Gearing question for a road bike

[Sir Ridesalot]

Hello again oh helpful ones.

I am really looking forward to finishing this rebuild of my old Miele
road bike.

I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.

I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
rings on a double crank ann BB.

The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
rings.

I was thinking of swapping the 42 teeth ring for the 34 teeth ring for
some lower gears.

My query is this. Can I get a better spread of gears with a 34 teeth
ring instead of the 34 teeth ring? Another way of putting it is will I
get more useful gears with the 34 teeth ring instead of the 42 teeth
ring?

There are some steep hills here and I also like to have a low bail out
gear in case of a steep hill, strong headwind and fatigue. Spinning in
a low gear sure beats walking in road shoes with exposed cleats.. My
other really good Miele road bike has Veloce components on it and a
racing triple with 30 - 42 and 52 teeth chainwheels. the largest
sproket in the rear of that bike is 26 teeth. That setup seems to work
very well although I would have prefered 40 and 50 teeth chainwheels.
Unfortunately the shops all wanted the price, @ $100 Cdn, of two new
chainwheels and installation to install in order to get the 40 and 50
teeth rings.

So what do you experts recomend, go with the 34 and a tighter caset in
the rear or stay with the 40 and use a wider range cassette in the
rear?

Also, if I do go with a 34 teeth chainwheel (double chainwheel setup)
will I still need a long cage rear derailleur?

Once again I extend my heartfelt thanks for all and any pertinent
advice to these queries.

Those who give so freely of their time aiding us here are a real
blessing.

Peter

 

[landotter]

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Hello again oh helpful ones.
>
> I am really looking forward to finishing this rebuild of my old Miele
> road bike.
>
> I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
> ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.
>
> I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> rings on a double crank ann BB.
>
> The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> rings.
>
> I was thinking of swapping the 42 teeth ring for the 34 teeth ring for
> some lower gears.
>
> My query is this. Can I get a better spread of gears with a 34 teeth
> ring instead of the 34 teeth ring? Another way of putting it is will I
> get more useful gears with the 34 teeth ring instead of the 42 teeth
> ring?
>
> There are some steep hills here and I also like to have a low bail out
> gear in case of a steep hill, strong headwind and fatigue. Spinning in
> a low gear sure beats walking in road shoes with exposed cleats.. My
> other really good Miele road bike has Veloce components on it and a
> racing triple with 30 - 42 and 52 teeth chainwheels. the largest
> sproket in the rear of that bike is 26 teeth. That setup seems to work
> very well although I would have prefered 40 and 50 teeth chainwheels.
> Unfortunately the shops all wanted the price, @ $100 Cdn, of two new
> chainwheels and installation to install in order to get the 40 and 50
> teeth rings.
>
> So what do you experts recomend, go with the 34 and a tighter caset in
> the rear or stay with the 40 and use a wider range cassette in the
> rear?

Most compact cranks are 50/34. It's a great combination if it shifts
properly.

>
> Also, if I do go with a 34 teeth chainwheel (double chainwheel setup)
> will I still need a long cage rear derailleur?

Probably not.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:12:20 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
> ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.
>
> I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> rings on a double crank ann BB.
>
> The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> rings.
>
> I was thinking of swapping the 42 teeth ring for the 34 teeth ring for
> some lower gears.
>
> My query is this. Can I get a better spread of gears with a 34 teeth
> ring instead of the 34 teeth ring? Another way of putting it is will I
> get more useful gears with the 34 teeth ring instead of the 42 teeth
> ring?

Sure. 50/34 is standard "compact" gearing these days.

> So what do you experts recomend, go with the 34 and a tighter caset in
> the rear or stay with the 40 and use a wider range cassette in the
> rear?

I'm no expert, just a curmudgeon, but I think going wider in the front and
tighter in the back is the better way.

> Also, if I do go with a 34 teeth chainwheel (double chainwheel setup)
> will I still need a long cage rear derailleur?

No.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
_`\(,_ | should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams
(_)/ (_) |

 

[[email protected]]

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Hello again oh helpful ones.
>
> I am really looking forward to finishing this rebuild of my old Miele
> road bike.
>
> I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
> ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.
>
> I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> rings on a double crank ann BB.
>
> The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> rings.

