Cross chaining...

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Michael Vang said:

I ride a lot, and I spend all my time in the small ring. The terrain
where I live is such that I can manage quite well with an 11-21
cassette and 53/39 chainrings. The lowest gear I ever use is my 39x18.
Ordinarily that is my starting gear, although I do use this gear,
standing, on our toughest climb, which is maybe 11% for maybe 1/4 mile.
In other words, it is pretty flat here. I developed this system after
reading that it was wrong to ride in the big ring all the time. I was a
new cyclist at the time and thought I was supposed to ride in the big
ring. So I switched, and in the process I have developed a fairly
smooth, high speed cadence. I ride mostly solo, so I very rarely run
out of gears. The 39x13 will get me up to 24mph comfortably and if I am
going faster than that I usually just coast. Sometimes I will spin out
to 28mph for a minute or so. On faster group rides I sometimes fall off
the back once the speed goes above 25-26mph for extended periods of
time. When that happens I usually have no problem getting back on
during the hills, or I may, occasionally, shift to the big ring.

Anyways, all my friends ride the opposite. They tend to stay in the big
ring even on the hills. Most of them use 12-25 cassettes. While I am
cross chained when I use the 39x13, it appears not nearly as severe as
when I see my friends use the 53x25. (I'm not saying I use a 39x13 when
they are using a 53x25. I'm saying those are the extremes that we each
occasionally use.) I've read that cross chaining really isn't less
efficient, although (IMO) the sound it makes is annoying. And I've read
that using larger rings and sprockets is theoretically more efficient.
So I am considering trying this. It does look "weird" to be following a
guy and then look at his chain when he is in the 53x25. It is as if the
chain is going at a 45deg angle between the gears. (I know it isn't but
it sure looks extreme!)

Looking at the gears I use now, I would be very satisfied if I could
have the range from 39x18 to a 39x10. (I know a 10 isn't possible
except maybe on a folding bike!) What I have now works perfectly except
I don't use the 21 and 19 or the 11 and 12. These gears really act as
spacers for me, to keep the chain line cleaner. Well, I sometimes use
the 12 and 11 but the clatter gets pretty loud so I shift out ASAP. I
calculated that a 45 or 46 small ring would give me everything I want,
but then the 53 would be pretty much unneeded. Just switching to a 42
would give me 1 more higher gear which would be really helpful.

But, I wonder. I know I am not special, and there has to be a reason
why the 53/39 combo is so popular. Maybe I'm just doing everything
wrong.

The plusses:

Easy to shift. I never even worry about the left shifter.
Shorter chain with 11-21 = crisper shifts.
Narrow gaps between gears lets me fine tune cadence.
Chain life has been incredible. No measurable wear in over 4000 miles.
The sprockets look mint as well, even the Ti 18/17 combo, which get
used a lot.

The minuses:

On faster rides I struggle to keep up, not because of a lack of
strength, but because I run out of gears.
Perhaps by spinning so much I am neglecting some strength training.
As I get stronger I find myself double shifting since the lower gear
gaps are really small. (Campy makes this pleasurable. This would be
annoying on Shimano.)

I've played with Sheldon's gearing calculator for hours, trying to find
a gearing combo that would allow me to do what I want to do, which is
stay in one ring, all the time. A 5X/46 11-21 would work. A 48/34
12-25/27 compact crank might work if I didn't spend too much time on
the larger sprockets. Maybe a 50/39 12-27? There is even an Ultegra
16-27 or 15-25 which gives good numbers but I'm sure looks real weird.
Honestly, anything beyond 100-110 gear inches will never be used by me.

If I was just starting out I'd figure I didn't have enough miles to
know what I want or need, but I really ride a lot. In fact, I have done
11 centuries this year so far and 70 last year. That translates to a
lot of hours on the bike. The bike I have now fulfills all my needs
perfectly except the gearing issue. I just need 2-3 higher gears.
Obviously, I can shift the front, but the cutover for that would seem
to make me constantly shift the front back and forth. It sure is
convenient to just click the rear up and down as needed. While my front
derailleur is tuned perfectly it never feels as solid and worry-free as
the rear derailleur. And the 4 gear gap shifting up means I have to
back off 1 or 2 shifts on the rear. While I can do it, it seems
unnecessarily complex.

Or maybe I just need to push some bigger gears? My cadence is way up
there, all the time. My friends all comment that I have a smooth spin
and not some spastic, saddle bouncing abomination. As a side note, I
have been told I run my saddle maybe 1/2" to 3/4" low which may
contribute to this smoothness. Everyone tells me I need to raise my
saddle some but I get the feeling that people tell you that no matter
how high it is. When I first started this small ring scheme, I promised
myself never to drop below the 21, no matter what. After a few months,
I changed that to the 19. A few months ago I switched to the 18 and I
hope this summer I can start using my 17 as my lowest gear. I can see
the improvement over time. Hills I could barely climb in the 21 last
year I can do in the 18 this year. Where before I struggled up longer
4% inclines at 9mph I am now doing then at 13-16mph. Maybe, given
enough time, I won't need the small ring?

