dura ace triple crank gearing question

[Me]

Hi, I'm thinking about converting my road cranks

I mainly want a triple set up so that in the few hills I have (short and sharp) I can spin rather
than stand (my 35 year old knees!), but I also like to put the hammer down on the flats when riding
in a group and don't want to be undergeared.

My question:

why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t

but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?

does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to be too easy to spin out on
the flats?

 

[Steve Juniper]

Well, you could use an XT 11-37 rear, which should give you both the top and the bottom with either.
--

Steve Juniper "The problem with Texas Baptists is that they should have had their heads held under
longer." -- Quoted by Molly Ivins --

"Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... Hi, I'm thinking about
converting my road cranks

I mainly want a triple set up so that in the few hills I have (short and sharp) I can spin rather
than stand (my 35 year old knees!), but I also like to put the hammer down on the flats when riding
in a group and don't want to be undergeared.

My question:

why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t

but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?

does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to be too easy to spin out on
the flats?

 

[Sheldon Brown]

A shy person wrote:

> Hi, I'm thinking about converting my road cranks
>
> I mainly want a triple set up so that in the few hills I have (short and sharp) I can spin rather
> than stand (my 35 year old knees!), but I also like to put the hammer down on the flats when
> riding in a group and don't want to be undergeared.
>
> My question:
>
> why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t
>
> but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?
>
> does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to be too easy to spin out on
> the flats?

My advice is to avoid the Dura-Ace triple in general, go for Ultegra.

The Dura-Ace uses special, dedicated chainrings for the 30 and 39, you can't replace either of them
with anything else.

The Ultegra is a very much better design, and you can replace the silly 30 tooth ring with something
more reasonable. We commonly swap these out for 26 or even 24 tooth rings.

This lets you use a tight cluster in back, and still have a decent climbing gear.

Sheldon "Most Expensive Isn't Always Best" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------+
| What's not worth doing is not worth doing well. | --Don Hebb |
+--------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Hi, I'm thinking about converting my road cranks
>
> I mainly want a triple set up so that in the few hills I have (short and sharp) I can spin rather
> than stand (my 35 year old knees!), but I also like to put the hammer down on the flats when
> riding in a group and don't want to be undergeared.
>
> My question:
>
> why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t
>
> but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?
>
> does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to be too easy to spin out on
> the flats?

Why not shift up to the big ring?

Seriously, after riding the stock Ultegra triple awhile, I like it a lot. There's a smaller gap in
the front shifts, so you can use them more often. For big shifts use the front, and little ones
use the rear.

The Dura Ace setup seems to be for people who only need the inner ring occasionally, and don't want
to change from the 53-39 that they're used to. But if you're going to have a triple, you might as
well have one that's optimized as a triple, rather than a double-plus-granny. The Ultegra probably
gives you better chainlines in use, too.

Matt O.

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

Me-<< why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t

but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?

does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to be too easy to spin out on
the flats? >><BR><BR>

I think a well set up triple, where the middle ring can be used for the entire rear cogset,
chainline-wise, a 42 middle is a much better idea.

Gotta ask shimano about their DA triple quirks, like a triple only left lever and no way to change
the middle to a 42 or anything else for that matter.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Rosco]

What do you mean by a optimized triple rather than a double + granny? I ask because I've only used
doubles on road bikes, and as I age I'm considering going with a triple on my next road setup. My
natural inclination is to think about a triple as a double with a bail-out granny addition. With an
optimized triple do you think about your gearing in a different way?

The other triple I thought was interesting is the more difficult to find (but apparently available)
Campy 50-40-30. To Sheldon's point, a third party chainring could always be substituted for the 30
to make a more effective granny and still stay close to the 23 tooth max differential for the front.

>
> Seriously, after riding the stock Ultegra triple awhile, I like it a lot. There's a smaller gap in
> the front shifts, so you can use them more often.
For
> big shifts use the front, and little ones use the rear.
>
> The Dura Ace setup seems to be for people who only need the inner ring occasionally, and don't
> want to change from the 53-39 that they're used
to. But
> if you're going to have a triple, you might as well have one that's
optimized as
> a triple, rather than a double-plus-granny. The Ultegra probably gives
you
> better chainlines in use, too.
>
> Matt O.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Gotta ask shimano about their DA triple quirks, like a triple only left lever

You've made this assertion before, and I still don't get it. How can anybody make a "triple only"
front shifter?

