Dura Ace triple setup



O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 27, 8:05 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.
>


You might want to contact Red Rose Imports. They (or a dealer) can
make up a true custom cassette to *your* exact specs, using Miche cogs
and spacers. 8/9/10SP Shimano or Campy.

http://www.redroseimports.com/rri_miche.html
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

> "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.


I also am frustrated with large gearing steps. Too much
effort to adjust my rhythm to a new gear. With close
spacing I can ride out one gear until I am lugging or
spun out, then shift to a gear that is perfect. Close
spacing is not only about shifting one small step, but
being able to have the perfect gear once undertaking a
shift. Nobody uses one sheet of bathroom tissue for any
purpose. The reason for the close perforations is to
get the length you want.

You run a nine gear cassette? You want close spacing?
Two choices are a 13-23 cassette with the current chain
wheels, or 47-50 chain wheels with your current
cassette.

You want low gears too? Change everything to a 13-23
and 26-39-53. Even a 24 cog chain wheel is perfectly
feasible.

My approach to these matters is when undertaking the
project, do not compromise. If you really want to
compromise, just stay with the current gearing to save
yourself the money and work. Now that you identified
what you _want_, go get _exactly_ what you want. After
you have spent the money and effort on the change, you
will ride around completely satisfied with your job and
the result.

--
Michael Press
 
On Feb 28, 5:51 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "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.

>
> I also am frustrated with large gearing steps. Too much
> effort to adjust my rhythm to a new gear. With close
> spacing I can ride out one gear until I am lugging or
> spun out, then shift to a gear that is perfect. Close
> spacing is not only about shifting one small step, but
> being able to have the perfect gear once undertaking a
> shift. Nobody uses one sheet of bathroom tissue for any
> purpose. The reason for the close perforations is to
> get the length you want.
>
> You run a nine gear cassette? You want close spacing?
> Two choices are a 13-23 cassette with the current chain
> wheels, or 47-50 chain wheels with your current
> cassette.
>
> You want low gears too? Change everything to a 13-23
> and 26-39-53. Even a 24 cog chain wheel is perfectly
> feasible.
>
> My approach to these matters is when undertaking the
> project, do not compromise. If you really want to
> compromise, just stay with the current gearing to save
> yourself the money and work. Now that you identified
> what you _want_, go get _exactly_ what you want. After
> you have spent the money and effort on the change, you
> will ride around completely satisfied with your job and
> the result.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
with to avoid a triple crankset. Can't imagine using such a widely
spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
more.
 
On Feb 28, 5:21 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
> with to avoid a triple crankset. Can't imagine using such a widely
> spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
> between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
> mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
> low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
> more


Dear Russell,

There are rumors of an RBT poster who has been riding the Alps for
several weeks every year for decades, gritting his teeth and suffering
silently with only six rear sprockets and a pitiful pair of front
chain-rings. In this picture, what seems to be a smile must surely be
a tortured grimace:

http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/Gallery/103-0339_IMG.JPG

Even worse, Sheldon Brown--to whom "shame" is just a low-scoring
Scrabble combination--has just brazenly that riding can be enjoyed
with only _three_ gears:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b44c00a1f5de458f

Unbelievably, if parental filters are relaxed, the internet offers
even darker tales about riders who enjoy riding every day with a
single front chain-ring and only one--

Forgive me. There may be ladies present, so I will not describe the
arrangements seen on rear transmissions of some degenerate bicycles.
Let us simply say that they descend to the level of unicycles and
cannot possibly offer pleasure to decent folk.

(Those who believe that they can touch pitch and yet not be defiled
may pursue such sordid matters by googling for "single-speed" or even
"fixie".)

The joyless suffering of such wretches reminds us of the inscription
over the gates of Hell: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here/Unless on
front ye shift a triple gear!"

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 28, 6:21 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:51 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,

>
> > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "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.

>
> > I also am frustrated with large gearing steps. Too much
> > effort to adjust my rhythm to a new gear. With close
> > spacing I can ride out one gear until I am lugging or
> > spun out, then shift to a gear that is perfect. Close
> > spacing is not only about shifting one small step, but
> > being able to have the perfect gear once undertaking a
> > shift. Nobody uses one sheet of bathroom tissue for any
> > purpose. The reason for the close perforations is to
> > get the length you want.

>
> > You run a nine gear cassette? You want close spacing?
> > Two choices are a 13-23 cassette with the current chain
> > wheels, or 47-50 chain wheels with your current
> > cassette.

>
> > You want low gears too? Change everything to a 13-23
> > and 26-39-53. Even a 24 cog chain wheel is perfectly
> > feasible.