I'm just curious how everyone deals with shifting. My rides are around
6 hours long. I'm probably in my 39x15/14 or so most of that time. The
chainline is just slightly off at that gear but I have very little left
if I encounter a downhill or a good draft from the occasional cyclist I
meet. There are 2 or 3 relatively fast cyclists that I ride with that I
am able to keep pace with, but even though we go the same speed, our
approaches are totally different. I know everyone is different to a
degree, but I can't see us being that different? Maybe I have just not
tapped my strength potential? (Wishful thinking!)

Thanks for any advice or guidance. I'm genuinely motivated to learn and
to improve. If I've used improper terminology or confused anything
please let me know and I can try to provide a better explanation.

One suggestion. Start using the large chain ring and see
what happens. Try running large sections of the rides in
the large ring, instead of the small. You may be able to
answer most of your questions.

--
Michael Press

Michael Vang said:

I ride a lot, and I spend all my time in the small ring. The terrain
where I live is such that I can manage quite well with an 11-21
cassette and 53/39 chainrings. The lowest gear I ever use is my 39x18.
Ordinarily that is my starting gear, although I do use this gear,
standing, on our toughest climb, which is maybe 11% for maybe 1/4 mile.
In other words, it is pretty flat here. I developed this system after
reading that it was wrong to ride in the big ring all the time. I was a
new cyclist at the time and thought I was supposed to ride in the big
ring. So I switched, and in the process I have developed a fairly
smooth, high speed cadence. I ride mostly solo, so I very rarely run
out of gears. The 39x13 will get me up to 24mph comfortably and if I am
going faster than that I usually just coast. Sometimes I will spin out
to 28mph for a minute or so. On faster group rides I sometimes fall off
the back once the speed goes above 25-26mph for extended periods of
time. When that happens I usually have no problem getting back on
during the hills, or I may, occasionally, shift to the big ring.

Anyways, all my friends ride the opposite. They tend to stay in the big
ring even on the hills. Most of them use 12-25 cassettes. While I am
cross chained when I use the 39x13, it appears not nearly as severe as
when I see my friends use the 53x25. (I'm not saying I use a 39x13 when
they are using a 53x25. I'm saying those are the extremes that we each
occasionally use.) I've read that cross chaining really isn't less
efficient, although (IMO) the sound it makes is annoying. And I've read
that using larger rings and sprockets is theoretically more efficient.
So I am considering trying this. It does look "weird" to be following a
guy and then look at his chain when he is in the 53x25. It is as if the
chain is going at a 45deg angle between the gears. (I know it isn't but
it sure looks extreme!)

Looking at the gears I use now, I would be very satisfied if I could
have the range from 39x18 to a 39x10. (I know a 10 isn't possible
except maybe on a folding bike!) What I have now works perfectly except
I don't use the 21 and 19 or the 11 and 12. These gears really act as
spacers for me, to keep the chain line cleaner. Well, I sometimes use
the 12 and 11 but the clatter gets pretty loud so I shift out ASAP. I
calculated that a 45 or 46 small ring would give me everything I want,
but then the 53 would be pretty much unneeded. Just switching to a 42
would give me 1 more higher gear which would be really helpful.

But, I wonder. I know I am not special, and there has to be a reason
why the 53/39 combo is so popular. Maybe I'm just doing everything
wrong.

The plusses:

Easy to shift. I never even worry about the left shifter.
Shorter chain with 11-21 = crisper shifts.
Narrow gaps between gears lets me fine tune cadence.
Chain life has been incredible. No measurable wear in over 4000 miles.
The sprockets look mint as well, even the Ti 18/17 combo, which get
used a lot.

The minuses:

On faster rides I struggle to keep up, not because of a lack of
strength, but because I run out of gears.
Perhaps by spinning so much I am neglecting some strength training.
As I get stronger I find myself double shifting since the lower gear
gaps are really small. (Campy makes this pleasurable. This would be
annoying on Shimano.)

I've played with Sheldon's gearing calculator for hours, trying to find
a gearing combo that would allow me to do what I want to do, which is
stay in one ring, all the time. A 5X/46 11-21 would work. A 48/34
12-25/27 compact crank might work if I didn't spend too much time on
the larger sprockets. Maybe a 50/39 12-27? There is even an Ultegra
16-27 or 15-25 which gives good numbers but I'm sure looks real weird.
Honestly, anything beyond 100-110 gear inches will never be used by me.

