Modifying gears for hills: Front or Rear?

[raffy]

Greetings,



I have a 1998 Bianchi Veloce with two chain rings and a 9 speed cog

and this is fine for most of my riding here in Indiana.

However, I could use more gears for hillier terrain.

All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.

Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34

or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to a
larger gear?

(A 26 is the largest my existing derailleur will accommodate.)

Compact chain ring or larger cog?



PS: I am sorry if this has been covered recently.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"raffy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have a 1998 Bianchi Veloce with two chain rings and a 9 speed cog
>and this is fine for most of my riding here in Indiana.
>However, I could use more gears for hillier terrain.
>All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.
>Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34
>or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to a
>larger gear?
>(A 26 is the largest my existing derailleur will accommodate.)
>Compact chain ring or larger cog?

I'm assuming your current crank's small ring is a 39 or 42... if so, a
26 is still pretty low gearing. But FWIW, you can usually get a Campy
RD to handle 2-3 more teeth than the spec (it depends on the spacing
between the RD mounting bolt and the rear axle).

Certainly changing a cassette is a LOT cheaper than changing the crank
(and probably bottom bracket). For most riders, a 34 tooth small ring
will be well nigh useless riding in flat terrain.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Pete Biggs]

raffy wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have a 1998 Bianchi Veloce with two chain rings and a 9 speed cog
>
> and this is fine for most of my riding here in Indiana.
>
> However, I could use more gears for hillier terrain.
>
> All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.
>
> Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34
>
> or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to
> a larger gear?
>
> (A 26 is the largest my existing derailleur will accommodate.)

You may find it actually works with a 28 as official specs are
conservative (it helps to have the chain as short as reasonably possible).
However, a compact will provide a lower bottom gear even with a 26T rear
cog.

~PB

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:33:36 GMT, "raffy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.
>Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34
>or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to a
>larger gear?

If you want to stay with a consistent look, you probably have a year
to wait for CT to come down to Veloce level. If you spend most of your
time on the big chainring, that would be my first choice. Until then,
a Veloce triple plus the BB and both derailleurs is half the price of
Centaur CT carbon cranks and matching front mech.

I'm changing my (Shimano based) bike to a 48/34 compact FSA Gossamer,
which is about the only compact crankset cheaper than switching to a
105 triple.


Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[Ron Ruff]

It would be cheapest and easiest to just get a 13-28 rear cluster (and
hope it works with your current der.), but if you want close gear
ratios *and* lower gears, a triple or compact crank will be necessary.

I hope that the 110 bolt circle becomes the new road standard, with a
good selection of rings available from 34 to 55 teeth, so you can get
just what you want. A 34-48 or 36-50 just makes more sense for average
riders in hilly areas... at least with the commonly available cogsets
that start with 11 or 12 teeth. I rarely even use a 53-13... if I'm
going over 35 mph, then it's downhill and I can just tuck and coast.

Note that although 34-50 is the most common, this is a pretty big jump
in ratios. It should work ok though (adequate ratio overlap), if you
have a wide range gear cluster... like at least a 12-26, otherwise I
think a 34-48 or 36-50 would make more sense.

-Ron

 

[Robin Hubert]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> It would be cheapest and easiest to just get a 13-28 rear cluster (and
> hope it works with your current der.), but if you want close gear
> ratios *and* lower gears, a triple or compact crank will be necessary.
>
> I hope that the 110 bolt circle becomes the new road standard, with a
> good selection of rings available from 34 to 55 teeth, so you can get
> just what you want. A 34-48 or 36-50 just makes more sense for average
> riders in hilly areas... at least with the commonly available cogsets
> that start with 11 or 12 teeth. I rarely even use a 53-13... if I'm
> going over 35 mph, then it's downhill and I can just tuck and coast.
>
> Note that although 34-50 is the most common, this is a pretty big jump
> in ratios. It should work ok though (adequate ratio overlap), if you
> have a wide range gear cluster... like at least a 12-26, otherwise I
> think a 34-48 or 36-50 would make more sense.
>
> -Ron
>

On the other hand, check out Ultegra 6600 10sp cassette choices: 14-25
and 15-25, and 16-27!! That takes care of the need for compact crank.
Cheaper too, if you're already Something-by-10sp. Much more expensive
if you need new shifters.