As far as I know, _all_ current Shimano front shifters (except Dura-Ace 10 sp) work with doubles
or triples.

I must admit I haven't tried using a Dura-Ace triple shifter on a double crankset (we hardly ever
sell bikes with double cranksets) but I don't see how it would be possible for any shifter to be
able to work with three rings, but not to work with two.

I asked you about this previously, but didn't see an answer.

Sheldon "Two Is Easier Than Three" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Always listen to the experts. | They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. | Then do it.
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Squid-In-Traini]

"Steve Juniper" <[email protected]> wrote in message newsIszb.294905$275.1015810@attbi_s53...
> Well, you could use an XT 11-37 rear

Do those exist???

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Me]

hmm, pehaps I've misunderstood, but shimano seems to charge about $80 more for their triple stis
than their double. The ultegra from my experience has that extra click, but supposedly (I've never
owned one) the sti dura ace is specific to either a double or triple from the factory...

hopefully, someone will now write that the 9spd double da stis will shift triples and if thats the
case I'll save myself $80!

-cheers again...

"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > Gotta ask shimano about their DA triple quirks, like a triple only left
lever
>
> You've made this assertion before, and I still don't get it. How can anybody make a "triple only"
> front shifter?
>
> As far as I know, _all_ current Shimano front shifters (except Dura-Ace 10 sp) work with doubles
> or triples.
>
> I must admit I haven't tried using a Dura-Ace triple shifter on a double crankset (we hardly ever
> sell bikes with double cranksets) but I don't see how it would be possible for any shifter to be
> able to work with three rings, but not to work with two.
>
> I asked you about this previously, but didn't see an answer.
>
> Sheldon "Two Is Easier Than Three" Brown
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
> | Always listen to the experts. | They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. | Then do
> | it. --Robert A. Heinlein |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
> Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
> shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Eflayer2]

How about a double that thinks like a triple. Ritchey, TA, and FSA are all announcing compact
doubles in the 50/34 size category. I can't wait to try this combo after using both DA and Ultegra
triples. They work fine, but 12-25 or 12-27 in the rear with 50/34 up front sounds like efficient
fun to me.

"Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hi, I'm thinking about converting my road cranks
>
> I mainly want a triple set up so that in the few hills I have (short and sharp) I can spin rather
> than stand (my 35 year old knees!), but I also like to put the hammer down on the flats when
> riding in a group and don't want to be undergeared.
>
> My question:
>
> why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t
>
> but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?
>
> does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to be too easy to spin out on
> the flats?

 

[Raymo853]

I love the fact the road compact, aka touring or mtb standard, crank is becoming popular but want to
say to everybody you know it is not a new thing. A few intelligently spec'ed cross bikes for the
last few years used 110 or 110/74 cranks. What about the first generation RSX stuff?

"eflayer2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How about a double that thinks like a triple. Ritchey, TA, and FSA are all announcing compact
> doubles in the 50/34 size category. I can't wait to try this combo after using both DA and Ultegra
> triples. They work fine, but 12-25 or 12-27 in the rear with 50/34 up front sounds like efficient
> fun to me.
>
>
>
>
> "Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Hi, I'm thinking about converting my road cranks
> >
> > I mainly want a triple set up so that in the few hills I have (short and sharp) I can spin
> > rather than stand (my 35 year old knees!), but I also
like
> > to put the hammer down on the flats when riding in a group and don't
want to
> > be undergeared.
> >
> > My question:
> >
> > why does shimano offer ultegra in triple as 52/42/30t
> >
> > but dura ace only in 53/39/30? campy record has a 52/42/30 combo as well dont they?
> >
> > does any one find that having a 39 middle ring with say a 12-23 seem to
be
> > too easy to spin out on the flats?

 

[Neaudl]

>[email protected]

>The Ultegra is a very much better design, and you can replace the silly 30 tooth ring with
>something more reasonable. We commonly swap these out for 26 or even 24 tooth rings.
>
>This lets you use a tight cluster in back, and still have a decent climbing gear.
>
>Sheldon "Most Expensive Isn't Always Best" Brown

Are there problems with the Ultegra triple front derailleur using 26 or 24 tooth chainrings if you
only change the small ring, and keep the 42 and 52?