If I was just starting out I'd figure I didn't have enough miles to
know what I want or need, but I really ride a lot. In fact, I have done
11 centuries this year so far and 70 last year. That translates to a
lot of hours on the bike. The bike I have now fulfills all my needs
perfectly except the gearing issue. I just need 2-3 higher gears.
Obviously, I can shift the front, but the cutover for that would seem
to make me constantly shift the front back and forth. It sure is
convenient to just click the rear up and down as needed. While my front
derailleur is tuned perfectly it never feels as solid and worry-free as
the rear derailleur. And the 4 gear gap shifting up means I have to
back off 1 or 2 shifts on the rear. While I can do it, it seems
unnecessarily complex.

Or maybe I just need to push some bigger gears? My cadence is way up
there, all the time. My friends all comment that I have a smooth spin
and not some spastic, saddle bouncing abomination. As a side note, I
have been told I run my saddle maybe 1/2" to 3/4" low which may
contribute to this smoothness. Everyone tells me I need to raise my
saddle some but I get the feeling that people tell you that no matter
how high it is. When I first started this small ring scheme, I promised
myself never to drop below the 21, no matter what. After a few months,
I changed that to the 19. A few months ago I switched to the 18 and I
hope this summer I can start using my 17 as my lowest gear. I can see
the improvement over time. Hills I could barely climb in the 21 last
year I can do in the 18 this year. Where before I struggled up longer
4% inclines at 9mph I am now doing then at 13-16mph. Maybe, given
enough time, I won't need the small ring?

I'm just curious how everyone deals with shifting. My rides are around
6 hours long. I'm probably in my 39x15/14 or so most of that time. The
chainline is just slightly off at that gear but I have very little left
if I encounter a downhill or a good draft from the occasional cyclist I
meet. There are 2 or 3 relatively fast cyclists that I ride with that I
am able to keep pace with, but even though we go the same speed, our
approaches are totally different. I know everyone is different to a
degree, but I can't see us being that different? Maybe I have just not
tapped my strength potential? (Wishful thinking!)

Thanks for any advice or guidance. I'm genuinely motivated to learn and
to improve. If I've used improper terminology or confused anything
please let me know and I can try to provide a better explanation.

--
Mike (Xyzzy)

You don't mention what sort of body type you have, height, etc. I
assume you are rather light and perhaps slender due to your good
performance in the hills. This might indicate that you will always be
better in the hills, but your top speed should be something you could
improve so you don't get dropped. Anyone who rides as much as you do is
clearly in good shape. But you get good at what you practice. Maybe
just adding some bigger gear drills and low cadence hill stomping to
build strength and get used to the idea of pushing hard on the pedals.
The idea is to be able to push hard and fast. Right now you can push
fast. When I was young I had a coach who made us ride our 53x13 up and
42x18 down as a drill. Also in the early season he didn't allow us to
use the big ring. We rode flat centuries in our 42x17. Later in the
season we added strength and speed drills.

You have the pedal speed, now you need pedal force. I'd suggest some
strength drills and just some riding in larger gears to get more used
to it.

Joseph

It sounds like your needs closely match mine. I also live in relatively
flat terrain, where some hills might be steepish but none are long.
Being a reasonably fit and lightweight rider, none of the hills offer
any real challenge. On the other hand, I rarely go very fast on
downhills, so there's no need for particularly high gears either.

There's no point in having gears any lower or higher than what you
really need. It sounds like you have at a gear or two extra at the low
end (can be nice if you bonk and perhaps on recovery rides) and a whole
bunch of ridiculously high gears. Most pros don't need 53/11 so neither
do you.

I suggest you go with a narrow, tightly spaced cassette and two
chainrings close to each other in size. I have a 50/42 setup in the
front and a 12-25 cassette in the back. I'm pretty sure it would be a
fine setup for you too. You could ride pretty much as you do now with
the small ring, but the big ring would also be much more usable. If I
was shopping for a cassette now, I'd probably get a 12-23 instead.

In general, while the 53/39 is by far the most common setup on road
bikes, I think it's pretty stupid unless you live in the mountains or
high hills. At least with the current 9- or 10-speed cassettes.

-as

Michael Vang said:

Looking at the gears I use now, I would be very satisfied if I could
have the range from 39x18 to a 39x10. (I know a 10 isn't possible
except maybe on a folding bike!) What I have now works perfectly except
I don't use the 21 and 19 or the 11 and 12. These gears really act as
spacers for me, to keep the chain line cleaner. Well, I sometimes use
the 12 and 11 but the clatter gets pretty loud so I shift out ASAP. I
calculated that a 45 or 46 small ring would give me everything I want,
but then the 53 would be pretty much unneeded. Just switching to a 42
would give me 1 more higher gear which would be really helpful.

