going double to triple

[wnyrider]

Today is a new day for me and in logging in I am glad to read the latest information here and it is great... thanks all!
I was on that gear calculator and didn't understand if higher % was better, or if I wanted the lowest.

and finally, if you went all out, 50/34 - 13-29 your ratio would be a mere 2.3 %

if you only switched out the cassette from 12-23 to 12-27 you would go to 2.8% (recommended. easy and cheapest)

I took a look at campagnolo cassettes and they don't have 12-27 for my 10 speed. In the research I can across this:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/sho....php?p=1491715
That opened up another can of worms! I want to go the with the simplest route and it appears that it may be going with the 13-29 cassette for now.

[QUOTE]

yes, you can go to 29 on Campy without needing a long cage der - the chain wrap capacity is sufficient.
Quote:
I could swap out my current crank for the 50-34 AND swap out the cassette for the 13-29 and can keep all the other parts of old?
Yes, I did that on my first roadie.

I took a look at my crank and it is a Truvativ with a Truvativ external bb. If I do brave it, should it be replaced with the same brand-- in order to use the existing derailler and bb?

[aicabsolut]

No, you don't need to stick with Truvativ, but you will need to be sure it is milled for Campy. In other words, don't get a Shimano crank. Also don't get Fulcrum. Even though it's made by Campy, it's milled for Shimano. Get Truvativ, Campy, etc.

Campy rear derailleurs can take larger cogs than Shimano or SRAM, so the 29 would work.

Something that I don't think has been said about the option you were considering is that with a 53-42-30 triple, you might start having trouble figuring out when you want to be in the middle and small ring. The jump from 42-30 is big. The 42 is also going to be harder than your current small ring (39). So, there could be a lot of situations where you'd feel like the 30 is too easy, but the 42 is way too hard.

Just changing your cassette will make a big difference. A 23 is a pretty small easy gear there. Then I also agree that it will be a lot cheaper and easier to go to a compact crank. You might want to do one or the other at first. I'm not sure how badly you're struggling with your current setup. Putting on a 13-29 with a compact will make you lose a lot on the top end (like when you're going downhill), and perhaps you don't need a 34 ring with a 29 cog as your easy gear. There will also be a wider spread in the middle, which can get annoying on the flat. If you go compact, do that with your current cassette first. Then see if maybe you'd want a 12-25, 12-26, 12-27, 12-28, 13-29, etc.

[wnyrider]

...Just changing your cassette will make a big difference. ... You might want to do one or the other at first. I'm not sure how badly you're struggling with your current setup. ...If you go compact, do that with your current cassette first. Then see if maybe you'd want a 12-25, 12-26, 12-27, 12-28, 13-29, etc.

The best example of what I need may be reflected in my ride the day before. I was going up an escarpment. I down shifted to the 39 and 23-- my lowest gearing. I couldn't spin at this point and I felt like I was mashing big time. I was bearing down and the chain actually skipped several times (another issue) and I thought I was going to do some damage. If I could have just had a bit of lower gearing than it would have been more pleasurable. I've priced compact cranks and cassettes, and for the most part the prices are close. The newer compact Tru cranks seem to be mostly 50-36. I have spotted some old new stock 50-34 though. So with that, just to gain some lower gearing, which would I swap out if I had to choose just one, crank or cassette?

[silver]

switching your cassette:

53/39 - 13-29 2.6%

switching your chainrings:

50/34 - 12-23 2.9%

lower ratio is obtained with just switching the cassette

(BTW if you decide to do the chainrings....50/36 - 12-23 3.1% recommending the 50/34 if you can get it)

[wnyrider]

Thanks for you patience doing the math silver. I am glad you find it fun! Well, I am thisclose on making the switch. Saw this posted in a thread on another forum and it does appear interesting. Is anyone here familiar with this crank? It looks to be a 52-24 crank:
http://www.whiteind.com/cranks/roadcranks.html

[SadieKate]

Is anyone recommending that you use a 24-52 combo?????? That is an incredibly wide range to pair.

The size rings WI lists are just the different size rings they sell which are compatible with that crank.

There are a whole host of things that go into a properly functioning drivetrain. For instance, the front dérailleur must match ring curvature (determined by the ring diameter) and the rear dérailleur must be able to take up chain slack (calculating by chain wrap). Do some research on dérailleur capacity for your brand of component.

[Eden]

hmmmmmm it looks like you could possibly order that crank with a 52 outer and 24 inner, but I would think that would not be such a good idea. With a difference that great in the rings shifting would be a real bear... you'd really be pulling hard to get the chain up from the small ring to the big one and when you shifted down the drop would be so big that you'd probably drop your chain a lot... I'm looking around for the biggest suggested difference between inner and outer rings.

[SadieKate]

The rule of thumb I've been given is 10-12 tooth max difference between rings for the snappiest shifting. This is part of the reason there was a real lapse in the performance of shifting on compact doubles, the 16 tooth jump. Until recently many front derailleurs just weren't designed for this gap, hence the intro of derailleurs designed for compact doubles.