What are the big 3 waiting for to go sub-compact?

[AngryScientist]

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

[oldguy00]

SRAM is part way there

http://www.jensonusa.com/SRAM-Force-22-BB30-CX-Crankset

[jtbadge]

SRAM is part way there

http://www.jensonusa.com/SRAM-Force-22-BB30-CX-Crankset

How do you figure? That's standard CX crank gearing, everyone sells those. You can't bolt on a ring smaller than 34t, and that's the long and short of the problem.

[ColnagoFan]

I'd like to see more 48-32T options out there...besides Praxis...

[Mark McM]

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

Yes, that's exactly what we need - yet another chainring BCD standard.

[AngryScientist]

Yes, that's exactly what we need - yet another chainring BCD standard.

there is no current BCD "standard". everyone is doing their own thing.

[jtbadge]

I think Easton is going to make the big three turn their heads a little bit.

Direct mount 47t and 46t rings with 32t and 30t rings that bolt inside. I want to try one.

http://theradavist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/morgan-taylor-easton-gravel-shifting-rings-1.jpg

http://theradavist.com/2018/04/useful-double-drivetrains-with-eastons-gravel-shifting-rings-morgan-taylor/

[bigbill]

I got a 36/46 Ultegra crankset for the gravel bike because a 34/50 wouldn't be that useful off road. I'd rather have a stock offering in 34/44 or 32/44. With an 11-32 cassette, you could do just about any terrain on gravel.

[Mark McM]

there is no current BCD "standard". everyone is doing their own thing.

And now you want them to do yet another version of their own thing, incompatible with their previous own things.

[Gummee]

Old math: 1 tooth in the back is worth 3 in the front.

IOW: making cassettes bigger is doing more for you than making rings smaller

M

[Bonesbrigade]

Yeah, gearing is at a weird point right now. I personally love the 50-34 paired with an 11-28 for my Rd. bike and 50-34 paired with an 11-32 for my mixed conditions bike.

I think what complicates things right now is there is this big desire for people wanting 1x drivetrains for everything: Road, cx, and All-road.

The problem with the 1x systems is the range and gaps aren't quite there yet for a lot of people. For 1x to be acceptable for the vast majority of riders, I think we need 12 or 13 speeds and eliminate the big gaps in the smallest cogs.

Then there is this sub-compact - this kind of feels like a short term solution until 1x systems get the correct amount of cogs in the back and the full range without silly gaps at the bottom of the cassette.

So...my view is sub compact is a bit in no man's land because people really want a proper 1x system.

[Lewis Moon]

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

I have never understood the concept of super wide gearing in the back. It's as if the right cadence really doesn't matter.
IMHO, most of this thrutching around with 1X, super wide cassettes, discs, etc is about trying to stimulate demand by being different and not really about being better.

[AngryScientist]

And now you want them to do yet another version of their own thing, incompatible with their previous own things.

yes, that's what i would like to see. for the riding i do, i would like rings smaller than 34 for the front. 46/30 is my new happy spot.


actually, i think the Sram method is the way to go. their current cranks use direct mount chainrings or direct mount spiders. they could fairly easily make a spider capable of mounting smaller inner rings.

agree that easton looks great.

[AngryScientist]

the gearing on my zanc is literlly perfect for me. 46/30 front, 11-32 back.

i've used both the high/high and the low/low plenty, and am able to use the entire gear range without wanting anything higher or lower.

now i love the WI crankset, but if i could have a matchy-matchy crankset with the rest of the group - that would be sweet!

https://instagram.fewr1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/vp/40db747eaed16956e9ecf1cecc2613ac/5B67D088/t51.2885-15/e35/31123378_1632052206913424_5491463472912793600_n.jp g

[unterhausen]

I have an mtb 42/28 on a road bike and it works pretty well. I think they should go for this combo instead of having a 30 as the smallest.

The truth is that too many people think they need the same high gears as a EPO-using pro and the parts manufacturers are just ignoring the small portion of us that have become realistic about this.

I have a 46/34 on my main road bike and I really like the 46 for a high gear. Let's just say that the 46 isn't what gets me dropped. I would have gotten a 44, but it wasn't as convenient to acquire. 50 teeth in combination with just about everything in the back was just too high of a gear.

[mhespenheide]

We don't need a "new" standard. Just 94mm BCD, like mountain cranks in the 90's.

Coincidentally, that's what I'll be building up next... I'm thinking 11-32 in the back, 32/44 or 32/46 or 32/48 in the front. Haven't decided that part yet.