But, I wonder. I know I am not special, and there has to be a reason
why the 53/39 combo is so popular. Maybe I'm just doing everything
wrong.

The 53/39 is popular because it provides the gearing that most pros
need with a 9 or 10 speed cassette that begins with 11 or 12 teeth.
Most riders really don't need those high gears, though.

I like compact cranks, but 34/50 seems silly to me... just too big of a
jump. Who wants to be shifting the front all the time? I use 36/48 with
a 13-25 cassette, and keep it in the big ring unless there is a decent
hill. I occasionally climb a long 8% grade, so I need that 36-25.

For your needs I think you'd like a smaller big ring on your present
crank... like a 48.
http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&SKU=CR3714
Combined with a 12-21 cassette, you should have all the gears you need
(and more)... with very little shifting necessary in the front. You
could even get a 45 instead, if you think that would work better.
http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&SKU=CR3708

Antti Salonen said:

Most pros don't need 53/11

I think you're mistaken.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Michael Vang said:

I ride a lot, and I spend all my time in the small ring. The terrain
where I live is such that I can manage quite well with an 11-21
cassette and 53/39 chainrings. The lowest gear I ever use is my 39x18.
Ordinarily that is my starting gear, although I do use this gear,
standing, on our toughest climb, which is maybe 11% for maybe 1/4 mile.
In other words, it is pretty flat here. I developed this system after
reading that it was wrong to ride in the big ring all the time. I was a
new cyclist at the time and thought I was supposed to ride in the big
ring. So I switched, and in the process I have developed a fairly
smooth, high speed cadence. I ride mostly solo, so I very rarely run
out of gears. The 39x13 will get me up to 24mph comfortably and if I am
going faster than that I usually just coast. Sometimes I will spin out
to 28mph for a minute or so. On faster group rides I sometimes fall off
the back once the speed goes above 25-26mph for extended periods of
time. When that happens I usually have no problem getting back on
during the hills, or I may, occasionally, shift to the big ring.

Anyways, all my friends ride the opposite. They tend to stay in the big
ring even on the hills. Most of them use 12-25 cassettes. While I am
cross chained when I use the 39x13, it appears not nearly as severe as
when I see my friends use the 53x25. (I'm not saying I use a 39x13 when
they are using a 53x25. I'm saying those are the extremes that we each
occasionally use.) I've read that cross chaining really isn't less
efficient, although (IMO) the sound it makes is annoying. And I've read
that using larger rings and sprockets is theoretically more efficient.
So I am considering trying this. It does look "weird" to be following a
guy and then look at his chain when he is in the 53x25. It is as if the
chain is going at a 45deg angle between the gears. (I know it isn't but
it sure looks extreme!)

Looking at the gears I use now, I would be very satisfied if I could
have the range from 39x18 to a 39x10. (I know a 10 isn't possible
except maybe on a folding bike!) What I have now works perfectly except
I don't use the 21 and 19 or the 11 and 12. These gears really act as
spacers for me, to keep the chain line cleaner. Well, I sometimes use
the 12 and 11 but the clatter gets pretty loud so I shift out ASAP. I
calculated that a 45 or 46 small ring would give me everything I want,
but then the 53 would be pretty much unneeded. Just switching to a 42
would give me 1 more higher gear which would be really helpful.

But, I wonder. I know I am not special, and there has to be a reason
why the 53/39 combo is so popular. Maybe I'm just doing everything
wrong.

The plusses:

Easy to shift. I never even worry about the left shifter.
Shorter chain with 11-21 = crisper shifts.
Narrow gaps between gears lets me fine tune cadence.
Chain life has been incredible. No measurable wear in over 4000 miles.
The sprockets look mint as well, even the Ti 18/17 combo, which get
used a lot.

The minuses:

On faster rides I struggle to keep up, not because of a lack of
strength, but because I run out of gears.
Perhaps by spinning so much I am neglecting some strength training.
As I get stronger I find myself double shifting since the lower gear
gaps are really small. (Campy makes this pleasurable. This would be
annoying on Shimano.)

I've played with Sheldon's gearing calculator for hours, trying to find
a gearing combo that would allow me to do what I want to do, which is
stay in one ring, all the time. A 5X/46 11-21 would work. A 48/34
12-25/27 compact crank might work if I didn't spend too much time on
the larger sprockets. Maybe a 50/39 12-27? There is even an Ultegra
16-27 or 15-25 which gives good numbers but I'm sure looks real weird.
Honestly, anything beyond 100-110 gear inches will never be used by me.

