Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
I am considering changing the gearing on my Luna to make hill climbing a little easier. Right now I have a 53-39 crank and a 13-26 cassette.
I could replace the cassette with a 12-30 but I would also need to replace my rear derailleur from a short to a medium cage.
My other option would be to put on a compact crank. I have had my eye on the new Campagnolo Ultra Torque CT crank either in Record or Chorus for some time. The Record is a lot more money for a little weight savings so I would probably get the Chorus version.
Both options would get me similar gearing, however, the compact crank would cost more and I would also have to replace the front derailleur.
My chain is worn out and needs replacing so I thought it might be a good idea to change either the rear derailleur or the crank now.
Any feedback would be appreciated,
Bruce Darby
Edited by Darby (02/20/07 06:41 AM)
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
I love my compact crank...
If gives you the option of adding lower ratios with a larger cassette later on...for example if you get to the Alps or similar riding...
I'd go with the crank...maybe consider the great buys on last years models...I know I don't flex my square taper model...you get the same results at a far reduced cost...
If you get a great deal on last year's model if the rest of your bike is Record you can stay Record and spend maybe even less...the deals are out there (or were a short while ago when a friend was looking)
Good luck.
|
BumpyintheBurgh
new member
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 1
|
|
I switched from a triple to an FSA mega-exo carbon compact 50/34 on my Tetra and it has worked out well. Have enough low gear to get up the hills, so I don't miss the triple. If you like to hammer in the big ring, a 50 may not be to your liking and you'll get some spinning on downhills but I don't mind coasting. As for Record or Chorus, if you want the status and seek to save a few grams, get the Record and pay for it. I have Record, Chorus and Centaur cranks on different bikes and can't tell any difference in the performance. The Centaur is by far the best deal.
I agree with Lon on getting last year's 2006 model and saving some money. You could use the money saved to get two cassettes to fit dirrerent riding terrain. The 2007 prices, especially on Record are crazy. The new Ultra Torque is just Campy's way of torquing more money out of your pocket.
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
BumpyintheBurgh wrote:
I agree with Lon on getting last year's 2006 model and saving some money. You could use the money saved to get two cassettes to fit dirrerent riding terrain. The 2007 prices, especially on Record are crazy. The new Ultra Torque is just Campy's way of torquing more money out of your pocket.
I agree, I have been looking for a 2006 Record or Chorus CT crank but haven't found any deals on them. I might be a little too late.
If anyone knows of any online sellers blowing out their inventory of 2006 Campy cranks, I would appreciate knowing about them.
Bruce Darby
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Lickbike has them for $399.98 in Record Compact. Totalcycling.com has them for 342 and change.
If you search the Serotta forum as an advance search you can pick search by title only. Type in Total Cycling and you will find many happy customers from them. I have never ordered from them myself. I have ordered from ProBikeKit but theirs are all gone. The only thing about Total you see mentioned is that they don't answer their e-mail.
Good luck. I think a lot of them were sold fast since the prices were low.
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
Lon wrote:
Lickbike has them for $399.98 in Record Compact. Totalcycling.com has them for 342 and change.
If you search the Serotta forum as an advance search you can pick search by title only. Type in Total Cycling and you will find many happy customers from them. I have never ordered from them myself. I have ordered from ProBikeKit but theirs are all gone. The only thing about Total you see mentioned is that they don't answer their e-mail.
Good luck. I think a lot of them were sold fast since the prices were low.
It looks like I will have to start buying my Campy componets from the UK.
By the way, I noticed that the price difference between a 2007 Chorus and a 2006 Record crankset is $78.00. I would suspect that the 2007 Chorus would weigh about the same or less than last year's Record.
Is the 2007 Campy crankset a noticeable improvement over the previous square bottom bracket version?
Bruce Darby
|
Rich
new member
Reged: 10/02/04
Posts: 3
|
|
Quote:
Darby wrote:
Is the 2007 Campy crankset a noticeable improvement over the previous square bottom bracket version?
Bruce Darby
On a similar note (and maybe this has been asked and I missed it) - are there any issues with the external bearing cranksets such as the Campy Ultratorque stuff and Calfee frames?
