Dura Ace triple setup



D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Gary wrote:
> Anybody have one? Comments?


I don't see much point. A compact 34/50 with an 11-26 (SRAM), 11-27 (Shimano),
or 11-28 (IRD) in the back gives a very nice range.

If you're competitive enough that the few grams saved by Dura-Ace versus Ultegra
or 105 makes a difference in the crank, then these gears are probably low enough
for you. Avoiding the triple improves shifting performance, by allowing a
shorter cage rear derailleur, as well as improving chainline.

Dan
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 26, 11:28 am, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Gary wrote:
> > Anybody have one? Comments?

>
> I don't see much point. A compact 34/50 with an 11-26 (SRAM), 11-27 (Shimano),
> or 11-28 (IRD) in the back gives a very nice range.
>
> If you're competitive enough that the few grams saved by Dura-Ace versus Ultegra
> or 105 makes a difference in the crank, then these gears are probably low enough
> for you. Avoiding the triple improves shifting performance, by allowing a
> shorter cage rear derailleur, as well as improving chainline.
>




How does a short(er) cage RD "improve shifting performance"?
 
G

Gary

Guest
My interest was more Dura Ace versus Ultegra versus other triple cranks.

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Gary wrote:
>
>> Anybody have one? Comments?

>
>
> I don't see much point. A compact 34/50 with an 11-26 (SRAM), 11-27
> (Shimano), or 11-28 (IRD) in the back gives a very nice range.
>
> If you're competitive enough that the few grams saved by Dura-Ace versus
> Ultegra or 105 makes a difference in the crank, then these gears are
> probably low enough for you. Avoiding the triple improves shifting
> performance, by allowing a shorter cage rear derailleur, as well as
> improving chainline.
>
> Dan
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> How does a short(er) cage RD "improve shifting performance"?


Accommodating a reduced range of chain motion, and exerting force against the
chain closer to the point of contact with the cogs, it seems to me, would tend
to result in better control over the chain. I haven't experimented myself, I
admit, but it is the case that manufacturers have always minimized derailleur
reach, even to the extent of offering three options within a product level to
accommodate different gear capacities.

Dan
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 26, 12:01 pm, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > How does a short(er) cage RD "improve shifting performance"?

>
> Accommodating a reduced range of chain motion, and exerting force against the
> chain closer to the point of contact with the cogs, it seems to me, would tend
> to result in better control over the chain. I haven't experimented myself, I
> admit, but it is the case that manufacturers have always minimized derailleur
> reach, even to the extent of offering three options within a product level to
> accommodate different gear capacities.
>
>


IME, if the only diff between two RDs is the cage length (i.e., the
distance between the pulleys), the shifting performance is pretty much
the same.

Also, a triple *does not* require a long cage (or even medium cage RD)
if properly setup and intelligently used. Two of my bikes are triples
with short cage RDs; I simply don't use the inner chain ring with the
smaller rear cogs (those ratios are duplicated on the middle ring,
anyway). And, if I did happen to exceed the RD wrap capacity, the
chain will merely go slack and rattle on the chainstsay, not a big
deal.
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> IME, if the only diff between two RDs is the cage length (i.e., the
> distance between the pulleys), the shifting performance is pretty much
> the same.


Well, my experience with medium or long cage derailleurs with all other factors
the same is nil, so I'll defer to you (or others) on this subject.
>
> Also, a triple *does not* require a long cage (or even medium cage RD)
> if properly setup and intelligently used. Two of my bikes are triples
> with short cage RDs; I simply don't use the inner chain ring with the
> smaller rear cogs (those ratios are duplicated on the middle ring,
> anyway). And, if I did happen to exceed the RD wrap capacity, the
> chain will merely go slack and rattle on the chainstsay, not a big
> deal.


The percentage change in gear ratio is greater for a given change in total
required derailleur capacity if the given change in teeth is made on a smaller,
rather than larger, number of teeth. For example, going from a 39 to a 34 in
front has less effect than going from a 23 to a 28 in back, where the required
derailleur capacity in the two cases is the same. So a triple can work with
relatively tight clusters in the back, but a wider gear range is available with
a broader rear cluster and tighter front range.

Dan
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 26, 12:38 pm, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > IME, if the only diff between two RDs is the cage length (i.e., the
> > distance between the pulleys), the shifting performance is pretty much
> > the same.

