Triple Chainrings

[Jimbob]

Ok, where can I get different chainrings for my 105 triple (FC-5504)?

I can find plenty of info from Sheldon Brown re cassettes, but little on chainrings. I aim to change
chainset to 28-40-52 with Sheldon's 'Century Special' cassette (13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30) for some
nice low gears i.e.
25.2" lowest.

I then need to know all the geeky stuff like rear mech (LX?) capacity, chain length and the like.

 

[Jimbob]

I should also add that front & rear derailleur are 105 as well.

 

[Pete Biggs]

JimBob wrote:

> Ok, where can I get different chainrings for my 105 triple (FC-5504)?

LBS or: http://www.settlecycles.co.uk/shop/ http://www.sjscycles.com/store/vIndex.htm

Inner ring type required: 74mm 5-arm, middle & outer: 130mm 5-arm

> I then need to know all the geeky stuff like rear mech (LX?) capacity

The official capacities are listed at: http://www.shimano-europe.com/cycling/ - but these are
conservative, can be pushed (see Sheldon's points on that). An LX is bound to be Ok.

> chain length and the like.

I would just get a new chain and use a length just long enough for the big-big (outer chainring +
largest sprocket combination). See: http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/FAQchainlength.shtml

~PB

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:36:33 -0000, "JimBob" <[email protected]> wrote, following a Sheldon Crisis:

>Ok, where can I get different chainrings for my 105 triple (FC-5504)?

www.sjscycles.com or any other bike shop

>I then need to know all the geeky stuff like rear mech (LX?) capacity, chain length and the like.

Chain length you do empirically (a standard chain is long enough, you just shorten it to length on
the bike as per Sheldon's instructions), mech capacity is available at www.shimano.com - you can
safely exceed the stated capacity (though not the maximum cog size) by a few teeth as you'll not use
smallest ring and smallest cog or biggest ring and biggest cog - and trying to do so won't actually
break anything, it'll just balk.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Tony R]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chain length you do empirically (a standard chain is long enough, you just shorten it to length on
> the bike as per Sheldon's instructions),

>
> Guy
> ===
I'm just wondering why we have to faff about in this way. How come there's no table that tells us
that with a specific biggest sprocket/chainring combination we'll need a specific length of chain?
Awaiting enlightenment, Tony R.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:48:14 -0000, "tony R" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm just wondering why we have to faff about in this way. How come there's no table that tells us
>that with a specific biggest sprocket/chainring combination we'll need a specific length of chain?

Because different bikes have diffferent length chainstays. But it's really not hard to do by the
"hit and hope" method - I've even used it on a recumbent.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Andymorris]

tony R wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Chain length you do empirically (a standard chain is long enough, you just shorten it to length
>> on the bike as per Sheldon's instructions),
>
>>
>> Guy
>> ===
> I'm just wondering why we have to faff about in this way. How come there's no table that tells us
> that with a specific biggest sprocket/chainring combination we'll need a specific length of chain?
> Awaiting enlightenment, Tony R.

Bikes have different chainstay lengths.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Pete Biggs]

tony R wrote:

>> Chain length you do empirically (a standard chain is long enough, you just shorten it to length
>> on the bike as per Sheldon's instructions),

> I'm just wondering why we have to faff about in this way. How come there's no table that tells us
> that with a specific biggest sprocket/chainring combination we'll need a specific length of chain?

Because it depends on chain stay length, dropout positioning and chainline. Any table that could
take that lot into account would be a gigafaff. And I don't like counting anyway

~PB

 

[Arthur Clune]

JimBob <[email protected]> wrote:
: Ok, where can I get different chainrings for my 105 triple (FC-5504)?

: I can find plenty of info from Sheldon Brown re cassettes, but little on chainrings. I aim to
: change chainset to 28-40-52 with Sheldon's 'Century Special' cassette (13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30)
: for some nice low gears i.e.
: 25.2" lowest.

Why not go 28-40-50 if you are changing the chainrings? Gives you a much more sensible big ring for
non-racing applications.

Arhtur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

[Alex]

Arthur Clune wrote:
>
> JimBob <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Ok, where can I get different chainrings for my 105 triple (FC-5504)?
>
> : I can find plenty of info from Sheldon Brown re cassettes, but little on chainrings. I aim to
> : change chainset to 28-40-52 with Sheldon's 'Century Special' cassette
> : (13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30) for some nice low gears i.e.
> : 25.2" lowest.
>
> Why not go 28-40-50 if you are changing the chainrings? Gives you a much more sensible big ring
> for non-racing applications.
>
> Arhtur
>

I'd go for 52-39-28 and 13-14-15-17=19-21-23-25-28 The big 52 T ring will allow you sping
nicely......

Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Arthur Clune]

Alex <[email protected]> wrote:

: I'd go for 52-39-28 and 13-14-15-17=19-21-23-25-28 The big 52 T ring will allow you sping
: nicely......