Rich
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Quote:
Darby wrote:
Quote:
Lon wrote:
Lickbike has them for $399.98 in Record Compact. Totalcycling.com has them for 342 and change.
If you search the Serotta forum as an advance search you can pick search by title only. Type in Total Cycling and you will find many happy customers from them. I have never ordered from them myself. I have ordered from ProBikeKit but theirs are all gone. The only thing about Total you see mentioned is that they don't answer their e-mail.
Good luck. I think a lot of them were sold fast since the prices were low.
It looks like I will have to start buying my Campy componets from the UK.
By the way, I noticed that the price difference between a 2007 Chorus and a 2006 Record crankset is $78.00. I would suspect that the 2007 Chorus would weigh about the same or less than last year's Record.
Is the 2007 Campy crankset a noticeable improvement over the previous square bottom bracket version?
Bruce Darby
In a technical sense I would think many people would say the new design is an improvement. I personally do not have any desire to change. I can't flex a square taper so everything is just fine with my "old" style crank and bottom bracket. I guess it depends on how cutting edge you want to be and money. Good luck.
|
wheelwing
new member
Reged: 02/03/05
Posts: 5
|
|
Am I the only one who finds the shift from the big to the little ring on a compact crank (50/34) to be too much of a jump? I tried riding compact for a summer and found myself having to simultaneously upshift in the back each time I downshifted up front to avoid losing too much speed & power--or having to spin too fast--with the shift.
I would advocate for going with the 12-30 cassette if you need more range: it'll even give you a higher high gear than you've got now along with a lower low gear than you'd get with a compact crank and your current cassette (check out Sheldon Brown's bicycle gear calculator here: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/index.html ). You'll be going up 2 teeth at a time on that cassette, but I find that to be a pretty natural jump, and a good tradeoff for that massive range.
And--you'll spend a good deal less on a cassette & a new rear derailleur than you would on the compact crankset & fr. der.
Out of curiousity: where'd you find a 12-30 cassette?
|
Rich
new member
Reged: 10/02/04
Posts: 3
|
|
Quote:
wheelwing wrote:
Am I the only one who finds the shift from the big to the little ring on a compact crank (50/34) to be too much of a jump? I tried riding compact for a summer and found myself having to simultaneously upshift in the back each time I downshifted up front to avoid losing too much speed & power--or having to spin too fast--with the shift.
That's my concern. I occasionally need something lower than a 39/25 and think I'm going to go with a 13/29 cassette for those once-in-a-while needs rather than a compact crankset. My small cage derailleur technically won't handle it but if I avoid the 53/29, I'm hoping it'll be OK. If I can't avoid the 53/29  I'll be looking for a new derailleur....
Rich
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
wheelwing wrote:
Out of curiousity: where'd you find a 12-30 cassette?
Thanks for the feedback. You have been a big help in my decision making process.
Well, I have a friend that offers cassettes for sale on his website
http://mcmwin.com/components.htm#Titanium_Cassettes . I don't think that he shows the 12-30 on his site, but he sells them. My only concern with his cassette is that they are all Titanium, and I am not sure if Titanium will hold up like steel.
IRD http://www.interlocracing.com/cassettes_steel.html sells a 11-28, 12-28 and has just received some 12-32 cassettes in steel. I went on a 30 mile ride this weekend with a 11-28 and my short cage derailleur and it worked just fine. The 12-30 would require a medium cage and I am told a 12-32 would need a long cage. The 12-32 may be more that I need and I think the long cage shifts slower.
But, I think you are right, this would be the lowest cost option.
Bruce
Edited by Darby (02/23/07 01:36 AM)
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
Don't buy a Ti cassette! Very big bucks and wears quickly.
Regarding larger cassettes. Yes, they do shift slower but unless you are engaged in competition, the difference is very small. Buy the cassette/d?railleur combo that will suit you best during a worst case scenario. You may not use the largest cog often, but when you need it, it's there! Having the correct gears for the terrain you are riding in makes your trip that much more pleasurable.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
I am trying to determine a reasonable distance between gears. The IRD 12-32 cassette is 12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32. If I were to go with a compact crank, I could use a 11,12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28 cassette which would give me about the same top and bottom end ratios.
