Cassette compatibility

Dan said:

My wife has a Trek 2200 with 105 front DR (52-30 triple) and Ultegra

rear DR

Quoted message said:

(12-25 9-speed). She wants lower gearing for the hills. I have in the

garage

Quoted message said:

a HG70 11-32 9-speed cassette. Sheldon's site seems to suggest that

this

Quoted message said:

will work if the chainline is kept fairly straight. I will put the

big

Quoted message said:

cassette on this weekend and see how it behaves.

Will the 11-32 work?
What problems should I watch for?
Thanks

The things to be concerned with are

1. whether the Ultegra triple rear derailleur will clear the 32 tooth
cog. Put the B screw in as far as it will go and test it. You'll know
if it clears. If it does not, then a mountain bike triple rear
derailleur such as Deore, LX, XT would be needed as they can clear a 32
cog. About $25 on sale for a Deore.

2. the chain take up of the Ultegra rear derailleur may not take up
enough chain to keep the chain from drooping in the small chainring and
small cassette cogs. Not a big deal or anything to be concerend about.

3. most likely you will need a longer chain so the derailleur is able
to shift into the large 52 chainring and new larger 32 cog in back.
You won't ever intentionally use this combination, but if you
accidentally do, you don't want the rear derailleur to get ripped off
the frame. So increase the chain length.

Dan said:

My wife has a Trek 2200 with 105 front DR (52-30 triple) and Ultegra rear DR
(12-25 9-speed). She wants lower gearing for the hills. I have in the garage
a HG70 11-32 9-speed cassette. Sheldon's site seems to suggest that this
will work if the chainline is kept fairly straight.

Doesn't really have anything to do with the chainline.

Quoted message said:

I will put the big
cassette on this weekend and see how it behaves.

Will the 11-32 work?

Not likely with an Ultegra rear derailer, but derailers are cheap.

Quoted message said:

What problems should I watch for?

The jockey pulley will likely rub against the 32 tooth sprocket, causing
a rough feeling.

I really think you're going at this the wrong way. Since she's already
got a triple, it would make a lot more sense to me (as well as being a
helluvalot cheaper) to go to a more reasonable sized granny chainring.

I'd suggest a 26 or a 24 instead of the silly 30. Try that first, see
if the gears are low enough then, and only swap out the cassette if it
proves necessary.

See: http://harriscyclery.com/74

Sheldon "Granny" Brown
+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+
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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dan said:

My wife has a Trek 2200 with 105 front DR (52-30 triple) and Ultegra rear DR
(12-25 9-speed). She wants lower gearing for the hills. I have in the garage
a HG70 11-32 9-speed cassette. Sheldon's site seems to suggest that this
will work if the chainline is kept fairly straight.

You will probably need a mountain bike rear derailleur for a cassette that big.

I am running a Performance 12-32 cassette on my Raleigh R300 with the
same rear DR. Works like a charm even though it shouldn't. I does
indeed run in the large large combination.

Sheldon Brown said:

Sheldon "Granny" Brown
+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether you can climb faster in a
lower or higher gear. If you can maintain a faster speed by spinning a
low gear, then your time up the hill will be less than grinding a
higher gear at a slower speed. Your statement is correct if you assume
constant rpms are maintained.

quote=''Sheldon Brown said:

Sheldon "Granny" Brown
+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether you can climb faster in a
lower or higher gear. If you can maintain a faster speed by spinning a
low gear, then your time up the hill will be less than grinding a
higher gear at a slower speed. Your statement is correct if you assume
constant rpms are maintained.[/QUOTE]

Sheldon might be right: I don't spend any time at all going up hill in my 56/11. 🙂

Ritch

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:07:22 -0800, "Dan" <[email hidden]> may

have said:

My wife has a Trek 2200 with 105 front DR (52-30 triple) and Ultegra rear DR
(12-25 9-speed). She wants lower gearing for the hills. I have in the garage
a HG70 11-32 9-speed cassette. Sheldon's site seems to suggest that this
will work if the chainline is kept fairly straight. I will put the big
cassette on this weekend and see how it behaves.

Will the 11-32 work?

Shimano only rates the Ultegra for a 27T largest rear sprocket; you
could almost certainly get away with a 28 or 29, but 32 is probably
pushing past the safe limits.

Quoted message said:

What problems should I watch for?

The upper jockey wheel may not be able to swing far enough from the
axle to allow the chain to run on the 32 without problems.