Robin Hubert

 

[Doug Taylor]

On 10 Jul 2005 17:42:40 -0700, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I hope that the 110 bolt circle becomes the new road standard, with a
>good selection of rings available from 34 to 55 teeth, so you can get
>just what you want. A 34-48 or 36-50 just makes more sense for average
>riders in hilly areas... at least with the commonly available cogsets
>that start with 11 or 12 teeth. I rarely even use a 53-13... if I'm
>going over 35 mph, then it's downhill and I can just tuck and coast.

I agree that the 110 bcd should become standard, but think that
cogsets have to designed by the manufacturers to accommodate the
smaller front rings, be they 34-48, 34-50, or 36-50.

Personally, when I switched to 34-50, I found that losing the 53:12
high gear was a problem and often ended up over spinning in 50:12.
The solution, using a 9 speed Shimano system, was to build a custom
cogset. First, using SRAM cogs I had in lying around, I swapped the
12 and 13 cogs from a 12-26 set with the 11 and 12 from an 11-23 set,
for a custom cogset with an 11-26 span. With this, I had both a 50-11
high gear (a tad higher than my friends running 53:12) and a 34:26
super low gear (way lower than friends with 39:25 or even 39:26 [SRAM]
or 39:27 [Shimano]).

When that cogset wore out, I decided it was not economical to buy two
new cogsets and mix and match cogs, and set out trying to find
individual cogs to build a new custom. Nashbar sold individual SRAM
cogs, but was out of stock for what I wanted. Harris Cyclery sells
individual Shimano cogs, but also sells a custom cogset called "High
and Wide" , 11-28. The 28 is used in this set instead of 27 because
Shimano does not sell a free 27 - 27's only come attached in clusters.

That was a decent compromise - there are issues with the 4 tooth
jumps in the big cogs, but you can live with them.

Recently - Saturday, in fact - my right shifter **** the bed after 3
years and many 1000 miles of use. Perfect excuse to upgrade to 10
speed in order to eliminate the 4 tooth jumps, right (as you really
only need to replace shifter, chain, and cogset)? Wrong. Nobody
makes an 11-25, 11-26, or 11-27 10 speed cogset. I can't find
individual 10 speed cogs anywhere. In order to end up with an 11 -27,
I will have to buy 2 cogsets and mix and match.

I think that once 110 bcd does become the norm, and 50 or 48 teeth are
the "big" ring, cogsets that span from 11 to 25, 26 and 27 should be
available in order retain a high gear and keep the super low gears
that are the whole point of compact rings, as well.

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:22:16 GMT, Robin Hubert <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ron Ruff wrote:
>> It would be cheapest and easiest to just get a 13-28 rear cluster (and
>> hope it works with your current der.), but if you want close gear
>> ratios *and* lower gears, a triple or compact crank will be necessary.
>>
>> I hope that the 110 bolt circle becomes the new road standard, with a
>> good selection of rings available from 34 to 55 teeth, so you can get
>> just what you want. A 34-48 or 36-50 just makes more sense for average
>> riders in hilly areas... at least with the commonly available cogsets
>> that start with 11 or 12 teeth. I rarely even use a 53-13... if I'm
>> going over 35 mph, then it's downhill and I can just tuck and coast.
>>
>> Note that although 34-50 is the most common, this is a pretty big jump
>> in ratios. It should work ok though (adequate ratio overlap), if you
>> have a wide range gear cluster... like at least a 12-26, otherwise I
>> think a 34-48 or 36-50 would make more sense.
>>
>> -Ron
>>
>
>On the other hand, check out Ultegra 6600 10sp cassette choices: 14-25
>and 15-25, and 16-27!! That takes care of the need for compact crank.
>Cheaper too, if you're already Something-by-10sp. Much more expensive
>if you need new shifters.

