Re: Half Step and Granny - which front derailleur?

I'm pretty sure 1/2 step is dead... You have a close ratio with one
chainring already. Back in the day when I was touring with a 1/2 step
10 speed, I stopped bothering with the double shifts on the low
gears. With your setup, I doubt you will bother with the double
shifts on the high gears. There is a reason for the"road triple".
There may be no such thing as too many gears, but there is such a
thing as too many gears to bother shifting.

JG

"JG" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure 1/2 step is dead... You have a close ratio with one
chainring already. Back in the day when I was touring with a 1/2 step
10 speed, I stopped bothering with the double shifts on the low
gears. With your setup, I doubt you will bother with the double
shifts on the high gears. There is a reason for the"road triple".
There may be no such thing as too many gears, but there is such
a thing as too many gears to bother shifting.

I'll go into a little more detail.

I tend to go off meandering on Sundays and ride as I feel, a mixture of
roads and dirt, a hundred miles or so when I'm in shape for it. Sometimes I
carry luggage, sometimes I hop on with impromptu chaingangs. My bikes tend
to be put together with versatility in mind. Absolute top gear and absolute
bottom aren't that important - I'm not racing, and I'm not too proud to push
if nobody's looking. What I need is a mixture of narrow-spaced gears for
cruising, and wider jumps for hacking about off-road. It doesn't make any
sense to have a narrow range cassette and get stalled up trying to shift
four sprockets at once on a dirt climb.

I often ride a 2x9 system - 42-29 at the front with a standard (cheap) 11-32
cassette. On the road, the 12-14-16-18-21 jumps feel a little large, and
these are the gears I spend a lot of time in. Adding a 45 halves these steps
pretty nicely, and gives a little more top end.

Among my stash of parts I have a few Stronglight 130/74 42-30 chainring
combinations which I was planning to use with a chainguard/bash in the outer
position again as a 2x9. Then it struck me that I might as well add the 45
(I have a few lying around) to give me the nice, smaller steps for road
riding. The resulting combination looks something like a road triple with a
small outer, or a mountain triple with a big middle, hence my uncertainty
about which derailleur to try first. The size of the granny is negotiable -
I'm happy to go a couple of teeth either way if there are likely to be
shifting benefits to be had.

Chainline's an issue too.

I'm happy to accept that there may end up being no practical benefit over a
more standard triple, but as I have the parts to play with I'd like to
satisfy myself of that by experience.

James Thomson

"James Thomson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm happy to accept that there may end up being no practical benefit over
a more standard triple, but as I have the parts to play with I'd like to
satisfy myself of that by experience.

Keep us informed about how it works in practice James.

James Thomson said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure 1/2 step is dead... You have a close ratio with one
chainring already.  Back in the day when I was touring with a 1/2 step
10 speed, I stopped bothering with the double shifts on the low
gears.  With your setup, I doubt you will bother with the double
shifts on the high gears.  There is a reason for the"road triple".
There may be no such thing as too many gears, but there is such
a thing as too many gears to bother shifting.

I'll go into a little more detail.

I tend to go off meandering on Sundays and ride as I feel, a mixture of
roads and dirt, a hundred miles or so when I'm in shape for it. Sometimes I
carry luggage, sometimes I hop on with impromptu chaingangs. My bikes tend
to be put together with versatility in mind. Absolute top gear and absolute
bottom aren't that important - I'm not racing, and I'm not too proud to push
if nobody's looking. What I need is a mixture of narrow-spaced gears for
cruising, and wider jumps for hacking about off-road. It doesn't make any
sense to have a narrow range cassette and get stalled up trying to shift
four sprockets at once on a dirt climb.

I often ride a 2x9 system - 42-29 at the front with a standard (cheap) 11-32
cassette. On the road, the 12-14-16-18-21 jumps feel a little large, and
these are the gears I spend a lot of time in. Adding a 45 halves these steps
pretty nicely, and gives a little more top end.

Among my stash of parts I have a few Stronglight 130/74 42-30 chainring
combinations which I was planning to use with a chainguard/bash in the outer
position again as a 2x9. Then it struck me that I might as well add the 45
(I have a few lying around) to give me the nice, smaller steps for road
riding. The resulting combination looks something like a road triple with a
small outer, or a mountain triple with a big middle, hence my uncertainty
about which derailleur to try first. The size of the granny is negotiable -
I'm happy to go a couple of teeth either way if there are likely to be
shifting benefits to be had.

Chainline's an issue too.

I'm happy to accept that there may end up being no practical benefit over a
more standard triple, but as I have the parts to play with I'd like to
satisfy myself of that by experience.