As Sheldon suggested, it might be better to simply swap to a smaller
granny sprocket on the triple.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Dan said:

My wife has a Trek 2200 with 105 front DR (52-30 triple) and Ultegra rear DR
(12-25 9-speed). She wants lower gearing for the hills. I have in the garage
a HG70 11-32 9-speed cassette. Sheldon's site seems to suggest that this
will work if the chainline is kept fairly straight. I will put the big
cassette on this weekend and see how it behaves.

Will the 11-32 work?
What problems should I watch for?

Your wife's ability to keep the bike vertical at extreme low speeds.

Ron

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really think you're going at this the wrong way. Since she's already
got a triple, it would make a lot more sense to me (as well as being a
helluvalot cheaper) to go to a more reasonable sized granny chainring.

I'd suggest a 26 or a 24 instead of the silly 30. Try that first, see
if the gears are low enough then, and only swap out the cassette if it
proves necessary.

Well I may be going the wrong way but I was trying to do this with the stuff
I have in the garage - the most economic solution. Swapping out the granny
ring is a good solution but I already have the cassette. If I fail with the
cassette, I may try a smaller granny ring.

Quoted message said:

+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+

I would say "If you don't have a low enough gear, you won't get to the top
of the hill."

Out here in California, where it doesn't snow, there are some really steep
hills. let us say that my wife weighs 110 lbs and can maintain a 80 watt
output while cranking up a 8% grade. (I am making up these numbers)

80w x 44 = 3250ft-lb/min
3250/110lb = 32 ft/min (vertical)
32/.08 = 400 ft/min (horizontal)
note: (400/60 = 6.67 ft/sec and 6.67/1.47 = 4.5 mph)
400/7.2 = 55 rpm (wheel)

So, if I get the 32t cog to work, she will be cranking along at a cadence of
about:

55*30/32 = 52 .... Pretty low.

I know of roads that are steeper than 8%, my wife wishes she weighed 110 lbs
and I doubt that she could keep up 80 watts for very long.
Last night I pulled off the old cassette and put the big one on. I had to
added two full links to the chain (2 inches) and fiddle with the B tension.
It seems to shift ok and the jockey pulley seems to clear everything. I will
road test this weekend.

What I really don't understand is why the bike companies don't sell stock
road bikes with lower gears. Unless they live in Florida, most recreational
riders need low gears.

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really think you're going at this the wrong way. Since she's already
got a triple, it would make a lot more sense to me (as well as being a
helluvalot cheaper) to go to a more reasonable sized granny chainring.

I'd suggest a 26 or a 24 instead of the silly 30. Try that first, see
if the gears are low enough then, and only swap out the cassette if it
proves necessary.

Well I may be going the wrong way but I was trying to do this with the stuff
I have in the garage - the most economic solution. Swapping out the granny
ring is a good solution but I already have the cassette. If I fail with the
cassette, I may try a smaller granny ring.

Quoted message said:

+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+

I would say "If you don't have a low enough gear, you won't get to the top
of the hill."

Out here in California, where it doesn't snow, there are some really steep
hills. let us say that my wife weighs 110 lbs and can maintain a 80 watt
output while cranking up a 8% grade. (I am making up these numbers)

80w x 44 = 3250ft-lb/min
3250/110lb = 32 ft/min (vertical)
32/.08 = 400 ft/min (horizontal)
note: (400/60 = 6.67 ft/sec and 6.67/1.47 = 4.5 mph)
400/7.2 = 55 rpm (wheel)

So, if I get the 32t cog to work, she will be cranking along at a cadence of
about:

55*30/32 = 52 .... Pretty low.

I know of roads that are steeper than 8%, my wife wishes she weighed 110 lbs
and I doubt that she could keep up 80 watts for very long.
Last night I pulled off the old cassette and put the big one on. I had to
added two full links to the chain (2 inches) and fiddle with the B tension.
It seems to shift ok and the jockey pulley seems to clear everything. I will
road test this weekend.

What I really don't understand is why the bike companies don't sell stock
road bikes with lower gears. Unless they live in Florida, most recreational
riders need low gears.

I said:

Quoted message said:

I really think you're going at this the wrong way. Since she's already
got a triple, it would make a lot more sense to me (as well as being a
helluvalot cheaper) to go to a more reasonable sized granny chainring.

I'd suggest a 26 or a 24 instead of the silly 30. Try that first, see
if the gears are low enough then, and only swap out the cassette if it
proves necessary.

