more low gears and better spacing at
the front is more sensible than a having a few big gears
at the top.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook