Pete Biggs said:Roger Merriman said:I've got a old (86) 10 speed racer that i picked up for peanuts,
which i like, bar the friction gear shifters, or rather the rear
shifter, thus the bike will be moving to new drive chain, i was going
to go for 9 speed but any reason why 10 or 8 could have advantages.
8 might be cheaper. 10 would provide smaller jumps between the gears, or a
wider range with the same jumps. 9 would be the best compromise in terms of
functionality and cost, including running costs. 10-speed chains are
expensive.
that was my hunch but wasn't sure. 9 it is then i don't tend to twidle
the gears that much so a close ratio isn't that much use for me, more
intrested in a bigger spread ie low enought to crawl up 20% or worse and
high enought to thunder down the other side.
Quoted message said:First of all, there is the issue of hub width and frame spacing. Road hubs
that take 8/9/10-speed cassettes are 130mm, where as older bikes were
designed for 120 to 126mm hubs. You'll be able to spring or bend the stays
to take a modern hub.
See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html
yes it's a old 126mm steel frame so will have to be sprung etc.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:i was going to go for a compact and try to get a cassette with a fair
range, so that if i take it back to the gorge in wales i stand a
chance of getting up the hills and like wise if rocketing the downs
have enought gears.
Good idea. A triple shouldn't be out of the question, either.
true though that really does mean flightdeck rather than downtube
shifters, and a compact should give me the gears with a low enought
cassette to possibly even get the evil hill nr my folks place, though it
has just been resurfaced so that will lessen it a bit.
Quoted message said:~PB
cheers
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