A fan of The Scottish Play wrote"

Quoted message said:

Well I may be going the wrong way but I was trying to do this with the stuff
I have in the garage - the most economic solution. Swapping out the granny
ring is a good solution but I already have the cassette. If I fail with the
cassette, I may try a smaller granny ring.

There may have been excessive snippage, but my recollection was that you
were asking whether an Ultegra rear derailer would work with a 32 tooth
sprocket. Generally, it won't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+

I would say "If you don't have a low enough gear, you won't get to the top
of the hill."

Sure, that's true, never meant to suggest the contrary.

Quoted message said:

What I really don't understand is why the bike companies don't sell stock
road bikes with lower gears. Unless they live in Florida, most recreational
riders need low gears.

It's not just Florida, remember the great plains.

Here in the rolling terrain of New England, we rarely sell a bike with a
double chainring, and our most popular cassette is our 13-30 Century
Special (which _does_ work with Ultegra derailers!)

http://harriscyclery.com/9

Sheldon "A Matter Of Degree" Brown
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| I am come-in a very moralizing strain, to observe that our |
| pleasures in this world are always to be paid for, and that we |
| often purchase them at a great disadvantage, giving ready-monied |
| actual happiness for a draft on the future, that may not be honored. |
| -- Henry Tilney, Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
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

Sheldon Brown said:

Quoted message said:

What I really don't understand is why the bike companies don't sell

stock

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

road bikes with lower gears. Unless they live in Florida, most

recreational

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

riders need low gears.

It's not just Florida, remember the great plains.

Here in the rolling terrain of New England, we rarely sell a bike

with a

Quoted message said:

double chainring, and our most popular cassette is our 13-30 Century
Special (which _does_ work with Ultegra derailers!)

The Great Plains states have many hills that require very low gears.
On Bike Across Kansas this year I used my low gear of 42x28 and heard
many other people used the inner chainring on their triples. It was
the day from Osborne to Lincoln, Kansas. Roughly the middle of the
state. Steep hills and a 30 mph headwind out of the south.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:33:08 -0800, "Dan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What I really don't understand is why the bike companies don't sell stock
road bikes with lower gears. Unless they live in Florida, most recreational
riders need low gears.

Stock bicycles with triples are not uncommon. I think that there are
now a few with 110 bolt pattern doubles.

The stock, large cog cassettes, don't make lots of sense to me. The
rider that needs the 39/32 doesn't need an 11t cog. The regular
cassette is 11/32. I'd prefer a 13/32, something that you can likely
get from Sheldon Brown. 13,14,15,17,19,21,24,27,32 is a much more
user friendly combination.

Dan said:

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really think you're going at this the wrong way. Since she's already
got a triple, it would make a lot more sense to me (as well as being a
helluvalot cheaper) to go to a more reasonable sized granny chainring.

I'd suggest a 26 or a 24 instead of the silly 30. Try that first, see
if the gears are low enough then, and only swap out the cassette if it
proves necessary.

Well I may be going the wrong way but I was trying to do this with the stuff
I have in the garage - the most economic solution. Swapping out the granny
ring is a good solution but I already have the cassette. If I fail with the
cassette, I may try a smaller granny ring.

Quoted message said:

+------------------------------------------+
| The lower your gear, the more of your |
| riding time will be spent going uphill. |
+------------------------------------------+

I would say "If you don't have a low enough gear, you won't get to the top
of the hill."

Out here in California, where it doesn't snow, there are some really steep
hills. let us say that my wife weighs 110 lbs and can maintain a 80 watt
output while cranking up a 8% grade. (I am making up these numbers)

80w x 44 = 3250ft-lb/min
3250/110lb = 32 ft/min (vertical)
32/.08 = 400 ft/min (horizontal)
note: (400/60 = 6.67 ft/sec and 6.67/1.47 = 4.5 mph)
400/7.2 = 55 rpm (wheel)

So, if I get the 32t cog to work, she will be cranking along at a cadence of
about:

55*30/32 = 52 .... Pretty low.

I know of roads that are steeper than 8%, my wife wishes she weighed 110 lbs
and I doubt that she could keep up 80 watts for very long.
Last night I pulled off the old cassette and put the big one on. I had to
added two full links to the chain (2 inches) and fiddle with the B tension.
It seems to shift ok and the jockey pulley seems to clear everything. I will
road test this weekend.

What I really don't understand is why the bike companies don't sell stock
road bikes with lower gears. Unless they live in Florida, most recreational
riders need low gears.