Coming at this from the "what you want" (from your post) and not "what
you have":

Well, your 42x11 is a gear-chart 103 in., and you're interested in
having a little more top end.

You want smaller steps for road riding in your cruising range.

You need at least one low, low gear for "unimproved dirts".

"How do you get there"?

Ready supply of "free" parts notwithstanding, have you thought of
opening up the range on your triple front rings, and closing it
together on the rear? Start with a 13 or 14 (53x14 is 102"😉 smallest
cog on the cassette, use a small inner (triple) chainring, so you
don't have to go so large for the biggest cog? Aiming for a few one-
tooth gaps in the 14-15-16-17-18 range, with chainrings chosen to give
you the ratios you're used to riding, with the holes filled in, and a
low low? Tighter ratios could also give you two or three usable
rations on the granny inner ring, without too much chain deflection,
which could make the off-roading more enjoyable. --D-y

In article <[email hidden]>,

James Thomson said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure 1/2 step is dead... You have a close ratio with one
chainring already. Back in the day when I was touring with a 1/2 step
10 speed, I stopped bothering with the double shifts on the low
gears. With your setup, I doubt you will bother with the double
shifts on the high gears. There is a reason for the"road triple".
There may be no such thing as too many gears, but there is such
a thing as too many gears to bother shifting.

I'll go into a little more detail.

I tend to go off meandering on Sundays and ride as I feel, a mixture of
roads and dirt, a hundred miles or so when I'm in shape for it. Sometimes I
carry luggage, sometimes I hop on with impromptu chaingangs. My bikes tend
to be put together with versatility in mind. Absolute top gear and absolute
bottom aren't that important - I'm not racing, and I'm not too proud to push
if nobody's looking. What I need is a mixture of narrow-spaced gears for
cruising, and wider jumps for hacking about off-road. It doesn't make any
sense to have a narrow range cassette and get stalled up trying to shift
four sprockets at once on a dirt climb.

I often ride a 2x9 system - 42-29 at the front with a standard (cheap) 11-32
cassette. On the road, the 12-14-16-18-21 jumps feel a little large, and
these are the gears I spend a lot of time in. Adding a 45 halves these steps
pretty nicely, and gives a little more top end.

Among my stash of parts I have a few Stronglight 130/74 42-30 chainring
combinations which I was planning to use with a chainguard/bash in the outer
position again as a 2x9. Then it struck me that I might as well add the 45
(I have a few lying around) to give me the nice, smaller steps for road
riding. The resulting combination looks something like a road triple with a
small outer, or a mountain triple with a big middle, hence my uncertainty
about which derailleur to try first. The size of the granny is negotiable -
I'm happy to go a couple of teeth either way if there are likely to be
shifting benefits to be had.

Chainline's an issue too.

I'm happy to accept that there may end up being no practical benefit over a
more standard triple, but as I have the parts to play with I'd like to
satisfy myself of that by experience.

Sounds like a plan.
I presently have a seven speed 14-32 running half-step, no granny.
It works good, and it is not inconvenient to shift.

--
Michael Press

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"James Thomson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...
| For reasons I won't bore you with, I'd like to try a half-step and granny
| gearing system. I'm willing to entertain suggestions that it's
ill-advised,
| but I'd like to try it for myself all the same, and I have most of the
parts
| I need to get started.
|
| Likely gearing will be 45-42-granny at the front, and either
| 11-12-14-16-18-21-24-28 or 12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32 (eight of nine) at the
| rear.
|
| Questions:
|
| What front derailleur would you choose, and why?
|
| Given the above, what size granny would you shoot for?
|
| Shifters will be either older Campag Ergos, Shimano barcons, or downtube
| levers, so front indexing isn't an issue.
|
| Thanks,
|
| James Thomson

The problem you're likely to have, even with non-indexed shifters, is the
chain falling in-between the chainrings when shifting from your 45 to the
42. The spacing between chainrings has to be closer together when they're so
close in size, because as a chain moves further "down" it has more time to
move further "in."  A 5-tooth gap is about the minimum I've found to shift
well. This is an area I have quite a bit of experience in, since I went
through a "half-step" phase during my junior racing days (many, many years
ago) when the gear restrictions at the high end meant that a large front
chainring wasn't useful.

Winter series racing for seniors had similar gear restrictions -- I
still have a bunch of 44 tooth rings sitting around from the '70/80s.
I've used standard Campy NR for half-step and one of the Deore
designed for half-step. Both worked fine -- which is more than I can
say about half-step in general. Seems like a waste of money with
today's gearing. -- Jay Beattie.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

The problem you're likely to have, even with non-indexed shifters, is the
chain falling in-between the chainrings when shifting from your 45 to the
42. The spacing between chainrings has to be closer together when they're so
close in size, because as a chain moves further "down" it has more time to
move further "in."  A 5-tooth gap is about the minimum I've found to shift
well. This is an area I have quite a bit of experience in, since I went
through a "half-step" phase during my junior racing days (many, many years
ago) when the gear restrictions at the high end meant that a large front
chainring wasn't useful.

