Re: largest tooth diff for ultegra triple?

[Paul Kopit]

If you raise the height of the front derailleur to accomodate the 55t
ring, then you will drag the chain on the bottom of the front
derailleur, especially an Ultegra, if you use a 24 or 26t granny. If
you want 55/42, you will be best off getting a Dura Ace Triple front
derailleur. It's cage is longer than the Ultegra.

There are so few times when you spin out a 53/11 at 100-120 rpm. In
most of those cases, you'd be better off not pedaling and getting in a
more aerodynamic tuck. Certainly, you won't be cornering at those
speeds. You don't gain much in going from a 53 to 55 and it is going
to cost big$.

Practice spinning faster.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Paul Kopit wrote:

> If you raise the height of the front derailleur to accomodate the 55t
> ring, then you will drag the chain on the bottom of the front
> derailleur, especially an Ultegra, if you use a 24 or 26t granny. If
> you want 55/42, you will be best off getting a Dura Ace Triple front
> derailleur. It's cage is longer than the Ultegra.
>
> There are so few times when you spin out a 53/11 at 100-120 rpm. In
> most of those cases, you'd be better off not pedaling and getting in a
> more aerodynamic tuck.

It's definately faster for me to tuck than to try to spin out my 52/12. In
normal riding, I tuck on the hills, and don't start pedaling again until my
speed drops to 30 or so. I often coast right past people pedaling furiously.

My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could use a 28
or 26.

Matt O.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> It's definately faster for me to tuck than to try to spin out my 52/12. In
> normal riding, I tuck on the hills, and don't start pedaling again until my
> speed drops to 30 or so. I often coast right past people pedaling furiously.

It's true that a good tuck is faster, but I always feel in better
control when I'm actually pedaling.

> My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
> problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could use a 28
> or 26.

See: http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/74

Sheldon "My Rohloff Goes From 21 To 113 Inches In 14 Even Steps" Brown
+---------------------------------------------+
| Do not needlessly endanger your lives |
| until I give you the signal. |
| --Dwight D. Eisenhower |
+---------------------------------------------+
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

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
> problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could
use a 28
> or 26.

Matt: A 28 will work with no issues whatsoever, and a 26 is usually fine.
A 24 is pushing it beyond what will shift cleanly.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Kopit wrote:
>
> > If you raise the height of the front derailleur to accomodate the 55t
> > ring, then you will drag the chain on the bottom of the front
> > derailleur, especially an Ultegra, if you use a 24 or 26t granny. If
> > you want 55/42, you will be best off getting a Dura Ace Triple front
> > derailleur. It's cage is longer than the Ultegra.
> >
> > There are so few times when you spin out a 53/11 at 100-120 rpm. In
> > most of those cases, you'd be better off not pedaling and getting in a
> > more aerodynamic tuck.
>
> It's definately faster for me to tuck than to try to spin out my 52/12.
In
> normal riding, I tuck on the hills, and don't start pedaling again until
my
> speed drops to 30 or so. I often coast right past people pedaling
furiously.
>
> My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
> problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could
use a 28
> or 26.
>
> Matt O.
>
>

 

[gwhite]

Paul Kopit wrote:
>
> If you raise the height of the front derailleur to accomodate the 55t
> ring, then you will drag the chain on the bottom of the front
> derailleur, especially an Ultegra, if you use a 24 or 26t granny. If
> you want 55/42, you will be best off getting a Dura Ace Triple front
> derailleur. It's cage is longer than the Ultegra.
>
> There are so few times when you spin out a 53/11 at 100-120 rpm. In
> most of those cases, you'd be better off not pedaling and getting in a
> more aerodynamic tuck.

You might not say that if you raced. I've done races/races with
tailwinds sprints and national caliber riders. I can pretty much
guarantee you that you don't stick to their wheels by tucking. That
said, I don't put an 11t on that often -- only for specific events that
call for it. Most of the time I prefer an extra low rather than a
53x11. But there are special situations where "no 11t" pushes the luck
a bit _if other riders have it_.

> Practice spinning faster.

Why? The OP said they were spun out on a tandem. With a good tail wind
and an open road, a tandem could be turning 38 mph (100 rpm in a 52x11)
for a while. I know I don't like to pedal too much faster than 105 rpm
for the mid/long term. 110 rpm starts to be annoying, and 120 rpm is
definitely annoying in the mid/long term (no problem for sprints). And
my 95-105 rpm is just a time trial mode. For just "pedaling along," I
like 70-90 rpm better.

