![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|