If I was just starting out I'd figure I didn't have enough miles to
know what I want or need, but I really ride a lot. In fact, I have done
11 centuries this year so far and 70 last year. That translates to a
lot of hours on the bike. The bike I have now fulfills all my needs
perfectly except the gearing issue. I just need 2-3 higher gears.
Obviously, I can shift the front, but the cutover for that would seem
to make me constantly shift the front back and forth. It sure is
convenient to just click the rear up and down as needed. While my front
derailleur is tuned perfectly it never feels as solid and worry-free as
the rear derailleur. And the 4 gear gap shifting up means I have to
back off 1 or 2 shifts on the rear. While I can do it, it seems
unnecessarily complex.

Or maybe I just need to push some bigger gears? My cadence is way up
there, all the time. My friends all comment that I have a smooth spin
and not some spastic, saddle bouncing abomination. As a side note, I
have been told I run my saddle maybe 1/2" to 3/4" low which may
contribute to this smoothness. Everyone tells me I need to raise my
saddle some but I get the feeling that people tell you that no matter
how high it is. When I first started this small ring scheme, I promised
myself never to drop below the 21, no matter what. After a few months,
I changed that to the 19. A few months ago I switched to the 18 and I
hope this summer I can start using my 17 as my lowest gear. I can see
the improvement over time. Hills I could barely climb in the 21 last
year I can do in the 18 this year. Where before I struggled up longer
4% inclines at 9mph I am now doing then at 13-16mph. Maybe, given
enough time, I won't need the small ring?

I'm just curious how everyone deals with shifting. My rides are around
6 hours long. I'm probably in my 39x15/14 or so most of that time. The
chainline is just slightly off at that gear but I have very little left
if I encounter a downhill or a good draft from the occasional cyclist I
meet. There are 2 or 3 relatively fast cyclists that I ride with that I
am able to keep pace with, but even though we go the same speed, our
approaches are totally different. I know everyone is different to a
degree, but I can't see us being that different? Maybe I have just not
tapped my strength potential? (Wishful thinking!)

Thanks for any advice or guidance. I'm genuinely motivated to learn and
to improve. If I've used improper terminology or confused anything
please let me know and I can try to provide a better explanation.

--

Ya know what works for you is what works for you. If yer not wearing
stuff out or making so much drivetrain noise to bug who you are riding
with who cares!

Riding is the object of the lesson, afterall, not the equipment,
regardless of what some posseurs and freds say.

Quoted message said:

Mike (Xyzzy)

"11%" "pretty flat here"? What would you consider "hilly"?

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Michael Vang said:

I ride a lot, and I spend all my time in the small ring. The terrain
where I live is such that I can manage quite well with an 11-21
cassette and 53/39 chainrings. The lowest gear I ever use is my 39x18.
Ordinarily that is my starting gear, although I do use this gear,
standing, on our toughest climb, which is maybe 11% for maybe 1/4 mile.
In other words, it is pretty flat here. I developed this system after
reading that it was wrong to ride in the big ring all the time. I was a
new cyclist at the time and thought I was supposed to ride in the big
ring. So I switched, and in the process I have developed a fairly
smooth, high speed cadence. I ride mostly solo, so I very rarely run
out of gears. The 39x13 will get me up to 24mph comfortably and if I am
going faster than that I usually just coast. Sometimes I will spin out
to 28mph for a minute or so. On faster group rides I sometimes fall off
the back once the speed goes above 25-26mph for extended periods of
time. When that happens I usually have no problem getting back on
during the hills, or I may, occasionally, shift to the big ring.

Lots snipped.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks for any advice or guidance. I'm genuinely motivated to learn and
to improve. If I've used improper terminology or confused anything
please let me know and I can try to provide a better explanation.

Hi, I think you should make a point of using both chainrings. I ride a
triple 30/39/53, with a 28-14, 9-speed cassette
[28,24,21,19,18,17,16,15,14]. I only use the 30 for hills, otherwise I
start out in the 39. I try to use the lowest 6 with the 39 and the
highest 6 with the 53. But I tend to shift a lot.

One thing that helped me choose my cassette was to use Gear Calc
http://www.income-software.com/index.htm?GearCalc/gc_index.asp
It's free to download and try out. Its really nice because you can
enter a number of bicycles and their gear combinations, including
cadences. I have entered a compact setup and various double and triple
cranksets with different cassettes.

I'm not the fastest or strongest rider so I can get away with the
53-14. If I had a 10-speed, I would go down to 13 or maybe 14-12.
Actually 53-14 at a cadence of 90 will get 26.5mph. Which is fast
enough for me.53-12 at 90rpm = 31mph. Your 39-13 at 24mph has you
spinning at abot 104rpm, sound right?