>
> Well, my experience with medium or long cage derailleurs with all other factors
> the same is nil, so I'll defer to you (or others) on this subject.
>
>
>
> > Also, a triple *does not* require a long cage (or even medium cage RD)
> > if properly setup and intelligently used. Two of my bikes are triples
> > with short cage RDs; I simply don't use the inner chain ring with the
> > smaller rear cogs (those ratios are duplicated on the middle ring,
> > anyway). And, if I did happen to exceed the RD wrap capacity, the
> > chain will merely go slack and rattle on the chainstsay, not a big
> > deal.

>
> The percentage change in gear ratio is greater for a given change in total
> required derailleur capacity if the given change in teeth is made on a smaller,
> rather than larger, number of teeth. For example, going from a 39 to a 34 in
> front has less effect than going from a 23 to a 28 in back, where the required
> derailleur capacity in the two cases is the same. So a triple can work with
> relatively tight clusters in the back, but a wider gear range is available with
> a broader rear cluster and tighter front range.
>
>


Well, earlier, you were advocating compact doubles as being "better",
due to the "better shifting" of shorter cage RDs and a "better"
chainline. My point is that the facts simply do not bear this out. If
you only use the inner chainring on the larger rear cogs, you can have
a chainline very close to that of a double, you can use a short cage
RD (if you like) *and* you can have nice tight steps on the rear *and*
a lower gear than a compact double, to boot.
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Well, earlier, you were advocating compact doubles as being "better",
> due to the "better shifting" of shorter cage RDs and a "better"
> chainline. My point is that the facts simply do not bear this out. If
> you only use the inner chainring on the larger rear cogs, you can have
> a chainline very close to that of a double, you can use a short cage
> RD (if you like) *and* you can have nice tight steps on the rear *and*
> a lower gear than a compact double, to boot.
>


If you don't care about accommodating the cross-gears, you're right -- you can
do better with a given capacity with a triple.

My point was, for example, a 34-50 with a 11-28 has a wider range (at both ends)
than a 30-40-50 12-25, with each requiring a 33 tooth capacity, assuming
cross-gears are accommodated.

Dan
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 26, 3:21 pm, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Well, earlier, you were advocating compact doubles as being "better",
> > due to the "better shifting" of shorter cage RDs and a "better"
> > chainline. My point is that the facts simply do not bear this out. If
> > you only use the inner chainring on the larger rear cogs, you can have
> > a chainline very close to that of a double, you can use a short cage
> > RD (if you like) *and* you can have nice tight steps on the rear *and*
> > a lower gear than a compact double, to boot.

>
> If you don't care about accommodating the cross-gears, you're right -- you can
> do better with a given capacity with a triple.
>
> My point was, for example, a 34-50 with a 11-28 has a wider range (at both ends)
> than a 30-40-50 12-25, with each requiring a 33 tooth capacity, assuming
> cross-gears are accommodated.
>
> Dan


Geez, "do the math": there's a lot more cross gearing in a compact
double. With a proper triple, you are in the middle ring most of the
time (and, remember, it's in the "middle"). You only use the big ring
with the 3-4 smallest cogs and the inner only with the 2-3 largest.

And, BTW, a triple with a 30T inner ring is kinda pointless; a 28 or
26 (or even a 24) will give a better range. For example, a 28/23 is
the same gear as a 34/28; as is a 26/21.
 
On Feb 26, 11:28 am, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Gary wrote:
> > Anybody have one? Comments?

>
> I don't see much point. A compact 34/50 with an 11-26 (SRAM), 11-27 (Shimano),
> or 11-28 (IRD) in the back gives a very nice range.


You can't get anywhere near as low a gear with a 110mm bcd compact as
with a triple. For mountain riding a triple gives you far more usable
options. Now, the Dura Ace triple is unique in that it only accepts a
30 tooth inner ring so it barely gets you any lower gears than with a
110mm bcd compact. Normal triples allow much smaller inner chainrings
for much lower gears. So I would never recommend a Dura Ace triple
because of this restriction on lower gears. It won't get you much
more than you can get with the Shimano 110mm bcd crank. And you could
get a 33 TA inner ring for it to get slightly lower gear. And get the
built in bottom bracket pipe outside bearing configuration some people
seem to love now days. If you really want low gears then get the
Ultegra triple which allows a smaller inner ring than 30.


>
> If you're competitive enough that the few grams saved by Dura-Ace versus Ultegra
> or 105 makes a difference in the crank, then these gears are probably low enough
> for you.