This does not make sense. I would be curious to know what triple you
bought that has the same bolt circle diameter for all three rings.
Assuming its a road bike style triple from the past 20 years or so, it
will have 130 or 135 or 110 mm bcd for the outer two rings. And 74mm
bcd for the inner ring. With the 130 and 135, you can basically go as
small as a 39 on the middle ring. With the 110 you can go as small as
34 on the middle ring. With the 74mm bcd you can go as large as 34 on
the inner and as small as 24. But you cannot put the 74mm bcd ring on
the middle or outer positions.

So I really doubt you can swap the 34 ring you have now into the middle
position on your triple you bought. If the triple you bought is 110mm
bcd, then you can buy a new cheap 34 tooth ring in 110mm bcd and put it
on the middle position instead of the current 40 tooth you have. Run
50-34 rings and use the triple as a double. Need shorter bottom
bracket. If your used triple is a 130 or 135 mm bcd triple, then you
could put a 39 in the middle (as low as 38 with the 130 bcd). But if
you already have a 40 tooth, its not going to get you enough lower
gearing to matter.

If you want lower gears, I think your best bet is to keep the middle
and outer rings as they are on the used triple. But a new 74mm bcd
inner ring of 30 or 28 or 26 or 24, whatever gets you to the low gears
you want. Get a triple front derailleur and a long cage rear
derailleur, and use your bike as a triple. It does not hurt you or the
bike to have a triple crankset. Even if you don't use the inner ring,
no harm is done. I've ridden thousands of miles between using the
inner ring on a triple equipped bike I have. I did not lay awake at
night bemoaning this.





>
> I was thinking of swapping the 42 teeth ring for the 34 teeth ring for
> some lower gears.
>
> My query is this. Can I get a better spread of gears with a 34 teeth
> ring instead of the 34 teeth ring? Another way of putting it is will I
> get more useful gears with the 34 teeth ring instead of the 42 teeth
> ring?
>
> There are some steep hills here and I also like to have a low bail out
> gear in case of a steep hill, strong headwind and fatigue. Spinning in
> a low gear sure beats walking in road shoes with exposed cleats.. My
> other really good Miele road bike has Veloce components on it and a
> racing triple with 30 - 42 and 52 teeth chainwheels. the largest
> sproket in the rear of that bike is 26 teeth. That setup seems to work
> very well although I would have prefered 40 and 50 teeth chainwheels.
> Unfortunately the shops all wanted the price, @ $100 Cdn, of two new
> chainwheels and installation to install in order to get the 40 and 50
> teeth rings.
>
> So what do you experts recomend, go with the 34 and a tighter caset in
> the rear or stay with the 40 and use a wider range cassette in the
> rear?
>
> Also, if I do go with a 34 teeth chainwheel (double chainwheel setup)
> will I still need a long cage rear derailleur?
>
> Once again I extend my heartfelt thanks for all and any pertinent
> advice to these queries.
>
> Those who give so freely of their time aiding us here are a real
> blessing.
>
> Peter

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Hello again oh helpful ones.
> >
> > I am really looking forward to finishing this rebuild of my old Miele
> > road bike.
> >
> > I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
> > ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.
> >
> > I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> > rings on a double crank ann BB.
> >
> > The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> > rings.
>
> This does not make sense. I would be curious to know what triple you
> bought that has the same bolt circle diameter for all three rings.


How about a Stronglight 99 or 100? They used an 86mm BCD for all three
rings. The smallest ring size was 28T.

Also, the TA Cyclotourist. 80mm BCD for all the rings, smallest ring is
26T. Until very recently, Sugino was also selling a clone/copy of the
Cyclotourist.


> Assuming its a road bike style triple from the past 20 years or so, it
> will have 130 or 135 or 110 mm bcd for the outer two rings. And 74mm
> bcd for the inner ring.

Not necessarily; all the cranks mentioned above have been available in
the last 20 years. The Sugino was available in the last 2 years or so.

 

[Sir Ridesalot]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Hello again oh helpful ones.
> >
> > I am really looking forward to finishing this rebuild of my old Miele
> > road bike.
> >
> > I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
> > ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.
> >
> > I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> > rings on a double crank ann BB.
> >
> > The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
> > rings.
>
> This does not make sense. I would be curious to know what triple you
> bought that has the same bolt circle diameter for all three rings.
> Assuming its a road bike style triple from the past 20 years or so, it
> will have 130 or 135 or 110 mm bcd for the outer two rings. And 74mm
> bcd for the inner ring.