[Vientomas]

http://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/review-fsa-sl-k-modular-adventure-bb386evo-crankset-subcompact-chainrings/

Another option...

[muz]

Old math: 1 tooth in the back is worth 3 in the front.

IOW: making cassettes bigger is doing more for you than making rings smaller

M

That IS old math, and no longer relevant IMO. It made sense in the age of 144BCD cranks and corncob freewheels. With 34t small ring and 34t big cog, 1 tooth in the back is the same as 1 tooth in the front. When you increase the cassette size, you get larger jumps in the gears. When you decrease the crank size, you lose the top end speed that only the racers need.

[Jaybee]

Backwards compatibility and a limited number of "standards" is great... until it impacts utility. Then you make something new, and the market decides if it is worthwhile.

I agree with AS - I'd like a small ring < 34t on a modern road crank and I'd like to be able to get that for the price of Force/Ultegra.

[Ralph]

I have no problem with a 30-40-50 with 13-26 (or 12-30 depending) with med cage rear. But understand current trend is going other way. Could also run a 28-39-48, or 26-39-48, or 28-39-49 with my Campy Triple set ups.

[GregL]

I've got an Ultegra 6800 cyclocross crank on my gravel bike. I pulled the original 36T inner ring and replaced it with a 34T. With an HG800 11-34 cassette on the back, I have all the gears I could ever need. If I need more than a 34-34 low gear, I probably need my MTB instead of the gravel bike!

Greg

[AngryScientist]

I've got an Ultegra 6800 cyclocross crank on my gravel bike. I pulled the original 36T inner ring and replaced it with a 34T. With an HG800 11-34 cassette on the back, I have all the gears I could ever need. If I need more than a 34-34 low gear, I probably need my MTB instead of the gravel bike!

Greg

i see people writing stuff like this all the time. i dont know where you ride, but if you've seen some of the high grade loose stuff that is not uncommon to find on a gravel bike, gearing less than 1:1 is not a bad thing.

[BikeNY]

We don't need a "new" standard. Just 94mm BCD, like mountain cranks in the 90's.

Coincidentally, that's what I'll be building up next... I'm thinking 11-32 in the back, 32/44 or 32/46 or 32/48 in the front. Haven't decided that part yet.

This!!! Road bikes borrowed the 110 BCD from mountain bikes years ago, why not borrow the old MTB compact 94 BCD now?

Or, the way Easton and White industries does it with a large direct mount ring and then the smaller ring mounting to the big would work fine as well, but be more proprietary.

I'm currently running 46t and 33t 110 BCD rings from TA, and an 11-36 cassette, which has slightly bigger gaps than I would like. As others have said, I think 44t or 46t big and 30t small would be about right.

[AngryScientist]

we are slowly getting there though.

it used to be that campy would not offer record in a compact because they thought that only guys racing deserved to use top level kit. now, i would bet that the record compact outsells the standard version by a LONG shot.

the point is that, at least for me, sometimes - if i'm out on a 100 mile mixed terrain ride - i'm out to see the scenery, relax and enjoy myself, not prove anything about how tough i am and how heavy of a gear i can push uphill.

[NHAero]

I switched my CAAD10 to a 1x11 - 42T ring and Ultegra 11-34 cassette. Gives a top gear inch of 101 with the 25mm tires, and actually closer jumps in the mid-range where I ride most.
When my Anderson comes back from Dave it's going to a Wickwerx Junior 41-33 pair on a 110 BCD crankset and the same 11-34 cassette. Not quite as low as Angry's 30/32 but old standard BCD. Running 37mm tires yields a 102 gear-inch top and a 26 low.
My vintage Bob Jackson I just swapped to a 10s with a 12-30 in the rear. It's currently a 48-36-24 on a 110 BCD. I don't need the 48T big ring - it could easily be a 45 or 46.
When you choose a outer chain ring that really is right sized, at least if you're a old slow guy like me, then the gap between the two rings is smaller and makes a better shifting front. That said, if the 110BCD accepted smaller than a 33, I'd have chosen something more like 41-30 for my Anderson, which gets back to Angry's point.

[David Tollefson]

I've been running 46/34 on my gravel bike for about 4 years now, and the same on my road bike for the past two. Paired with an 11-32 on gravel, it's almost low enough -- I can make it up even the really steep stuff, but I find myself wishing for just that little bit more on those hills. On the road I've got it paired with an 11-23, and I can swap in a 25 or even a 28 for really hilly rides. Mostly the 23 suffices. I like that it allows me to ride in the middle of the cassette most of the time, and after I get out my driveway, mostly it's used as a 1x system unless I hit good hills.