L. D. Lide

 

[Sheldon Brown]

I wrote:

>>The Ultegra is a very much better design, and you can replace the silly 30 tooth ring with
>>something more reasonable. We commonly swap these out for 26 or even 24 tooth rings.
>>
>>This lets you use a tight cluster in back, and still have a decent climbing gear.
>>
>>Sheldon "Most Expensive Isn't Always Best" Brown

L. D. Lide asked:

> Are there problems with the Ultegra triple front derailleur using 26 or 24 tooth chainrings if you
> only change the small ring, and keep the 42 and 52?

If you go with a 24, it's usually a good idea to add a $12 chain deflector, such as a Chain Watcher
or Jump Stop.

See: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/drive.html#deflectors

This isn't normally needed with a 26. Upshifting to the 42 requires a wee bit more skill than with
the stock setup. You need to be prepared for the cranks to suddenly slow down when the chain engages
the 42. It's not difficult, and not nearly as hard as shifting, say, a '90s bike.

Sheldon "Gears" Brown +----------------------------------------+
| When I am grown to man's estate | I shall be very proud and great, | And tell the other girls
| and boys | Not to meddle with my toys. | -R. L. Stevenson |
+----------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"eflayer2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> How about a double that thinks like a triple. Ritchey, TA, and FSA are all announcing compact
> doubles in the 50/34 size category. I can't wait to try this combo after using both DA and Ultegra
> triples. They work fine, but 12-25 or 12-27 in the rear with 50/34 up front sounds like efficient
> fun to me.

I'd rather have (and I do have) the triple. But the wide-doubles are a great solution when you need
the range, but you're stuck with a double STI front shifter. The cost of upgrading an STI system to
a triple can be prohibitive. A wide-double crank accomplishes the same thing, at much lower cost.

The triple is ultimately better -- smaller gaps, and better chainlines. I'm glad I have the triple,
but I'd be happy either way.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"rosco" <reverse-the-following"ocsor_g"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> What do you mean by a optimized triple rather than a double + granny? I ask because I've only used
> doubles on road bikes, and as I age I'm considering going with a triple on my next road setup. My
> natural inclination is to think about a triple as a double with a bail-out granny addition. With
> an optimized triple do you think about your gearing in a different way?

First, as Peter suggested, chainline is better overall. The 42T ring is more universal than a 39,
and since it's in the middle you get a good chainline across the whole cassette. For lower or higher
gears, the inner and outer rings are better aligned with their corresponding cogs.

As I just mentioned, the gaps in the front shifts are smaller, so you can use them more freely -- an
upshift won't stall your cadence. You can use the rear for little shifts, and the front for bigger
ones. Having a smaller gap between the middle and big rings seems more useful than between the small
and middle.

> The other triple I thought was interesting is the more difficult to find (but apparently
> available) Campy 50-40-30.

That would be a good choice, if it has the range you need. A 50/12 is plenty tall for me, and a
30/25 low enough. YMMV.

> To Sheldon's point, a third party chainring could always be substituted for the 30 to make a more
> effective granny and still stay close to the 23 tooth max differential for the front.

Most people would probably benefit from that. My stock Ultegra is fine for me, but for an extra long
ride or carrying some baggage I'd probably go a little lower. Again, YMMV.

Sheldon seems to think stock triples are overgeared, and he's probably right. Most higher-end bikes
probably *are* overgeared for most people. Bike makers sell us racer image and racer gearing,
whether it's suitable for us or not.

Matt O.