 

[Paul Kopit]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:22:38 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
>problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could use a 28
>or 26.

I can only answer from my tandem experience. I was able to run
54/44/28 using Sachs Ergo shifters but needed a Shimano XTR 900 front
derailleur. Later, a Racing-T, 52/42/28 worked fine, again with Ergo
and the aforementioned front derailleur. A Shimano DuraAce, triple
front derailleur worked ok too but I needed to change the big ring to
a 53 and have the derailleur the full 3 mm above the chainring. You
can shift that with STI. A 26 is used on many tandems as well. They
usually are limited to using the 2-3 innermost cogs on the cassette
with that size ring.

 

[Paul Kopit]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:47:12 -0700, gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com>
wrote:

>
>Why? The OP said they were spun out on a tandem. With a good tail wind
>and an open road, a tandem could be turning 38 mph (100 rpm in a 52x11)
>for a while. I know I don't like to pedal too much faster than 105 rpm
>for the mid/long term. 110 rpm starts to be annoying, and 120 rpm is
>definitely annoying in the mid/long term (no problem for sprints). And
>my 95-105 rpm is just a time trial mode. For just "pedaling along," I
>like 70-90 rpm better.

I ride tandem frequently and have ridden with strong, motivated
stokers. Due to wind resistance, the strength to pedal 38 mph for any
length of time requires very special riders. High downhill speeds are
maintained by spinning very high rpm for a short time, tucking and
then repeating the process.

When you pull the 11t off, the cog you substitute within the cluster
will get more use.

 

[dan baker]

gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> wrote in message
> > Practice spinning faster.
>
> Why? The OP said they were spun out on a tandem. With a good tail wind
> and an open road, a tandem could be turning 38 mph (100 rpm in a 52x11)
> -------------

exactly.
case in point was last weekend at the santa fe century in NM. there is
a stretch that is a flat/gentle downhill for 12 miles, and we had a
15mph tailwind, AND I had a male stoker that day.... we were flying
along at 100-105rpm for 12 miles (close to 40mph on the flat!), and I
was really wishing I had one more gear. There were a couple other
shorter stretches too.

d

 

[David Damerell]

Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
>There are so few times when you spin out a 53/11 at 100-120 rpm. In
>most of those cases, you'd be better off not pedaling and getting in a
>more aerodynamic tuck.

It's a tandem. Air resistance for one, pedalling force from two. Normally
I'm fairly scornful of the crowd who want bigger gears than Lance, but
it's another matter here.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:52:51 GMT, Paul Kopit
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I ride tandem frequently and have ridden with strong, motivated
>stokers. Due to wind resistance, the strength to pedal 38 mph for any
>length of time requires very special riders. High downhill speeds are
>maintained by spinning very high rpm for a short time, tucking and
>then repeating the process.

I ride single. On a nearby hill, not terribly steep or long, just
moderate, I did 43 mph in my 52x11 (124.2 gear inches). If I had a
lower gear and spun out, and just tucked and coasted, I would not
have passed 38mph; indeed, that's my usual speed on that hill. I
think I could have gone faster with a taller gear. I'm better at
mashing than spinning, and I'm happy to be so.

Sure, I didn't get where I was going sooner, but I had more fun. I
enjoy applying whatever power I have available when flying down a
hill. That's a fine reason to want taller gearing.

This was with a group, and on a whim; and I am most definitely not a
strong or fast rider.

Tall gears are not for everybody, but neither are they always
useless, as some would have everybody believe.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[[email protected]]

On 25 May 2004 15:23:28 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> Normally
>I'm fairly scornful . . .

[snip]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Sheldon Brown wrote:

> It's true that a good tuck is faster, but I always feel in better
> control when I'm actually pedaling.

Sometimes I do too -- like when cornering on uneven pavement. This is mostly
what I use my top gear for, and why mountain bikers like to have gears that are
"taller than necessary."

> Sheldon "My Rohloff Goes From 21 To 113 Inches In 14 Even Steps" Brown

Very cool unit! I'd love to build an uber-commuter bike with one of these, and
a full chaincase. It would be unbeatable for muddy mountain biking too (like
they do in Germany, where I'm told it rains even more than in Seattle).

Matt O.

