Looking for a decent triple crankset

Why not just buy a 44 and replace the middle chain ring? I'm assuming you already have a 53/xx/30 crank? You need to know your BCD, but individual chain rings are readily available.

Rear cassettes are cheaper than cranksets.

I suggest a cassette with an 11 tooth top gear. (eg 11-24)

I fear that matching different brands will mis-shift with a much higher frequency that a matched group of chainrings. All that ramping and pinning that we hear so much about. Ex: My Shimano compact crank rarely derails whereas my FSA compact, before it was replaced by the Shimano, derailed allot.

Mike

matagi said:

Why not just buy a 44 and replace the middle chain ring? I'm assuming you already have a 53/xx/30 crank? You need to know your BCD, but individual chain rings are readily available.

mikael17128 said:

I fear that matching different brands will mis-shift with a much higher frequency that a matched group of chainrings. All that ramping and pinning that we hear so much about. Ex: My Shimano compact crank rarely derails whereas my FSA compact, before it was replaced by the Shimano, derailed allot.

Mike

You will not find a current stock triple with a 44T middle ring, but as suggested you can easily switch one in.

Compact is a different issue than most triples as the jump between chainrings is pretty large on a compact (16T usually). However for what you propose, most triple FDs should do fine.

I would just buy a new ring. That's the cheapest option.

Do you ride exclusively flats? If you climb much, I would go for a 42 or smaller. A 44 is pretty big for that purpose. evn a 42 is taxing if your not used to it.

mikael17128 said:

I fear that matching different brands will mis-shift with a much higher frequency that a matched group of chainrings.

Changing out just one chainring isn't uncommon (one will typically will get worn ahead of the others). I haven't seen issues personally with missmatching, I wouldn't be scared of it.

I do my share of mountain climbing. I don't intend to climb in a 42 or 44. For climbing I intend to plop the crank into the 30 tooth ring and keep it there. The 30/12 is plenty of gear (more than I can handle) for the majority of mountain work that I do. For the downs the 53 will work nicely. For most everything else I want a 44/28 on the low end and a 44/11 on the high end.

Thanks for the advice, looks like I'll have to settle for a 53/42/30,

Mike

benkoostra said:

I would just buy a new ring. That's the cheapest option.

Do you ride exclusively flats? If you climb much, I would go for a 42 or smaller. A 44 is pretty big for that purpose. evn a 42 is taxing if your not used to it.

mikael17128 said:

I do my share of mountain climbing. I don't intend to climb in a 42 or 44. For climbing I intend to plop the crank into the 30 tooth ring and keep it there. The 30/12 is plenty of gear (more than I can handle) for the majority of mountain work that I do.

30/12 is cross chaining at the extreme with poor efficiency and adverse wear of the running gears. A very bad habit. :eek:

It's suggested that the 30 ring should only use the largest 3-4 cogs in a 10 cluster. Move to the middle ring if you need to move outside of that.

Interesting point. I wonder how much extra energy I'll have to put out to spin my 30/12 at the extreme angle? I've never had to replace any of my Dura Ace gear due to wear (10,000 miles and counting)...I wonder if you might specilate as to how much extra wear you're talking about?

I'll be running an IRD 28/25/23/21/19/17/15/13/12/11.

Mike

QUOTE=sogood]30/12 is cross chaining at the extreme with poor efficiency and adverse wear of the running gears. A very bad habit. :eek:

It's suggested that the 30 ring should only use the largest 3-4 cogs in a 10 cluster. Move to the middle ring if you need to move outside of that.[/QUOTE]

mikael17128 said:

Interesting point. I wonder how much extra energy I'll have to put out to spin my 30/12 at the extreme angle? I've never had to replace any of my Dura Ace gear due to wear (10,000 miles and counting)...I wonder if you might specilate as to how much extra wear you're talking about?

I'll be running an IRD 28/25/23/21/19/17/15/13/12/11.

I don't have a measured number to give you but it stands to reason there'll be significant extra friction on your chainring, cogs as well as the chain. If you ride in a quite area, you'll be even be able to hear the extra grind on the drivetrain. In any case, it's a sigificant difference in the wear rate. For your 30/12, you are much better off to run at 42/17 which would give you a much better chain line.

This whole issue has nothing to do with whether you have DA, Sora or Record. The physics of it affect them all. And the fact that you never "had to" replace any of your DA gear for 10k miles tells a lot about your style of riding. For people who maintains their bike well would typically change the chain every 4000 miles or less and cogs about on every second chain change (there'll be some variations to this based on the riding environment). And for your 10k miles, I bet that both your chain and cogs already need replacement.

For a start, I'd suggest that you learn about drive train wear and how to measure chain wear.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

sogood said:

30/12 is cross chaining at the extreme with poor efficiency and adverse wear of the running gears. A very bad habit. :eek:

sogood, this is certainly cycling dogma, but have you any evidence to back it up? The wear point seems intuitively plausible, but the loss of efficiency ain't necessarily so. The late boudreaux always used to monster people making the claim that you've made, and he wasn't an idiot.

I know the industry wants to sell and we as consumers want to get the most out of our equipment. My question is, if it ain't broke, why should I fix it? My drivetrain shifts flawlessly.