 

[Rosco]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. It makes perfect sense. A LBS is trying to locate one of
these Campy 50-40-30s for me (with some trouble), and the owner of the shop was trying to convince
me that I might spin-out if I only get a 50 big ring. I wish I was that fast and strong. A 50-12 @90
rpm cadence equates to 29.6 mph while a 52-12 @90 rpm gives you 30.8 mph. I could live with the 50
just fine, and if I ever need that extra speed, I'll just pedal faster.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "rosco" <reverse-the-following"ocsor_g"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > What do you mean by a optimized triple rather than a double + granny? I
ask
> > because I've only used doubles on road bikes, and as I age I'm
considering
> > going with a triple on my next road setup. My natural inclination is to think about a triple as
> > a double with a bail-out granny addition. With
an
> > optimized triple do you think about your gearing in a different way?
>
> First, as Peter suggested, chainline is better overall. The 42T ring is
more
> universal than a 39, and since it's in the middle you get a good chainline across the whole
> cassette. For lower or higher gears, the inner and outer
rings
> are better aligned with their corresponding cogs.
>
> As I just mentioned, the gaps in the front shifts are smaller, so you can
use
> them more freely -- an upshift won't stall your cadence. You can use the
rear
> for little shifts, and the front for bigger ones. Having a smaller gap
between
> the middle and big rings seems more useful than between the small and
middle.
>
> > The other triple I thought was interesting is the more difficult to find (but apparently
> > available) Campy 50-40-30.
>
> That would be a good choice, if it has the range you need. A 50/12 is
plenty
> tall for me, and a 30/25 low enough. YMMV.
>
> > To Sheldon's point, a third party chainring could always be substituted for the 30 to make a
> > more effective granny and still stay close to the 23 tooth max differential
for
> > the front.
>
> Most people would probably benefit from that. My stock Ultegra is fine
for me,
> but for an extra long ride or carrying some baggage I'd probably go a
little
> lower. Again, YMMV.
>
> Sheldon seems to think stock triples are overgeared, and he's probably
right.
> Most higher-end bikes probably *are* overgeared for most people. Bike
makers
> sell us racer image and racer gearing, whether it's suitable for us or
not.
>
> Matt O.

 

[Bfd]

"rosco" <reverse-the-following"ocsor_g"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thank you for the detailed explanation. It makes perfect sense. A LBS is trying to locate one of
> these Campy 50-40-30s for me (with some trouble), and the owner of the shop was trying to convince
> me that I might spin-out
if
> I only get a 50 big ring. I wish I was that fast and strong. A 50-12 @90 rpm cadence equates to
> 29.6 mph while a 52-12 @90 rpm gives you 30.8 mph.
I
> could live with the 50 just fine, and if I ever need that extra speed,
I'll
> just pedal faster.
>
>
Agree, a 50t big chainring is more than enough for most riders. As for finding a 50/40/30 triple,
does your LBS do business with QBP? If so, its listed in the QBP catalog, for example:

Centaur (polish): http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&SKU=CR9320

Centaur (Century-Gray): http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&SKU=CR9416

Record (polish) http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&SKU=CR9372

I'm sure Oschner has them too...

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

eflayer-<< How about a double that thinks like a triple. Ritchey, TA, and FSA are all announcing
compact doubles in the 50/34 size category. I can't wait to try this combo after using both DA and
Ultegra triples. They work fine, but 12-25 or 12-27 in the rear with 50/34 up front sounds like
efficient fun to me.

Ritchey, TA and carbon FSA available now, aluminum FSA in January. A look at gear charts shows that
a 50/34 and a 11-23 is a higher high and a lower low gear than a 53/39 and a 12-23..Great idea IMHO
for 2004...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Robert Strickla]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> eflayer-<< How about a double that thinks like a triple. Ritchey, TA, and
FSA
> are all announcing compact doubles in the 50/34 size category. I can't wait to try this combo
> after using both DA and Ultegra triples. They work fine, but 12-25 or 12-27 in the rear with 50/34
> up front sounds like efficient fun to me.
>
> Ritchey, TA and carbon FSA available now, aluminum FSA in January. A look
at
> gear charts shows that a 50/34 and a 11-23 is a higher high and a lower
low
> gear than a 53/39 and a 12-23..Great idea IMHO for 2004...

Does anyone know if these or other manufacturers will be offering 110/74 triples or just doubles?

Rob Strickland

 

[Roy Zipris]

dura ace triple crank gearing question [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote [snip]
> I think a well set up triple, where the middle ring can be used for the entire rear cogset,
> chainline-wise, a 42 middle is a much better idea.

Peter: I like using the entire rear range on my present set-up, 32-42-50, 12-25 9-speed, but I'm
switching to Campy's 30-42-53, probably the 13-29 10-speed: can you use the entire 13-29 10-speed
smoothly? Thanks. --Roy Zipris