My point was that you really don't need the 52. If you need a 28, then I can't see you getting much
use out of a 52.

50x13 is a plenty big enough gear for getting the bike moving downhill.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

[Pete Biggs]

Arthur Clune wrote:

>> I'd go for 52-39-28 and 13-14-15-17=19-21-23-25-28 The big 52 T ring will allow you sping
>> nicely......
>
> My point was that you really don't need the 52. If you need a 28, then I can't see you getting
> much use out of a 52.

I agree that it's probably not _needed_ but just because one has a very low bottom gear,
doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't _like_ to have a high top gear. I've got low bottom gears
too (for a road bike). I like to climb slowly but descend fast, and I tend to use higher
cadences for top speeds.

But still, yes it's a fair point for the OP to consider. 50x13 is still pretty big. I would (and am)
considering using that or even lower for a tourer/general run-about bike.

~PB

 

[Alex]

Pete Biggs wrote:
>
> Arthur Clune wrote:
>
> >> I'd go for 52-39-28 and 13-14-15-17=19-21-23-25-28 The big 52 T ring will allow you sping
> >> nicely......
> >
> > My point was that you really don't need the 52. If you need a 28, then I can't see you getting
> > much use out of a 52.
>
> I agree that it's probably not _needed_ but just because one has a very low bottom gear,
> doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't _like_ to have a high top gear. I've got low bottom gears
> too (for a road bike). I like to climb slowly but descend fast, and I tend to use higher
> cadences for top speeds.
>
> But still, yes it's a fair point for the OP to consider. 50x13 is still pretty big. I would (and
> am) considering using that or even lower for a tourer/general run-about bike.
>
> ~PB

--

I'd say that 52-39 is enough but in a triple 52-39-28 the 28 is a bail out gear and it can be
useful, depending on the degree of difficult and length of the proposed climbs. For me, 50x13 is not
high enough but 52x13 is bang on, anything else, which I've tried is too high and therefore not very
useful. Another nice combination is 48-38-28 with a 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26 or 27 cassette. Here
for top gear 48x12 = 52x13.

Alex

===============================
===============================

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Alex <[email protected]> opined:
>> I'd go for 52-39-28 and 13-14-15-17=19-21-23-25-28 The big 52 T ring will allow you sping
>> nicely......

and Arthur Clune wrote:

> My point was that you really don't need the 52. If you need a 28, then I can't see you getting
> much use out of a 52.

> 50x13 is a plenty big enough gear for getting the bike moving downhill.

I'm with you on this one, Arthur. I am not a slow rider by any means, and I recently switched from a
52 to a 50. The inner is still 30 or 31, cassette is 13-26. I also have a wide-range cassette for
hilly rides, but only need it when out with the trundlers (normally I just hoof it up the hill and
wait at the top). 50/13 is as long a gear as I've ever needed.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Tony R]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> tony R wrote:
>

>
> > I'm just wondering why we have to faff about in this way. How come there's no table that tells
> > us that with a specific biggest sprocket/chainring combination we'll need a specific length of
> > chain?
>
> Because it depends on chain stay length, dropout positioning and chainline. Any table that could
> take that lot into account would be a gigafaff. And I don't like counting anyway
>
> ~PB

Thanks to all three of ye. Bloody obvious really. Thanks for not engaging "ridicule the eejit "
mode. Tony R

 

[David E. Belche]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> JimBob wrote:
>
> > Ok, where can I get different chainrings for my 105 triple (FC-5504)?
>
> LBS or: http://www.settlecycles.co.uk/shop/

Agreed. The Stronglight ones sold by Settle are extremely good value for money; no fancy shifting
pins/ramps or multicoloured anodising
[1], just does exactly what it says on the box, and very durable.

David E. Belcher

Dept. of Chemistry, University of York

[2] Though I'll admit to owning a Stronglight Speedlight chainset with aforementioned all-singing,
all-dancing chainrings. And very nice it is too!

 

[Clive George]

"David E. Belcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Agreed. The Stronglight ones sold by Settle are extremely good value for money; no fancy shifting
> pins/ramps or multicoloured anodising
> [1], just does exactly what it says on the box, and very durable.

For some not terribly large value of durable. The bigger ones may be better - but I wear out 36t
rings quite a lot.

cheers, clive

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Clive George wrote:

>> Agreed. The Stronglight ones sold by Settle are extremely good value for money; no fancy shifting
>> pins/ramps or multicoloured anodising
>> [1], just does exactly what it says on the box, and very durable.

> For some not terribly large value of durable. The bigger ones may be better - but I wear out 36t
> rings quite a lot.

I hardly ever use the little ones on the wedgie, but the 'bent has Stronglight rings on a 105
crankset so I'll find out how true this is. The Stronglight rings on my tourer have probably only
done about 15-20,000 miles but none of them are noticeably worn (I changed the outer because I
wanted slightly lower gearing).

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104