Dear Dan,

Your cadence and speed may be a little optimistic.

At 52 rpm with a 30 front x 32 rear on a 700c rim and a 2124
mm rear tire, she'll be going slightly under 4 mph, a bit
less than your 4.5 mph estimate.

That doesn't seem like much difference, only a little over
half a mile per hour, but down at walking speeds an 11%
reduction in speed can have surprising results.

That's why others are suggesting that her biggest problem
may be keeping upright.

If she doesn't like the new low gear, she can always turn
back, shift up a gear, get off and walk, or threaten to fire
her team mechanic unless he restores her old gearing.

All the calculations in the world won't tell her as much as
trying to pedal up a few familiar hills, so have fun.

Carl Fogel

ALL YOUR GEORGE ARE BELONG TO US!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7129430648

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Kopit said:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:33:08 -0800, "Dan" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

The stock, large cog cassettes, don't make lots of sense to me. The
rider that needs the 39/32 doesn't need an 11t cog.

Unless they have a 44 big ring like that used on a mountain bike
which is the intended market for the cassette.

You can't look at the cogset in isolation. A 21 big cog would
not be enough for many people with a standard 52x39 road double.

I used one for 400 miles one week with nearly 30,000 feet of climbs -
using a 30T triple small ring that made it like having a 28T in the
standard road double configuration.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.

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

Quoted message said:

Dear Dan,

Your cadence and speed may be a little optimistic.

At 52 rpm with a 30 front x 32 rear on a 700c rim and a 2124
mm rear tire, she'll be going slightly under 4 mph, a bit
less than your 4.5 mph estimate.

That doesn't seem like much difference, only a little over
half a mile per hour, but down at walking speeds an 11%
reduction in speed can have surprising results.

That's why others are suggesting that her biggest problem
may be keeping upright.

If she doesn't like the new low gear, she can always turn
back, shift up a gear, get off and walk, or threaten to fire
her team mechanic unless he restores her old gearing.

All the calculations in the world won't tell her as much as
trying to pedal up a few familiar hills, so have fun.

Carl Fogel

Carl-

There is an error in the calcs - oh well, no surprise in that and thanks for
spotting it.

Doesn't just the thought of cranking up a long, steep hill with a cadence of
52 make your knees sore? Anyway, a wife-on-a-bike has a maximum power output
which, at low speeds, determines her maximum rate of climb. For a given
slope, different gearing only allows different cadence (not an absolute
truth but close enough for now). Walk is an option but let's say she likes a
cadence of 80. Her lowest gear on the stock bike is the 30t ring and the 25t
cog so her wheel is going about 80x30/25=96 rpm. circumference is about 7.2
ft so she is going 7.2x96=678 ft/min which is about 7.6 mph or about double
maximum walking speed in bike shoes. I am trying to get her gearing for that
slope where her climb rate is too fast to walk and too slow for her lowest
gear cadence. I can wobble along pretty well at 4 to 4.5 mph and I have
chugged up some steep bits below 4 mph. If my memory is reliable, they have
some steep hills in your state and I would hazard to guess that you have
cranked up a hill at something less than 7.6 mph. If not, next time you are
in the bay area, let me know and we can try some of the hills near my house.
We have a few very short stretches of pavement in the 20% range. Hicks Road
has a mile that averages 10.5% and there is always Sonora Pass.

Bear in mind that if my wife (45 mother of 2) wants really low gears, it is
my only available option to provide them.

Dan

Dan said:

Bear in mind that if my wife (45 mother of 2) wants really low gears,

it is

Quoted message said:

my only available option to provide them.

Dan

What about the option of trading the wife in for one that can climb
hills in higher gears? Although I suspect this might possibly be a bit
more expensive than providing lower gears for the current wife.

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

Quoted message said:

Dan said:

Bear in mind that if my wife (45 mother of 2) wants really low gears,
it is my only available option to provide them.

Dan

What about the option of trading the wife in for one that can climb
hills in higher gears? Although I suspect this might possibly be a bit
more expensive than providing lower gears for the current wife.

Wow! Great idea. I'll run it by her and see. You know any sporty, hardbody
chicks who like middle-aged, bike-riding dorks? I went to the barber the
other day and asked him to cut my hair really short. He said that he didn't
think it would look very good that way (maybe he was going to try to sell me
on a comb-over). I said "Look Tim, it's not like I'm trying to pick up girls
or anything." He replied "Well Dan, at your age they wouldn't likely be
girls now would they."