 

[gwhite]

Paul Kopit wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:47:12 -0700, gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why? The OP said they were spun out on a tandem. With a good tail wind
> >and an open road, a tandem could be turning 38 mph (100 rpm in a 52x11)
> >for a while. I know I don't like to pedal too much faster than 105 rpm
> >for the mid/long term. 110 rpm starts to be annoying, and 120 rpm is
> >definitely annoying in the mid/long term (no problem for sprints). And
> >my 95-105 rpm is just a time trial mode. For just "pedaling along," I
> >like 70-90 rpm better.
>
> I ride tandem frequently and have ridden with strong, motivated
> stokers. Due to wind resistance, the strength to pedal 38 mph for any
> length of time requires very special riders. High downhill speeds are
> maintained by spinning very high rpm for a short time, tucking and
> then repeating the process.
>
> When you pull the 11t off, the cog you substitute within the cluster
> will get more use.

Example: Try riding along the Pacific coast. I lived in Santa Cruz for
18 years. In the return from what I called the "Swanton Loop," I would,
on certain days, be able to pedal along _solo_ at 35 mph or so because
of the blazing tailwind (on the "out" of loop it would be a grueling 15
mph slog). It happens. Note you say "spinning very high rpm for a
short time." If one doesn't need a _lower_ gear, they might as well put
a higher gear on so they don't need to practice that "very high rpm." I
do not enjoy pedaling at 145 rpm any more than 25 rpm -- not even for
short times. So if I don't need a low gear *more*, I'll put on the
big. It is irrelevent if it doesn't get used often or for long
intervals.

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:59:11 -0700, gwhite
<gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> wrote:
>If one doesn't need a _lower_ gear, they might as well put
>a higher gear on so they don't need to practice that "very high rpm." I
>do not enjoy pedaling at 145 rpm any more than 25 rpm -- not even for
>short times. So if I don't need a low gear *more*, I'll put on the
>big.

Or, if one doesn't need the ultra-close ratios, they might as well
put on higher _and_ lower gears. The logic of the "spin faster
rather than using a tall gear" crowd breaks down when you consider
that we have 7, 8, or 9 speed rear ends -- if you require one-tooth
differences when cruising so your cadence stays within 5 rpm of your
preference, what happens when you're going very slow or very fast?
Now all of a sudden you can pedal at a vastly different cadence,
even though between 10 mph and 30 mph you had to pedal a single
constant perfect cadence? I don't think so.

I do better choosing between 70 and 90 rpm gears at 15 mph then I do
trying to hit 145 rpm at 40 mph, or trying to get up a hill at 30
rpm doing 4 mph. That's why I have wide-range gearing front and
rear.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[David Reuteler]

Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
>> problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could
> use a 28
>> or 26.
>
> Matt: A 28 will work with no issues whatsoever, and a 26 is usually fine.
> A 24 is pushing it beyond what will shift cleanly.

yea .. i have a 24 on mine and i guess i would agree with that. i put on a
chain catcher and i'm happy with the performance but i wouldn't say it
has "no problems whatsoever" .. it's certainly not annoying, tho, and i'm
not tempted to change it.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[dan baker]

gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> wrote in message news:<40B3896F.A6DDA2B9@hocuspocus_ti.com>...
> Paul Kopit wrote:
>
> Example: Try riding along the Pacific coast. I lived in Santa Cruz for
> 18 years. In the return from what I called the "Swanton Loop," I would,
> on certain days, be able to pedal along _solo_ at 35 mph or so because
> of the blazing tailwind (on the "out" of loop it would be a grueling 15
> mph slog). It happens.
----------------------------------

this is kind of my situation. springtime in NM generally has some
pretty steady winds in the afternoons at 10-20mph, which means the
average loop has some significant section where it is not hard to
maintain 35+mph on a tandem for a couple miles. Plenty of times I
wanted one more gear above the 52x11 I have now.

I ride mostly in NM and CO, which means a fair amount of hills, and
the occasional double whammy of a hill combined with the headwind.
On a tandem, its pretty tough to stand for any length of time, which
means I really want to maintain the lowest reasonable granny I can
that will shift reasonably well, and the front deraill can handle
given the big chainring.

hence, my original question: given a 55 big ring, how small an inner
ring can a ultegra triple front derail handle? So far it sounds like
28 or maybe 27.

d

 

[ph]

> My question -- how small a granny can I put on my Ultegra triple w/o any
> problems (whatsoever)? I'm happy with the other two rings, but I could use a 28
> or 26.
>
> Matt O.

I use an Ultegra 52-38-26 using TA rings with an 12-27 cassette and
have good shifting. Initial problem was the oversized seattube but
Vecchios managed to shim out BB nicely. The shifting is good if I
keep the fder cable tension perfectly adjusted.