Those make more sense to me than the whole compact crank deal. Compact seems to
be based on the idea of making the most of a gearset almost nobody can ride
anyway. Everything I've ever read about efficiency of a chain drive favors
larger rather than smaller cogs anyway.

Ron

 

[Ron Ruff]

> >
> >On the other hand, check out Ultegra 6600 10sp cassette choices: 14-25
> >and 15-25, and 16-27!! That takes care of the need for compact crank.
> >Cheaper too, if you're already Something-by-10sp. Much more expensive
> >if you need new shifters.
>
> Those make more sense to me than the whole compact crank deal. Compact seems to
> be based on the idea of making the most of a gearset almost nobody can ride
> anyway.
>
A 53/14 is 10% shy of a 50/12 gear, and a 39/25 is about 20% higher
than a 34/26! So, a 39/53 with a 14-25 is hardly equivalent to 34/50
with a 12-26. You get the close ratios if that is what you want, but
you're missing the high and low gears.

Now, if they made 13-28 clusters, that would be close... but if you are
going to a wide range rear cluster, why not increase the range on the
front, too?

I guess everybody is different... I like to spin on long 8% grades with
a cadence of around 80rpm, and that works out to 10mph with a 34/26...
and that is about as fast as I can go. A 50/12 is plenty high for going
back down since I'm not pedaling anyway. If I rode on mostly flat
roads, I'd be happy with a 53/39 12-23... but I don't.

>Everything I've ever read about efficiency of a chain drive favors
> larger rather than smaller cogs anyway
>
I thought so too, but Spicer et al did some tests a few years ago that
showed a greater increase in efficiency due to higher chain tension
than the loss from using smaller rear cogs... so the compact crank
wouldn't be less efficient. The teeth would wear out slightly sooner,
but that is another issue. You can find a copy of his paper on IHPVA's
site if you are interested.

-Ron

 

[Ron Ruff]

Correction: That should have been 8 mph not 10 mph... I didn't think I
was that fast...

-Ron

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

raffy wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> I have a 1998 Bianchi Veloce with two chain rings and a 9 speed cog
>
> and this is fine for most of my riding here in Indiana.
>
> However, I could use more gears for hillier terrain.
>
> All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.
>
> Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34
>
> or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to a
> larger gear?
>
> (A 26 is the largest my existing derailleur will accommodate.)


Not true. If the chain is the correct length, you can put the 13-28 on
there w/o problem.

Do the cog first as it's the cheapest. If ya still need lower gears,
then the FSA Gossamer compact works well-$175.
>
> Compact chain ring or larger cog?
>
>
>
> PS: I am sorry if this has been covered recently.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> It would be cheapest and easiest to just get a 13-28 rear cluster (and
> hope it works with your current der.), but if you want close gear
> ratios *and* lower gears, a triple or compact crank will be necessary.
>
> I hope that the 110 bolt circle becomes the new road standard, with a
> good selection of rings available from 34 to 55 teeth, so you can get
> just what you want. A 34-48 or 36-50 just makes more sense for average
> riders in hilly areas... at least with the commonly available cogsets
> that start with 11 or 12 teeth. I rarely even use a 53-13... if I'm
> going over 35 mph, then it's downhill and I can just tuck and coast.