I'm probably the last rider to to take advice from on this topic, but
I wanted to share what I do, and to say that in my opinion, you/your
buddies would be better off, not cross chaining. 53-25 or 39-13 are
both bad combinations and not necessary. Check out Gear Calc, or a
similar program. It will give you lots of good data.

Jeffrey Starr
All rights to the above text is reserved. No use
outside of rec.bicycle.tech, without express written
permission.

The 53 x 39 combo is popular because marketing road bikes is based on
the image of racing. It's got little to do with the practical use of
the things. The increased popularity of 110 mm BCD cranks shows that
there are a lot of people who don't need a 53 and want something lower
than a 39. (I used to race crits and road races on my 'cross bike
with a 38 x 48 crank and 11-21 cassette. Worked great. My brevet bike
has a 46 x 34 up front and 11-28 in back, a wider gear range than I
almost ever need).

As far as cross-chaining goes, I think it's mostly an old wives tale.
Back in the day of 5 speed freewheels, we were told to never use the
large/large or small/small combinations. The same thing has been said
of 10 speed cassettes- but the combinations in between are more cross
chained than we could have ever managed on the old 5 speeds.

With fashionable ultrashort chain stays, though, there might be some
risk of the chain and teeth binding a bit at the extreme combinations.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Antti Salonen said:

Most pros don't need 53/11

I think you're mistaken.

They at least *talk* about riding in the 53 x 11 for long periods.
I've wondered about that, though, since a 100 rpm cadence in a 53 x 11
is too fast to be sustainable for very long even by pros- 37.8 mph
according to Sheldon's calculator.

On a descent or in a sprint, the 53 x 11 is probably routinely
employed. I'm a middling sprinter (or was back when I raced) and
could run my 53 x 12 up to 38.5 mph on level ground with no tailwind
in a sprint. The good local cat 1s and the pros are at least 4-5 mph
faster in a sprint.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

The 53 x 39 combo is popular because marketing road bikes is based on
the image of racing. It's got little to do with the practical use of
the things. The increased popularity of 110 mm BCD cranks shows that
there are a lot of people who don't need a 53 and want something lower
than a 39.

Another way of looking at the same ideas.
53-39 is likely cheaper to acquire than most compacts. Compacts are
overpriced for no attribute more interesting that a different bolt circle.
I like the new flavor, but I am still cheap, so I dumped the 12 long ago,
starting with a 13. Same net result from a 53-13 as from a 50-12.

If there is any really big marketing coup, it's compacts. Buy a different
bolt circle for 50% more than the long-time standards. When it finally
sorts out to even pricing, that's the time to move, if your old set is dead.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

The 53 x 39 combo is popular because marketing road bikes is based on
the image of racing. It's got little to do with the practical use of
the things. The increased popularity of 110 mm BCD cranks shows that
there are a lot of people who don't need a 53 and want something lower
than a 39.

Another way of looking at the same ideas.
53-39 is likely cheaper to acquire than most compacts. Compacts are
overpriced for no attribute more interesting that a different bolt circle.
I like the new flavor, but I am still cheap, so I dumped the 12 long ago,
starting with a 13. Same net result from a 53-13 as from a 50-12.

If there is any really big marketing coup, it's compacts. Buy a different
bolt circle for 50% more than the long-time standards. When it finally
sorts out to even pricing, that's the time to move, if your old set is dead.

Prices at Excel sports:

centaur compact: 130 USD
centaur 53-39: 120

Ultegra compact: 266 (but with dura-ace style big ring)
Ultegra 53-39: 224

FSA energy compact: 110
FSA energy 53-39: 100

The difference is not that big, surely not 50%! I suspect many people
believe compacts are expensive because they were first introduced only
in carbon (campy, fsa).

Francesco

Sandy said:

If there is any really big marketing coup, it's compacts. Buy a different
bolt circle for 50% more than the long-time standards. When it finally
sorts out to even pricing, that's the time to move, if your old set is dead.

One reason to use a compact is if you live in a place with steep
hills and want a lower low than 39/27. (You can use an MTB cogset
and RD, but those have very wide spacing. Or a triple.)

110mm bolt circle is a standard that has been around for a long
time - it was used for MTBs before they went to "MTB compact"
94mm BCD (and before MTB cranks dissolved into a welter of
incompatible bolt patterns). The only thing new is the marketing,
but at least it's marketing for something sensible.

110mm was also on touring bikes and then the occasional cyclocross
bike. I think the Shimano original Deore and Deore XT 110mm cranks
are some of the nicer ones in this size. My 1988 model Cannondale
touring bike, which I rode today, has a 110mm crankset. (The OEM
chainrings were 50-46-28 Biopace, which is another story, but those
are gone.)