I had heard some where that there shouldn't be more than a 10% jump between gears. The range of 12-32 is a fairly large range.
What do you think?
Bruce
Edited by Darby (02/23/07 07:22 AM)
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
Quote:
Darby wrote:
I am trying to determine a reasonable distance between gears. The IRD 12-32 cassette is 12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32. If I were to go with a compact crank, I could use a 11,12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28 cassette which would give me about the same top and bottom end ratios.
I had heard some where that there shouldn't be more than a 10% jump between gears. The range of 12-32 is a fairly large range.
What do you think?
Bruce
IMO? Don't over-analyze it. Sure there are 'ideals' but often they can't be reached when trying to achieve your goal. Realistically you don't do a bunch of shifting during a long, hard climb. So the 'Ideal' gear spacing doesn't matter anywhere near a much as having the *right* gear for the climb.
Depending on which ride I was going to do, I've used 12/27, 12/28, 12/32 and 11/34 rear cogsets. The latter two had larger than the 'ideal' 10% jump between gears, but I had to climb mountains, not worry about ideals.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
tall_jason
new member
Reged: 08/15/06
Posts: 13
|
|
I had my Dragonfly built up with 2006 Record carbon compact 50-34 crank and the 13-29 cassette (I loves the hills). I don't find the jump from 34 -> 50 a problem at all. That said I've never ridden a "standard" double crankset. I went from std. triple to FSA 50-34 compact to this bike with the record compact. I don't know how well a 53-39 shifts so I don't feel like I'm missing out. 
One thing that I didn't like about my setup was spinning out the 50-13 gear around 36mph on a descent. I swapped the 13T for a 12T myself with no problem. It gave me a few more MPH but I still spin it out once in a while on fast descents. I'm hesitant to try replacing the 12T with an 11T. Does anyone know if that can even be done?
As for your issue, the cassette & derailleur swap would be the easiest and cheapest thing to do, and I'd agree with most posters that the main difference you'll notice with 2007 UT record is the price.
--------------------
64cm Dragonfly custom geometry
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Thank you to all that responded and thanks to Dave Thompson and Tall Jason that I haven?t responded to yet.
I am probably guilty of over analyzed the whole gear ratio thing, and have been trying to determine whether to get a compact or a bigger cassette. However, now I am probably going to go in an entirely different direct.
My local bike shop called me because a customer wants to replace their almost new Campy Chorus triple with one of those new Ultra Torque Compact cranks. This triple has 1700 miles and is supposed to look new--I am going to see it tomorrow.
I hadn?t considered a triple because of the cost of replacing both derailleurs and because I have heard that they do not shift between the three chain rings quite as smoothly as a double.
I have never ridden a triple. Is there anyone here that rides a triple? How well do they shift between chain rings? Is there any downside to having a triple?
Thanks,
Bruce Darby
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
I ride both a triple and a compact double. Shifting on both is easy and good. A triple doesn't shift quite as nicely as a double but it certainly doesn't shift poorly by any means. Again, get the equipment that is suited for the job.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
ndr
friend
Reged: 08/10/04
Posts: 27
Loc: Los Altos, CA
|
|
Darby,
I ride a lot of hills and could not be happier with my Campy Triple. Present gearing is 11-25. Was able to finish the Death Ride but am thinking of changing to more gears for the ride this year. The 11 with a 53 large chain ring allows peddling to around 33 MPH before spinning. Due to a broken frame a friend recently went from a compact double to a triple and much prefers the triple set up.
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
Dave_Thompson wrote:
I ride both a triple and a compact double. Shifting on both is easy and good. A triple doesn't shift quite as nicely as a double but it certainly doesn't shift poorly by any means. Again, get the equipment that is suited for the job.
Hi Dave,
I guess knowing the right tool for the job is a little difficult for me. I live in an area with a lot of hills and my legs and transmission are ill equipped to climb them. I need gearing for a combination of long steep canyon roads combined with rollers and flats. I also plan on riding this bike on century rides, when I am ready. A triple seems like it might be the right equipment.