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I've recently modified a 2007 XTR crank to half step. All the pins and
ramps on modern chainrings do minimize "chain falling in syndrome." A
friend of mine recently acquired a large lathe with a wide enough
swing to mount the right crank and I took off a mm on the arms in a
jif. The problem went away completely.

And all the shifts are sublime compared to the chainrings of old!

<[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Coming at this from the "what you want" (from your post) and
not "what you have":

Quoted message said:

Well, your 42x11 is a gear-chart 103 in., and you're interested in
having a little more top end.

That's not a priority. It'd be nice, but I can spin, and I'm not competing.

Quoted message said:

You want smaller steps for road riding in your cruising range.

Right, but I don't want to sacrifice useful medium-sized shifts on dirt. A
corncob makes no sense if it just means more cogs skipped.

Quoted message said:

You need at least one low, low gear for "unimproved dirts".

Quoted message said:

"How do you get there"?

Quoted message said:

Ready supply of "free" parts notwithstanding, have you thought of
opening up the range on your triple front rings, and closing it
together on the rear? Start with a 13 or 14 (53x14 is 102"😉 smallest
cog on the cassette, use a small inner (triple) chainring, so you
don't have to go so large for the biggest cog? Aiming for a few one-
tooth gaps in the 14-15-16-17-18 range, with chainrings chosen
to give you the ratios you're used to riding, with the holes filled in,
and a low low? Tighter ratios could also give you two or three
usable rations on the granny inner ring, without too much chain
deflection, which could make the off-roading more enjoyable.

Those are all fair suggestions. My main objections are that a bigger outer
chainring means less ground clearance, and a 13- or 14- up cassette with low
gears seems to mean going custom. I've no real problem with that, but the
attraction of the 9-speed 11-32 is that it's available cheaply off the
shelf, and can be split on a 7-speed hub to give either 11-28 or 12-32, both
of which are half-steppable (the 11-12 jump excluded).

The main attraction of half-step though is that I haven't tried it before,
and I'd like to. Given that I have most of the parts here that's reason
enough.

James Thomson

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Keep us informed about how it works in practice James.

Will do. Thanks to all for the input so far.

James Thomson

James Thomson said:

Right, but I don't want to sacrifice useful medium-sized shifts on dirt. A
corncob makes no sense if it just means more cogs skipped.

Perhaps a matter of a gear chart session, "what you got v. what you
want"?

Quoted message said:

Those are all fair suggestions.

Thanks. Leading to "an examination of the situation", before turning
wrenches or help us, buying stuff.

Well, I have some ancient triple experience, with N. Record 36/42/53
crank and 12-23 (which was "custom" off the old Suntour cog board)
freewheel, which worked very well for semi-loaded touring in the
Rockies. Given the limitations of the shifters of the times, of
course, and a lighter, stronger body. I didn't use the 36 much, but I
did use it, on the 23 and the next one up, sorry it's in the Archives
but probably a 21, or maybe a 20. Which was a cool thing about that
Suntour cog board. Gear experimentation, even with "only 7", good.

OK, then we're back to "what kind of front derailleur do I need"? <g>.
Better than the old Campy, is all I can suggest.

I have a "new" triple project, road-style, that is comfortably stalled
due to disinterest in climbing a certain hill that is the reason for
getting the parts mostly together on the bike... "stopped just in
time!"

Anyhow, that's all "factory" Campy -road- stuff that at least looks
like the head-scratching has been done previously... My bikes have
historically at least done lots of dirt road riding, but were not set
up for real off-road. Although some of the Texas-style low water
crossings we used to blast through could certainly qualify. Ground
clearance per se (below) not an issue, IOW.

Quoted message said:

My main objections are that a bigger outer
chainring means less ground clearance, and a 13- or 14- up cassette with low
gears seems to mean going custom. I've no real problem with that, but the
attraction of the 9-speed 11-32 is that it's available cheaply (ding ding ding!)

There was a magic word!

Quoted message said:

off the
shelf, and can be split on a 7-speed hub to give either 11-28 or 12-32, both
of which are half-steppable (the 11-12 jump excluded).

The main attraction of half-step though is that I haven't tried it before,
and I'd like to. Given that I have most of the parts here that's reason
enough.

Yes it most certainly is and could you post a follow-up? --D-y