Sandy said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

The 53 x 39 combo is popular because marketing road bikes is based
on the image of racing. It's got little to do with the practical
use of the things. The increased popularity of 110 mm BCD cranks
shows that there are a lot of people who don't need a 53 and want
something lower than a 39.

Another way of looking at the same ideas. 53-39 is likely cheaper
to acquire than most compacts.

Only because they tend to come on the bike as original equipment. If
you're buying them separately, the price is about the same.

Quoted message said:

Compacts are overpriced for no attribute more interesting that a
different bolt circle. I like the new flavor, but I am still cheap,
so I dumped the 12 long ago, starting with a 13. Same net result
from a 53-13 as from a 50-12.

You're still stuck with a small ring of 38T (130 mm BCD) or 39T (135
mm BCD). 110 mm gives you 34T for a small ring, which is the real
reason to use them- not the smaller big ring. After all, you can buy
a 48 through 55 tooth big ring for a 130 or 135 mm BCD crank. If
you're racing or "sport" riding, though, that might not be important
for you.

I have two bikes with 110 mm BCD cranks. One has a 46 x 34 set of
rings with the 11-28 8 speed cassette in back. I only need the 34 for
really steep hills, and can do almost all my riding on the 46. Only
needing to shift one derailleur, I can ride across rolling terrain
very conveniently and efficiently. Top speed is limited to about 32
mph but I'm not racing so I don't care. The other cranks are on a
bike with 26 x. 1.25 wheels, with a 52 x 44 x 30 triple and as 12-24
freewheel. The gearing is not quite as convenient to use but works
well enough.

Bike #3 has 53 x 39 cranks and is also a riot to ride. It's my old
race bike from back in the day (Ritchey frame with Campy Ergo). It's
not that it works poorly, the gearing is just not as convenient for
riding brevets. But for a nice, hard ride with my old racing buddies
it's fun.

Quoted message said:

If there is any really big marketing coup, it's compacts. Buy a
different bolt circle for 50% more than the long-time standards.

Perhaps things are different in France. The 110 mm BCD has been a
standard here in the US for 15 years or longer. They were the norm on
mountain bikes at least that long.

OTOH "long-time standards" for road bikes aren't all that long
standing nor all that standard. In the past 40 years: 151, 144, 135,
130, 128, 118, 116, 110, 94, 92, 86, 74, 58, 56 and 50.4 mm BCDs... a
fair number of which are of French origin.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

The 53 x 39 combo is popular because marketing road bikes is based
on the image of racing. It's got little to do with the practical
use of the things. The increased popularity of 110 mm BCD cranks
shows that there are a lot of people who don't need a 53 and want
something lower than a 39.

Another way of looking at the same ideas. 53-39 is likely cheaper
to acquire than most compacts.

Only because they tend to come on the bike as original equipment. If
you're buying them separately, the price is about the same.

I guess it depends on the market. Here, the prices at retail are about
even, but you can find _every_ 53-39 on sale for much lower, and that's been
true for a couple of years. The killer combination of a compact and carbon
is even, per category, higher. I can't quite get to the idea that a weaker
cyclist who needs a 50-34 will also need a stronger and lighter crank. But
I guess I am a crank [sic, before anyone else does].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Compacts are overpriced for no attribute more interesting that a
different bolt circle. I like the new flavor, but I am still cheap,
so I dumped the 12 long ago, starting with a 13. Same net result
from a 53-13 as from a 50-12.

You're still stuck with a small ring of 38T (130 mm BCD) or 39T (135
mm BCD). 110 mm gives you 34T for a small ring, which is the real
reason to use them- not the smaller big ring. After all, you can buy
a 48 through 55 tooth big ring for a 130 or 135 mm BCD crank. If
you're racing or "sport" riding, though, that might not be important
for you.

I am not "stuck". 53-13 is my favorite for recovering after pulling a 53-14
or 15. I never had bigger than a 53, and a change from 53 to 50 only gives
a one tooth difference in the back. For 39 to 34, two new gears, mostly
well appreciated. But in hilly (not mountainous) areas, I was spun out with
the compact. Found 34-14 a fun combination.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there is any really big marketing coup, it's compacts. Buy a
different bolt circle for 50% more than the long-time standards.

Perhaps things are different in France. The 110 mm BCD has been a
standard here in the US for 15 years or longer. They were the norm on
mountain bikes at least that long.

Never had a VTT, but did ride off-road. The kind of pleasant outing that's
entirely different from the time on the road. But the point is, you can put
the road rings on a 110mm circle, having both. I think that's efficient and
good.

--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

If there is any really big marketing coup, it's compacts. Buy a different
bolt circle for 50% more than the long-time standards. When it finally
sorts out to even pricing, that's the time to move, if your old set is dead.