Whether you use Dura Ace or Chorus or Record has little to do with
performance or even weight. Its all about what you choose to spend on
a recreational activity.


Avoiding the triple improves shifting performance, by allowing a
> shorter cage rear derailleur, as well as improving chainline.


I have bikes with short, medium, and long cage rear derailleurs.
Can't tell which length cage any of them have by shifting
performance. I can by feel of the Ergo levers, but not the actual
mechanics of shifting. Chainline improved? Never been able to tell
such esoteric things.

>
> Dan
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsky

Guest
> Anybody have one? Comments?

Compared to what?

The current 10-speed Dura Ace triple works exceptionally well. Chain drops
(off the inside) are almost unheard of, chains run quietly, and it's not
that much heavier than a double, even when you consider the longer-cage rear
derailleur.

If you're trying to get a relatively-low gear, the Dura Ace 10-speed system
is much better at not dropping chains than a "compact" double with 34/50.
This I know from personal experience (I have a 34/50 myself) and the work we
do on many bikes. Another advantage to the triple is the greater duplication
of gears, meaning that you don't have to shift the front derailleur as often
to get just the right gear.

Notice that I've specifically talked about *10*-speed Dura Ace. the 9-speed
Dura Ace triple was an abomination, one of Shimano's sorriest excuses for a
high-end system in a long time. It will randomly dump the chain from the
middle chainring to the small one without warning, is pretty noisy, and
doesn't shift very well.

I don't buy into the arguments that the doubles shift much better; in real
life, I just don't find that to be the case. Most of this is due to
improvements over the years in rear derailleur design, such that the upper
jockey wheel tracks the gear cogs very closely, regardless of what gear
you're in.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
G

Gary

Guest
Now that's the info I was looking for. Thanks.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>Anybody have one? Comments?

>
>
> Compared to what?
>
> The current 10-speed Dura Ace triple works exceptionally well. Chain drops
> (off the inside) are almost unheard of, chains run quietly, and it's not
> that much heavier than a double, even when you consider the longer-cage rear
> derailleur.
>
> If you're trying to get a relatively-low gear, the Dura Ace 10-speed system
> is much better at not dropping chains than a "compact" double with 34/50.
> This I know from personal experience (I have a 34/50 myself) and the work we
> do on many bikes. Another advantage to the triple is the greater duplication
> of gears, meaning that you don't have to shift the front derailleur as often
> to get just the right gear.
>
> Notice that I've specifically talked about *10*-speed Dura Ace. the 9-speed
> Dura Ace triple was an abomination, one of Shimano's sorriest excuses for a
> high-end system in a long time. It will randomly dump the chain from the
> middle chainring to the small one without warning, is pretty noisy, and
> doesn't shift very well.
>
> I don't buy into the arguments that the doubles shift much better; in real
> life, I just don't find that to be the case. Most of this is due to
> improvements over the years in rear derailleur design, such that the upper
> jockey wheel tracks the gear cogs very closely, regardless of what gear
> you're in.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
On Feb 26, 2:21 pm, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Well, earlier, you were advocating compact doubles as being "better",
> > due to the "better shifting" of shorter cage RDs and a "better"
> > chainline. My point is that the facts simply do not bear this out. If
> > you only use the inner chainring on the larger rear cogs, you can have
> > a chainline very close to that of a double, you can use a short cage
> > RD (if you like) *and* you can have nice tight steps on the rear *and*
> > a lower gear than a compact double, to boot.

>
> If you don't care about accommodating the cross-gears, you're right -- you can
> do better with a given capacity with a triple.
>
> My point was, for example, a 34-50 with a 11-28 has a wider range (at both ends)
> than a 30-40-50 12-25, with each requiring a 33 tooth capacity, assuming
> cross-gears are accommodated.
>
> Dan


No such animal as a shimano 11-27, BTW, unless you 'build' one. 11-25,
yes, for 2007.
 
M

Mark

Guest
Dan Connelly wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> How does a short(er) cage RD "improve shifting performance"?

>
>
> Accommodating a reduced range of chain motion, and exerting force
> against the chain closer to the point of contact with the cogs, it seems
> to me, would tend to result in better control over the chain. I haven't
> experimented myself, I admit, but it is the case that manufacturers have
> always minimized derailleur reach, even to the extent of offering three
> options within a product level to accommodate different gear capacities.