Mike

sogood said:

And for your 10k miles, I bet that both your chain and cogs already need replacement.

For a start, I'd suggest that you learn about drive train wear and how to measure chain wear.

sheldonbrown.comchains.htmlOpen ↗

artemidorus said:

sogood, this is certainly cycling dogma, but have you any evidence to back it up? The wear point seems intuitively plausible, but the loss of efficiency ain't necessarily so.

I don't have any scientifically measured data to back that up. But the logic makes perfect sense and is consistent with all engineering principles. Added to that the extra grinding noise you hear when severely cross chaining, it's enough physical evidence that you don't need super accurate measurements. So the old saying goes... If it looks, smells and feels like [censored], then you don't exactly need to taste it.

Further, one can always bring out Sheldon Brown on these subjects matters,

"Try to avoid the gears that make the chain cross over at an extreme angle. These "criss-cross" gears are bad for the chain and sprockets. Especially bad is to combine the inside (small) front sprocket with the outside (small) rear sprocket. This noisy, inefficient gear causes the chain to wear out prematurely."

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears.html

And then there's the known benefit of fixies/single speed, where the straight chain line is a major selling point in terms of cycling efficiency.

So I think this so called dogma can be accepted and adopted for everyday riding, especially when you have an alternative combination of chainring and cog that can deliver the same gear ratio.

mikael17128 said:

I know the industry wants to sell and we as consumers want to get the most out of our equipment. My question is, if it ain't broke, why should I fix it? My drivetrain shifts flawlessly.

Per your exact argument of trying to economize, by not cross-chaining, you'll be able to keep your buck in your wallet for even longer. And if you care to further push the economic value line, then DA is definitely not the sweat spot product line in the $$$-durability equation. You might care to look into Ultegra for better value in that stake.

Avoiding cross-chaining costs you nothing. It's a simple habit thing and one that can be easily adapted. There's really no value in defending cross-chaining as a habit.

sogood said:

Further, one can always bring out Sheldon Brown on these subjects matters,

"Try to avoid the gears that make the chain cross over at an extreme angle. These "criss-cross" gears are bad for the chain and sprockets. Especially bad is to combine the inside (small) front sprocket with the outside (small) rear sprocket. This noisy, inefficient gear causes the chain to wear out prematurely."

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears.html

The key here is the noise - if your most extreme combination is not making a noise, it is not rubbing and so you wouldn't expect accelerated wear.

I think you are correct in your assessment. Why use just the 30 when a 44/28 can get you most of the way up the hill. I think I'll only need the 30 in extreme circumstances in which case I will probably be spinning the 28,25,21, or 19 anyway. I bet I could get away with a 30/17 or 30/15 and not cause too much trouble either.

Mike

sogood said:

I don't have any scientifically measured data to back that up. But the logic makes perfect sense and is consistent with all engineering principles. Added to that the extra grinding noise you hear when severely cross chaining, it's enough physical evidence that you don't need super accurate measurements. So the old saying goes... If it looks, smells and feels like [censored], then you don't exactly need to taste it.

Further, one can always bring out Sheldon Brown on these subjects matters,

"Try to avoid the gears that make the chain cross over at an extreme angle. These "criss-cross" gears are bad for the chain and sprockets. Especially bad is to combine the inside (small) front sprocket with the outside (small) rear sprocket. This noisy, inefficient gear causes the chain to wear out prematurely."

sheldonbrown.comgears.htmlOpen ↗

And then there's the known benefit of fixies/single speed, where the straight chain line is a major selling point in terms of cycling efficiency.

So I think this so called dogma can be accepted and adopted for everyday riding, especially when you have an alternative combination of chainring and cog that can deliver the same gear ratio.

matagi said:

The key here is the noise - if your most extreme combination is not making a noise, it is not rubbing and so you wouldn't expect accelerated wear.

Surely it's a continuum, less noise = less wear, a little more noise = a little more wear... And so it goes, until you can actually hear the greater noise over and above of any normal cycling noise.

Bottomline is that accelerated wear model is consistent with all basic physical and engineering principles. The angles induced put additional stresses on the chain and that is the source of wear.

mikael17128 said:

I bet I could get away with a 30/17 or 30/15 and not cause too much trouble either.

The issue here is why bet when there's a sure winner alternative? The trouble here apart from the reduced efficiency is that you'll wear things down faster, and in the end, you'll end up paying an early contribution to Shimano.

Of course, the choice is totally up to the individual. If that's what you prefer, then no one can do anything about it. For most, riding efficiency is a goal that we try to attain. Some pay big bucks for that but here we have a freebie for the taking. 😄

See: http://www.shimano.com.au/catalog/cycle/products/component.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441762834&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302037336&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181400&bmUID=1174354699254

For this crankset Shimano do a 44 tooth inner and 54, 55, 56 tooth outers, these are all 130mm PCD. See also Page 265 of the 2007 Book.

If you wish to stay with 110mm PCD, then have a look at TA Zephyr, they have a large range of 110mm inner, middle and outer chainrings: http://www.specialites-ta.com/index_gb.php