>
> > My approach to these matters is when undertaking the
> > project, do not compromise. If you really want to
> > compromise, just stay with the current gearing to save
> > yourself the money and work. Now that you identified
> > what you _want_, go get _exactly_ what you want. After
> > you have spent the money and effort on the change, you
> > will ride around completely satisfied with your job and
> > the result.

>
> > --
> > Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
> with to avoid a triple crankset.


As Peter Chisholm noted a few days agos in another thread, a lot of it
has to do with "image"; people don't want to be seen as "needing" a
triple.

I think another factor is the (historically) less than wonderful STI
shifting on triples (and the need to swap out left STI brifters when
converting to a triple, in many cases).

Lastly, I think people fall into the trap of just looking at the
"range" of the gearing (something you hear all the time from those
advocating the compact double), without taking into account how the
drivetrain actually "pedals".


> Can't imagine using such a widely
> spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
> between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
> mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
> low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
> more.-


Yep, those drivetrains "look" okay on paper, but they aren't very
pleasant in actual use.
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Feb 28, 7:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:21 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
> > with to avoid a triple crankset. Can't imagine using such a widely
> > spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
> > between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
> > mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
> > low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
> > more

>
> Dear Russell,
>
> There are rumors of an RBT poster who has been riding the Alps for
> several weeks every year for decades, gritting his teeth and suffering
> silently with only six rear sprockets and a pitiful pair of front
> chain-rings.


I believe that Russell was taliking about folks who *wanted* lower
gears but wanted to avoid having a triple. So what's yer point?

<blather sipped>
 
B

Bill Westphal

Guest
[email protected] writes:

> On Feb 28, 5:21 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
>> with to avoid a triple crankset. Can't imagine using such a widely
>> spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
>> between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
>> mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
>> low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
>> more

>
> Dear Russell,
>
> There are rumors of an RBT poster who has been riding the Alps for
> several weeks every year for decades, gritting his teeth and suffering
> silently with only six rear sprockets and a pitiful pair of front
> chain-rings. In this picture, what seems to be a smile must surely be
> a tortured grimace:
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/Gallery/103-0339_IMG.JPG
>
> Even worse, Sheldon Brown--to whom "shame" is just a low-scoring
> Scrabble combination--has just brazenly that riding can be enjoyed
> with only _three_ gears:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b44c00a1f5de458f
>
> Unbelievably, if parental filters are relaxed, the internet offers
> even darker tales about riders who enjoy riding every day with a
> single front chain-ring and only one--
>
> Forgive me. There may be ladies present, so I will not describe the
> arrangements seen on rear transmissions of some degenerate bicycles.
> Let us simply say that they descend to the level of unicycles and
> cannot possibly offer pleasure to decent folk.
>
> (Those who believe that they can touch pitch and yet not be defiled
> may pursue such sordid matters by googling for "single-speed" or even
> "fixie".)
>
> The joyless suffering of such wretches reminds us of the inscription
> over the gates of Hell: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here/Unless on
> front ye shift a triple gear!"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Another quote of Dante pretty much sums up my feelings when these
straight double vs. compact vs. triple debates rage:

Their sighs, lamentations and loud wailings resounded through the
starless air, so that at first it made me weep; strange tongues,
horrible language, words of pain, tones of anger, voices loud and
hoarse, and with these the sound of hands, made a tumult which is
whirling through the air forever dark, as sand eddies in a whirlwind.

personal preference: 11-23 or 11-25 & 53/42/30

Bill Westphal
 
G

G.T.

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
> with to avoid a triple crankset. Can't imagine using such a widely
> spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
> between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
> mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
> low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
> more.
>


My every day riding is mountainous. 1500 ft above the flats and all the
fun stuff is between my place and 6000 ft anyway. I bought this combo
because I'm used to an 11-32 9 spd on my mtn bike not really thinking
that I don't really need the 11 or 12. I should save the 11-32 for my
mtn bike and buy a 13-30.

Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 28, 7:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:21 pm, "[email protected]"
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I also find it odd the compromises and pitiful gearing people put up
> > > with to avoid a triple crankset. Can't imagine using such a widely
> > > spaced cogset as 11-32 on an everyday road bike. Or having 16 teeth
> > > between rings on an everyday road bike. For special events, such as a
> > > mountain ride, sure put up with the awful gearing to get the needed
> > > low gears. But for everyday riding? I want to enjoy my riding a bit
> > > more

> >
> > Dear Russell,
> >
> > There are rumors of an RBT poster who has been riding the Alps for
> > several weeks every year for decades, gritting his teeth and suffering
> > silently with only six rear sprockets and a pitiful pair of front
> > chain-rings.

>
> I believe that Russell was taliking about folks who *wanted* lower
> gears but wanted to avoid having a triple. So what's yer point?
>
> <blather sipped>


Agree. Carl missed what was under discussion. Greg
knows what functions he wants. Russell and I advised
him on how to achieve his goal.

--
Michael Press