Having lots of experience with both, I think more likely it's the
close-ratio cassette/freewheels that tend to be associated with
short-cage derailleurs that give better shifting. Using a long or short
cage derailleur on a given cluster seems to be indistinguishable, except
for the ooh-ahh appearance factor.

I think the moral of the story may be that a triple with a close-range
cluster will shift better (certainly in the rear) than a compact with a
wide-range cluster, using whatever RD will function. I like 50-40-26 by
12-23, myself.

Mark J.
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
Mark wrote:

> I think the moral of the story may be that a triple with a close-range
> cluster will shift better (certainly in the rear) than a compact with a
> wide-range cluster, using whatever RD will function. I like 50-40-26 by
> 12-23, myself.
>


This is an unfair comparison, as I just noted that the compact, for the same
gearing range, usually requires, if anything, less derailleur capacity, not
more, unless you're willing to have chain-jamming cross-gears.

For the same capacity as the 26-50, 12-23 (35), yielding 1.13 to 4.17, you could
have a 34-50, 11-30, yielding 1.13 to 4.54, ASSUMING derailleur capacity is the
only limiting factor.

The triple may offer more convenient gear spacings, however.

Dan
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 27, 11:47 am, Dan Connelly <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > I think the moral of the story may be that a triple with a close-range
> > cluster will shift better (certainly in the rear) than a compact with a
> > wide-range cluster, using whatever RD will function. I like 50-40-26 by
> > 12-23, myself.

>
> This is an unfair comparison, as I just noted that the compact, for the same
> gearing range, usually requires, if anything, less derailleur capacity, not
> more, unless you're willing to have chain-jamming cross-gears.


"chain-jamming" is easily avoided by properly sizing the chain to
clear the big/big combination. There is no "chain-jamming" at the
other end, only an innocous little rattle as the chain hits the
chainstay, which serves to remind you to exit the small chainring
(and, it apparently bears repeating, those ratios are duplicated on
the middle ring).

>
> For the same capacity as the 26-50, 12-23 (35), yielding 1.13 to 4.17, you could
> have a 34-50, 11-30, yielding 1.13 to 4.54, ASSUMING derailleur capacity is the
> only limiting factor.
>
> The triple may offer more convenient gear spacings, however.
>
>


"may offer more convienient gear spacings"? Can there be any doubt?
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 27, 9:27 am, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> >> How does a short(er) cage RD "improve shifting performance"?

>
> > Accommodating a reduced range of chain motion, and exerting force
> > against the chain closer to the point of contact with the cogs, it seems
> > to me, would tend to result in better control over the chain. I haven't
> > experimented myself, I admit, but it is the case that manufacturers have
> > always minimized derailleur reach, even to the extent of offering three
> > options within a product level to accommodate different gear capacities.

>
> Having lots of experience with both, I think more likely it's the
> close-ratio cassette/freewheels that tend to be associated with
> short-cage derailleurs that give better shifting. Using a long or short
> cage derailleur on a given cluster seems to be indistinguishable, except
> for the ooh-ahh appearance factor.
>
> I think the moral of the story may be that a triple with a close-range
> cluster will shift better (certainly in the rear) than a compact with a
> wide-range cluster, using whatever RD will function. I like 50-40-26 by
> 12-23, myself.



Yes, that's a good choice. Adequate high and low gears and nice even
steps between gears.
 
G

G.T.

Guest
"Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Mark wrote:
>
>> I think the moral of the story may be that a triple with a close-range
>> cluster will shift better (certainly in the rear) than a compact with a
>> wide-range cluster, using whatever RD will function. I like 50-40-26 by
>> 12-23, myself.
>>

>
> This is an unfair comparison, as I just noted that the compact, for the
> same gearing range, usually requires, if anything, less derailleur
> capacity, not more, unless you're willing to have chain-jamming
> cross-gears.
>
> For the same capacity as the 26-50, 12-23 (35), yielding 1.13 to 4.17, you
> could have a 34-50, 11-30, yielding 1.13 to 4.54, ASSUMING derailleur
> capacity is the only limiting factor.
>
> The triple may offer more convenient gear spacings, however.
>


The huge steps between many gears on my 48-34 x 11-32 are starting to annoy
me and I don't think an 11-30 is much better. I don't know if I'm going to
go to a triple but I'm definitely considering a Harris special 13-30.

Greg