Bruce Darby
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
ndr wrote:
Darby,
I ride a lot of hills and could not be happier with my Campy Triple. Present gearing is 11-25. Was able to finish the Death Ride but am thinking of changing to more gears for the ride this year. The 11 with a 53 large chain ring allows peddling to around 33 MPH before spinning. Due to a broken frame a friend recently went from a compact double to a triple and much prefers the triple set up.
ndr,
Wow, thanks. This was the kind of feedback I was hoping to get, someone that gave up a compact and moved to a triple. It seems like a triple would be a good choice for an multi purpose bike.
Say, do you have a medium or long caged derailleur? I will need to buy a derailleur for this set up.
By the way, an 11-25 seems like it would be good combination. IRD sells an 11-28 if you need a higher gear range.
Bruce Darby
|
ndr
friend
Reged: 08/10/04
Posts: 27
Loc: Los Altos, CA
|
|
Darby,
I started with a long cage, but it either got bent or ? and did not shift well. Changed to a medium cage for the 11-25 and it works perfect.
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
ndr wrote:
Darby,
I started with a long cage, but it either got bent or ? and did not shift well. Changed to a medium cage for the 11-25 and it works perfect.
I am glad you said that! I was just about to order a long cage because I can get it much cheaper than a medium. However, I do not want to spend the money on it if it doesn't work well.
How large a cassette can you put on a triple with a medium cassette? I don't think I will ever need anything larger than a 13-26 but just wanted to know the capacity.
Thanks,
Bruce Darby
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
I don't think that one long cage Campy rear derailleur shifted poorly that they all do. I have never heard of anyone else saying it. The advantage to getting the long cage is that you can then shift anything that you want.
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
Lon wrote:
I don't think that one long cage Campy rear derailleur shifted poorly that they all do. I have never heard of anyone else saying it. The advantage to getting the long cage is that you can then shift anything that you want.
Thanks for the response. I can get a long cage for almost a $100 less than a medium cage. So the long cage is looking better.
Bruce Darby
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
ndr wrote:
Darby,
I started with a long cage, but it either got bent or ? and did not shift well. Changed to a medium cage for the 11-25 and it works perfect.
Hello Ndr,
My neighbor's nephew is a bike mechanic and he told me to go with a medium cage. He said that the medium cage just works better and is a better choice, even if it $100 more.
By the way, I beleive that a medium cage on a triple will take a cassette larger than a 13-26, even though I don't think I will ever need it.
Bruce Darby
|
tall_jason
new member
Reged: 08/15/06
Posts: 13
|
|
Quote:
ndr wrote:
Darby,
I ride a lot of hills and could not be happier with my Campy Triple. Present gearing is 11-25. Was able to finish the Death Ride but am thinking of changing to more gears for the ride this year. The 11 with a 53 large chain ring allows peddling to around 33 MPH before spinning. Due to a broken frame a friend recently went from a compact double to a triple and much prefers the triple set up.
Spinning out a 53/11 at 33mph sounds really low to me. I have a 50/12 and I don't spin it out until about 40mph on the descents.
Back to the triple vs. double dilema, I started out with a triple on my previous bike and it was okay. the shifting was actually pretty good as long as I used the trim settings that Shimano (Ultegra) has on their triple Derailleurs for fine-tuning. I don't know if Campy has that or not. As I got stronger I found that I almost never used my small ring. It sort of became a game to see if I could get up my regular hills in the middle chain ring. When I upgraded I just went with a compact double and never looked back. The consequence was putting a 12-27 (still Shimano at the time) cassette on the back. I was able to get up some pretty steep stuff (20+%) with the 34-27 combination, but I was pretty slow doing it.
When I switched to Campy on my Dragonfly I moved to a 13-29 for some extra climbing gears. Part of me thinks that I could get away with a standard Campy double (53-39) and a 13-29 in the back and still suffer up the steep stuff, but I worry about knee pain later in life.
I wonder how much I really need a compact double and if I got rid of it if I'd just be able to adapt to a standard double out of necessity. Would my legs just make due with what they had?