Quoted message said:

One reason to use a compact is if you live in a place with steep
hills and want a lower low than 39/27. (You can use an MTB cogset
and RD, but those have very wide spacing. Or a triple.)

Our 13-30 "Century Special" cassette has the same spacing as the 12-27
we make it from, and works with so-called "road" derailers. It gives
very nearly the same low gear as a typical "compact" with a 27.

39/30 is 2.6 Gain Ratio (34.8 inches, 2.8 meters)

34/27 is 2.5 Gain Ratio (33.7 inches, 2.7 meters)

http://harriscyclery.com/9

Quoted message said:

110mm bolt circle is a standard that has been around for a long
time - it was used for MTBs before they went to "MTB compact"
94mm BCD (and before MTB cranks dissolved into a welter of
incompatible bolt patterns). The only thing new is the marketing,
but at least it's marketing for something sensible.

I agree, the 110 BCD is the most versatile one ever made, and I'm glad
to see it returning to fashion, though I prefer the 110/74 triple format.

It's an excellent choice for a new bike, but replacing an existing 130
BCD crank with a 110 double is a pretty expensive way to lower the
gearing, considering the alternatives.

Sheldon "Learned To Sail In A 110...But That's A Different Story" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Remember that engineering is about trade-offs. None of |
| these systems are ideal, each of them has advantages and |
| disadvantages. Which issues are most important is a matter |
| of judgement and personal choice. Don't expect that you |
| will have the same priorities that I (or anyone else for |
| that matter) has. --David Wittenberg |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
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

Quoted message said:

Michael Vang said:

I ride a lot, and I spend all my time in the small ring.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I was just starting out I'd figure I didn't have enough miles to
know what I want or need, but I really ride a lot. In fact, I have done
11 centuries this year so far and 70 last year. That translates to a
lot of hours on the bike.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

You don't mention what sort of body type you have, height, etc. I
assume you are rather light and perhaps slender due to your good
performance in the hills

-snip-

Quoted message said:

You have the pedal speed, now you need pedal force. I'd suggest some
strength drills and just some riding in larger gears to get more used
to it.

I am in awe.

You understate "ride a lot" with 11 centuries so far this
year- in 5 weeks. 70 centuries last year- roughly 2
centuries a week in season. Just curious - do you have a job?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Michael Vang said:

I ride a lot, and I spend all my time in the small ring.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I was just starting out I'd figure I didn't have enough miles to
know what I want or need, but I really ride a lot. In fact, I have done
11 centuries this year so far and 70 last year. That translates to a
lot of hours on the bike.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

You don't mention what sort of body type you have, height, etc. I
assume you are rather light and perhaps slender due to your good
performance in the hills

-snip-

Quoted message said:

You have the pedal speed, now you need pedal force. I'd suggest some
strength drills and just some riding in larger gears to get more used
to it.

I am in awe.

You understate "ride a lot" with 11 centuries so far this year- in 5
weeks. 70 centuries last year- roughly 2 centuries a week in season.
Just curious - do you have a job?

I figure if he rode a century on every Saturday and Sunday and holiday,
he'd have around 11 so far this year. Still time for a job (but little
else!) Thoroughly awesome, I agree.

A friend of mine is determined to do a Century every Saturday this
winter (since new year's). So far, so good. I made the mistake of
going with three weeks ago - rained pretty much the whole time, but
didn't seem to bother him. It was fun (for me) for a while, but the
cold eventually seeped in.

Mark

I went ahead and did another century yesterday and tried this. I warmed
up for an hour or so in the small ring (it was around 30F with the
windchill) and then tried the big ring. It worked, and I survived.

My thoughts:

1) I was hesitant to shift back and forth because on my old Shimano
bike downshifting the front was pretty wild in that the spring just
chucks the chain at the small ring. On Campy, however, you can bleed
the chain over nice and easy with no theatrics.

2) Obviously, the gears were higher. I just ended up standing up a bit
more and I shifted a lot less. I think overall I ended up faster
because I was able to pedal downhill instead of coast. At my normal
16-19mph the chain line was pretty clean.

3) The rear sprocket gaps that seem so narrow on the small ring seem
bigger with the front ring.

4) I know this isn't scientific, but the big ring feels faster than the
equivalent gear using the small.

5) I was not able to use the 21 or 19 with the big ring which left me
with a 53x18 low. I was able to do all my hills okay with this but I
used some muscles I didn't know I had so I am a little sore today. I
doubt I could do our worst hill in this combo but I can always
downshift for that one.

So, I guess this whole thread was pretty pointless. I just needed to
try it and see. I think I can probably leave it in the big ring 95% of
the time which simplifies shifting.

That said, I can see a 48 or 50 large ring in my future, and/or maybe a
12-23.