This crankset had the 3 rings. All rings have the same bolt patern as a
normal double with 42 - 52 teeth. The inner 34 teeth ring was held on
with longer female chainring bolts. These female chainring bolts run
through *ALL* 3 chainrings with spacers between the 34 teeth ring and
40 teeth.

The 34 teeth ring is *NOT* a narrow bolt diameter.

>
> So I really doubt you can swap the 34 ring you have now into the middle
> position on your triple you bought.


Did it last night. Today I took the bike for a 40 Km spin with the 34
teeth ring on instead of the 40 teeth ring. 8 cogs in the rear with a
24 and 28 teeth cogs for the lowest gears.

Found it very nice. I had borrowed six cogs from my mtn bike cassette
which has an 11 teeth to 32 teeth setup. The 24 and 28 teeth cogs were
salvaged from a different 7 gear cassette I had. I did use the 8 gear
spacers on all positions. I'll be buying a cassette with a high gear of
13 teeth as I don't need the 11 or 12 teeth. This will give me a
tighter block.
>

Snipped:

> If you want lower gears, I think your best bet is to keep the middle
> and outer rings as they are on the used triple. But a new 74mm bcd
> inner ring of 30 or 28 or 26 or 24, whatever gets you to the low gears
> you want. Get a triple front derailleur and a long cage rear
> derailleur, and use your bike as a triple. It does not hurt you or the
> bike to have a triple crankset. Even if you don't use the inner ring,
> no harm is done. I've ridden thousands of miles between using the
> inner ring on a triple equipped bike I have. I did not lay awake at
> night bemoaning this.
>


The double derailleur on the front shifts the 34 - 50 teeth combo
beautifully so I don't need a triple front mech.

I will be picking up a long cage rear mech tomorrow to replace the non
indexxing ANCIENT Suntour longcage rear mech I used to experiment with.

I thank everyone for their input. This 34 - 50 Chainrings with the 13 -
28 eight gear cassette will be the cat's meow.

Peter

 

[[email protected]]

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> My
> other really good Miele road bike has Veloce components on it and a
> racing triple with 30 - 42 and 52 teeth chainwheels. the largest
> sproket in the rear of that bike is 26 teeth. That setup seems to work
> very well although I would have prefered 40 and 50 teeth chainwheels.
> Unfortunately the shops all wanted the price, @ $100 Cdn, of two new
> chainwheels and installation to install in order to get the 40 and 50
> teeth rings.

Would Stronglight 135 rings work for you? Here's a 39, for example only
(disclaimer of affiliation, etc. etc):

http://cgi.ebay.com/135mm-Stronglig...ryZ56193QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>

Guessing Stronglight has various tooth counts for sale.

Looking below to your later post, I see a long-cage rear deraileur
mentioned. I believe you could find references in this ng to folks
using normal, short-cage rear ders. with up to 29 teeth for largest
cog. Check it out, if that makes life any easier for you. --D-y

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:12:20 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

[...]


> > Also, if I do go with a 34 teeth chainwheel (double chainwheel setup)
> > will I still need a long cage rear derailleur?
>
> No.

_Unless_ you run a 30 tooth or larger cogwheel in back.

--
Michael Press

 

[Mark]

[email protected] wrote:

> Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
>>Hello again oh helpful ones.
>>
>>I am really looking forward to finishing this rebuild of my old Miele
>>road bike.
>>
>>I recently purchased a used triple crankset which had a 34 teeth inner
>>ring. The other two rings are 40 teeth and 50 teeth.
>>
>>I removed the 34 teeth ring and am using the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
>>rings on a double crank ann BB.
>>
>>The 34 teeth ring is the same bolt pattern as the 40 teeth and 50 teeth
>>rings.
>
>
> This does not make sense. I would be curious to know what triple you
> bought that has the same bolt circle diameter for all three rings.
> Assuming its a road bike style triple from the past 20 years or so, it
> will have 130 or 135 or 110 mm bcd for the outer two rings. And 74mm
> bcd for the inner ring.

Maybe the "old Miele" is older than 20 years. Before about 1983,
dual-BCD cranks were relatively rare. (Can't say about Stronglight, and
TA is a special case, IMHO).

One crank he might have: Sugino Mighty Tour, 110 mm bcd, commonly sold
as triples back in the day, I've had two such triples on my bikes, just
as the OP described.

Mark