--------------------
64cm Dragonfly custom geometry
|
Lowdog
new member
Reged: 01/01/04
Posts: 6
Loc: Wyoming
|
|
I have felt that the jump from the 34 to the 50 was too much of a leap also. It just didn't feel right, so I quit using it for a while, but would welcome the lower gearing in some circumstances. I might try the 36t inner ring, also could consider using the 38/52 chainrings when lower gearing isn't needed. Any thoughts on this?
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
Quote:
Lowdog wrote:
I have felt that the jump from the 34 to the 50 was too much of a leap also. It just didn't feel right, so I quit using it for a while, but would welcome the lower gearing in some circumstances. I might try the 36t inner ring, also could consider using the 38/52 chainrings when lower gearing isn't needed. Any thoughts on this?
I am still undecided whether to get a triple or a compact, and am particularly interested in this "jump feeling? between the 34 to 50 chain ring. Would backing off on the pedals while the chain moves between the small and large chain ring reduce that feeling?
The only drawback that I am hearing on the triple is that shifting on the front derailleur isn't as precise. Having never ridden a compact or triple crankset, I want to do my home work so I can make the right decision.
Anyone ride with both a compact and triple (especially a compact with a 34/50)? Are there any pro and cons to either system that I should consider? I have tried researching this but haven't found anyone that has used both.
By the way, I just bought a 2007 Chorus medium derailleur off of Ebay and am not even sure if I will need it. If I go with a compact, I may not need it. However, the price was too good to pass up. So, if I don't end up not needing it, I can sell it for what I paid for it.
Bruce
Edited by Darby (03/03/07 03:53 AM)
|
ldlide
new member
Reged: 01/26/04
Posts: 7
|
|
What is this talk about triple chainring shifting being imprecise? In my experience, Ultegra 9 triple shifting (which I have on two bikes) is perfect if you have both Shimano shifters and crankset. If it is set up precisely, it works perfectly and you never miss a shift, front or back. I also have Record shifters on one bike. Front Campy shifting is analog compared to digital Shimano.
With a triple chainring, the gaps between the chainrings are smaller than with most doubles, and therefore the shifts are smoother. Most of my friends who have switched to compact doubles have had trouble getting them set up so as not to drop the chain when shifting to the small chainring. You don't want to be behind someone in a pace line going up a hill when he shifts down from the big ring to the small one under load.
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
I use Dura-Ace Triple on one bike and I like it very much. It to me is the perfect triple. The middle ring is a 39. It is set up so you can ride it as a conventional 39 x 53 due to the trims in the front derailleur. With this set-up the 30 is your climbing/bail-out ring. I prefer it to the Ultegra I had since the 39 gives more flexibility than a 42. Not everybody feels this way. Dave T. loves his D/A triples.
I also ride a Record compact and I like that. It is different but shifts fine. The jump is not anything that bothers me. Maybe I am just not as fussy. With a front d for a compact the chain does not drop.
|
Mike
contributor
Reged: 12/25/03
Posts: 101
Loc: Oregon
|
|
All of the Shimano 10sp triples now use a 39 middle ring.
I have 10sp Dura Ace triple on my Calfee, while it doesn't shift nearly as nice as the Shimano compact crank on my Seven, I like it better. The 52-39 spacing just works better for me than the 50-34.
Seems everything in life is a trade off 
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Quote:
Mike wrote:
All of the Shimano 10sp triples now use a 39 middle ring.
I have 10sp Dura Ace triple on my Calfee, while it doesn't shift nearly as nice as the Shimano compact crank on my Seven, I like it better. The 52-39 spacing just works better for me than the 50-34.
Seems everything in life is a trade off
I agree completely...6 or a half dozen...
|
Darby
sage
Reged: 08/03/06
Posts: 436
Loc: Orange County California
|
|
I ended up buying a slightly used Campy Chorus Triple and have been riding it for a few days. So far I do not see any down side to riding with a triple; unless you consider the few extra grams a downside.
The shifting on the front derailleur is about the same as it was with my double, and the spacing between the 30-42-53 chain rings seems about right for me. I can jump between the chain rings without changing the cassette cog.
Well, I might be a social outcast now at coffee houses.
Bruce
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Advice on Compact Crank / Cassette
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Advice on Compact Crank / Cassette