Spider???
Karen in Boise
To disable ads, please log-in.
I'm not strong enough to push a traditional 53 ring and the 39 wasn't small enough despite running a large 26 cog......therefore I replaced my traditional double with a compact double 50/34. Now I'm happy...
Spider???
Karen in Boise
The short radial arms that connect the pedal arm to the chainrings. Usually there are 5 of them radiating out from the center of the crank. You can think of them as spokes on a wheel. Their length sets the bolt circle diameter and limits the size of the smallest chainring that can be attached. A couple of the avatars on this page should make it clear.Originally Posted by Kano
Oil is good, grease is better.
2007 Peter Mooney w/S&S couplers/Terry Butterfly
1993 Bridgestone MB-3/Avocet O2 Air 40W
1980 Columbus Frame with 1970 Campy parts
1954 Raleigh 3-speed/Brooks B72
I'm looking at a 50/34, too. And maybe a cassette 13-26T. My "new" bike should arrive today! Might need to change out to get lower gears for my hill climbing (in)ability.
"If Americans want to live the American Dream, they should go to Denmark." - Richard Wilkinson
I'm currently running a 13-26 Campy cassette with my compact cranks. Although I don't have a problem, some may find the 50x13 top end (103 gear inches) not high enough.Originally Posted by KnottedYet
I'm about to try my first compact double, and I think I'll be going with 48/33. I'm fairly new to road cycling, and so I wish I knew a bit more about my gearing preferences before making this investment, but at least it's not that expensive to swap rings - at least I think it shouldn't be!
Bad JuJu...You should check out some gear charts before deciding that you need the triple for the occasional hill.
http://www.fullspeedahead.com/downlo...ing%20chart%22
The gearing you get with a standard road triple (52/42/30 and a 12/25 cassette) isn't all that different from a 50/34 compact set up with the 1-25 in the back. I think just the weight savings alone will help make up for any gearing loss (what's the weight of the '05 bike vs. the '06?).
With the compact, you could even put a 27 on the back, and you'll be flying up the hill on a less complicated drive train.
Just my $0.02.
Thanks for the tip, Regina. I'll check it out. It's funny that I've always been a language person, vs. numbers (I'm an English teacher), but I LOVE studying anything having to do with the science and math of cycling.
Bad JuJu: Team TE Bianchista
"The road to hell is paved with works-in-progress." -Roth
Read my blog: Works in Progress
I have 50/34s on both my bikes with a 700c rear wheel and love it. I pair it with a 12/27 casette for MOST riding, and on one bike I installed a mountain (XT) rear derailleur, so I can swap out the 12/27 for an 11/34 when I got to serious mountains or for loaded touring. They are mechanically simpler and easier to keep in adjustment, and ligter than triples. Just run the numbers through sheldon's caluclator to figure out what you need. What you give up is tightly spaced gearing with the wide range casettes like the 11/34. The 12/27 is just great though, and gets me up anything in the texas hill country.
I have a compact double (50/34) paired with a 12/27 in the hilly SF Bay area, and while it gets me up most hills, I definitely see the benefits of a triple or a mountain cassette for sustained climbing. I'm sure I could eventually make it to the top of Mt. Diablo if I worked at it, but it'd sure be nice to have a triple so I didn't have to burn myself out trying to get there.
Still, it's a nice way to equip a bike for hills without the expense of converting from double to triple. That's ultimately the reason that I chose to go this route. And whatever doesn't kill you...