10 speed to 10 speed

[Roger Merriman]

I've got a old (86) 10 speed racer that i picked up for peanuts, which i
like, bar the friction gear shifters, or rather the rear shifter, thus
the bike will be moving to new drive chain, i was going to go for 9
speed but any reason why 10 or 8 could have advantages.

i was going to go for a compact and try to get a cassette with a fair
range, so that if i take it back to the gorge in wales i stand a chance
of getting up the hills and like wise if rocketing the downs have
enought gears.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> I've got a old (86) 10 speed racer that i picked up for peanuts,
> which i like, bar the friction gear shifters, or rather the rear
> shifter, thus the bike will be moving to new drive chain, i was going
> to go for 9 speed but any reason why 10 or 8 could have advantages.

8 might be cheaper. 10 would provide smaller jumps between the gears, or a
wider range with the same jumps. 9 would be the best compromise in terms of
functionality and cost, including running costs. 10-speed chains are
expensive.

First of all, there is the issue of hub width and frame spacing. Road hubs
that take 8/9/10-speed cassettes are 130mm, where as older bikes were
designed for 120 to 126mm hubs. You'll be able to spring or bend the stays
to take a modern hub.
See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

> i was going to go for a compact and try to get a cassette with a fair
> range, so that if i take it back to the gorge in wales i stand a
> chance of getting up the hills and like wise if rocketing the downs
> have enought gears.

Good idea. A triple shouldn't be out of the question, either.

~PB

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs <p@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > I've got a old (86) 10 speed racer that i picked up for peanuts,
> > which i like, bar the friction gear shifters, or rather the rear
> > shifter, thus the bike will be moving to new drive chain, i was going
> > to go for 9 speed but any reason why 10 or 8 could have advantages.
>
> 8 might be cheaper. 10 would provide smaller jumps between the gears, or a
> wider range with the same jumps. 9 would be the best compromise in terms of
> functionality and cost, including running costs. 10-speed chains are
> expensive.
>
that was my hunch but wasn't sure. 9 it is then i don't tend to twidle
the gears that much so a close ratio isn't that much use for me, more
intrested in a bigger spread ie low enought to crawl up 20% or worse and
high enought to thunder down the other side.

> First of all, there is the issue of hub width and frame spacing. Road hubs
> that take 8/9/10-speed cassettes are 130mm, where as older bikes were
> designed for 120 to 126mm hubs. You'll be able to spring or bend the stays
> to take a modern hub.
> See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

yes it's a old 126mm steel frame so will have to be sprung etc.

>
> > i was going to go for a compact and try to get a cassette with a fair
> > range, so that if i take it back to the gorge in wales i stand a
> > chance of getting up the hills and like wise if rocketing the downs
> > have enought gears.
>
> Good idea. A triple shouldn't be out of the question, either.
>
true though that really does mean flightdeck rather than downtube
shifters, and a compact should give me the gears with a low enought
cassette to possibly even get the evil hill nr my folks place, though it
has just been resurfaced so that will lessen it a bit.

> ~PB

cheers

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:

>> Good idea. A triple shouldn't be out of the question, either.
>>
> true though that really does mean flightdeck rather than downtube
> shifters, and a compact should give me the gears with a low enought
> cassette to possibly even get the evil hill nr my folks place, though
> it has just been resurfaced so that will lessen it a bit.

There's no reason why you can't use a triple chainset with downtube levers.
I think all "indexed" downtube sets have a non-indexed left-hand lever.
Certainly some do anyway. Any friction lever will have enough travel for a
triple front mech.

~PB

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs <p@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> >> Good idea. A triple shouldn't be out of the question, either.
> >>
> > true though that really does mean flightdeck rather than downtube
> > shifters, and a compact should give me the gears with a low enought
> > cassette to possibly even get the evil hill nr my folks place, though
> > it has just been resurfaced so that will lessen it a bit.
>
> There's no reason why you can't use a triple chainset with downtube levers.
> I think all "indexed" downtube sets have a non-indexed left-hand lever.
> Certainly some do anyway. Any friction lever will have enough travel for a
> triple front mech.
>
> ~PB

Ooh really i had assumed not, might well be a option i shall mull over
it as you where.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com