TA chainrings are now available in 110mm BCD from 34 to 56, 1 tooth
increments. BUT I really doubt 110mm will become any standard.
>
> Note that although 34-50 is the most common, this is a pretty big jump
> in ratios. It should work ok though (adequate ratio overlap), if you
> have a wide range gear cluster... like at least a 12-26, otherwise I
> think a 34-48 or 36-50 would make more sense.
>
> -Ron

 

[[email protected]]

raffy wrote:
> Greetings,
> I have a 1998 Bianchi Veloce with two chain rings and a 9 speed cog
> and this is fine for most of my riding here in Indiana.
> However, I could use more gears for hillier terrain.
> All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.
> Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34
> or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to a
> larger gear?
> (A 26 is the largest my existing derailleur will accommodate.)
> Compact chain ring or larger cog?

I have a 1998 Chorus short cage rear derailleur and it accomodates a 28
tooth rear cog. QBP sells just the 28 tooth cog. On a Veloce 9 speed
13-26 cassette, all loose cogs, you can just replace the 26 cog with
the 28 cog. The short cage rear derailleur handles the 5 tooth jump
from 23 to 28 just fine. Given the high QBP cost $27.95, it might make
sense to you just to buy a 13-28 9 speed Veloce cassette from mail
order places for about $40.

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/k7.html#campagnolo

I recently rode TRIRI in SW Indiana. They had some hills needing
triple gears for all but the strongest and fastest riders. I've heard
the middle and upper parts of Indiana are not as rugged. Nashbar sells
the Veloce long cage rear derailleur for $55, triple front derailleur
for $45, Centaur triple crankset for $90, and AC-H bottom bracket for
$30. $220 is not cheap. But you will have low enough gears to get up
about anything you want from now on. Much, much lower gears than any
110 mm bcd crankset can give you.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> raffy wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > I have a 1998 Bianchi Veloce with two chain rings and a 9 speed cog
> > and this is fine for most of my riding here in Indiana.
> > However, I could use more gears for hillier terrain.
> > All existing hardware is Campagnolo Veloce.
> > Should I change my front chain ring to a compact 50/34
> > or change my rear derailleur to a long cage so I can change my cog to a
> > larger gear?
> > (A 26 is the largest my existing derailleur will accommodate.)
> > Compact chain ring or larger cog?
>
> I have a 1998 Chorus short cage rear derailleur and it accomodates a 28
> tooth rear cog. QBP sells just the 28 tooth cog. On a Veloce 9 speed
> 13-26 cassette, all loose cogs, you can just replace the 26 cog with
> the 28 cog. The short cage rear derailleur handles the 5 tooth jump
> from 23 to 28 just fine. Given the high QBP cost $27.95, it might make
> sense to you just to buy a 13-28 9 speed Veloce cassette from mail
> order places for about $40.
>
> http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/k7.html#campagnolo

I should have mentioned changing the 26 tooth cog to a 28 tooth cog
makes a small noticeable difference. But if your current setup is
"fine for most of my riding here in Indiana" then just going to a 28
cog in back will probably not be low enough. Unless you are currently
running something like a 21 tooth large cog now.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

A usually reliable source wrote:

> TA chainrings are now available in 110mm BCD from 34 to 56, 1 tooth
> increments.

Actually, TA starts at 33 teeth. They're the only manufacturer who
makes this size.

> BUT I really doubt 110mm will become any standard.

Is this a joke? 110 is probably the most widely used BCD standard in
history!

It has been around since the early '80s at least, and is still going strong.

It also offers the largest range of chainring sizes of any modern
system, only challenged by the endangered species TA 5 vis pattern.

Sheldon "Thanks, Sugino!" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Conscience is the inner voice which warns us |
| that someone might be looking. |
| --H.L. Mencken |
+--------------------------------------------------+
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

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:12:11 -0400, Doug Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree that the 110 bcd should become standard, but think that
>cogsets have to designed by the manufacturers to accommodate the
>smaller front rings, be they 34-48, 34-50, or 36-50.

In answer to my own question, I found one company which has addressed
the issue:

http://www.interlocracing.com/cassettes_steel.html

e.g.:
ten speed:
11/12/13/15/17/19/21/23/25/28

nine speed:
11/12/14/16/18/20/22/25/28