I'm in the process of building my next gravel bike, and it'll have a MTB 39/26 'ring configuration (SRAM X5). I'm thinking I can pair it with an 11-26 and get that 1:1 low gear, or go with a 28 for more. Whether the 39/11 will be enough for the pavement remains to be seen. But I like the narrower gaps between gears.

[GregL]

i see people writing stuff like this all the time. i dont know where you ride, but if you've seen some of the high grade loose stuff that is not uncommon to find on a gravel bike, gearing less than 1:1 is not a bad thing.
The hills and dales of upstate NY. Lots of gravel roads, Jeep tracks, singletrack, etc... The true gravel roads I ride are/were intended for vehicles (at least at one time...). As such, they can all be ridden with a 1:1 low gear. I understand that some people may want an even lower gear, I just haven't had the need for it... yet.

Greg

[AngryScientist]

that's a cool snapshot map Greg.

[ptourkin]

I have never understood the concept of super wide gearing in the back. It's as if the right cadence really doesn't matter.
IMHO, most of this thrutching around with 1X, super wide cassettes, discs, etc is about trying to stimulate demand by being different and not really about being better.

With the kind of riding most of us are doing 1X cadence DOESN'T matter. The demand is far beyond just being different as most of the bikes built for other than road are already 1X now. Also they work.

46-30 is old news in rando world. We've found it useful for a long time. A low gear of 36 or 34 with a 32 really isn't much if you're doing a lot of climbing, especially on dirt.

I don't understand why having more options is seen as "forcing" you to change. If you still want a low gear of 39 23, it's available. Have fun.

[Mark McM]

Backwards compatibility and a limited number of "standards" is great... until it impacts utility. Then you make something new, and the market decides if it is worthwhile.

While in general this is true, there have been so many different chainring "standards" used, it is very hard to believe that one of the pre-existing standards is not suitable.

Case in point:

The 110/74mm BCD standard was original developed about 40 years ago, when 3 piece cranks, threaded BBs and 5spd freewheels were the most common. 30 years later, when people wanted lower gears on their "racing" bikes, it was re-adopted, and re-adapted for 9/10/11spd, and with integrated spindle cranks and press-fit BBs. It works just fine, even 40 years later with the latest drivetrains.

Now that people want even smaller chainrings, there are lots of smaller already existing BCD standards that could be re-adopted, such as the 94/58 BCD 5 arm standard or the 104/64 BCD 4 arm standard.

[Mark McM]

We don't need a "new" standard. Just 94mm BCD, like mountain cranks in the 90's.

That would work great. The problem is, nobody has made a 94mm BCD crank in years, and all the existing 94mm BCD cranks use BBs (square taper, Octalink or ISIS) which require threaded BB shells, so they can't be used on most of today's carbon frames.

[AngryScientist]

yes, i'm running a few bikes with modified campy triples to run my preferred 46/30 - but this is not exactly an off the shelf modern solution....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-22dWnbb5ogg/Wmz82BBmWBI/AAAAAAAAC9s/l76DkNpujAc6jiJiR-WV70RwzCbv7EgTQCLcBGAs/s800/IMG_1980.JPG

[saab2000]

This is my solution: Ultegra 46-tooth outer chainring on the Shimano Dura Ace 9000 crankset. Ugly, but effective.

I really wish they made proper 46 and 32 tooth rings for at least the Ultegra line. These cyclocross rings work fine, but aren't very attractive with the adapter pieces. They're not the hollow rings, but rather flat rings with adapters to mate up with the hollow cranks.

They work great and the 46 is way more appropriate for most gravel rides, where even on the descents technique and braking supersede the highest possible gearing.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5581/30705313116_9503509d35_b.jpg

[Mark McM]

This!!! Road bikes borrowed the 110 BCD from mountain bikes years ago, why not borrow the old MTB compact 94 BCD now.

Actually, the 110 BCD goes back further than that - it was released before the MTB was even invented. The 110/74 BCD has gone by many names:

When it came out in the early '70's , it was called a "touring crank"

When it was adopted by MTBs in the '80's, it was called an "MTB crank"

When Micro MTB cranks were released in the early '90's, the 110/74 was called "Standard MTB crank"

when Shimano used it for entry level hybrid bikes in the late '90's, it was called a "compact road crank"

When people who had bought road racing bikes because they wanted a bike like Lances, but discovered that they couldn't pedal racing gears up hill in the early '00's, the 110 BCD crank was called a "Racing Compact crank"

[GregL]

that's a cool snapshot map Greg.
Thanks! 120" of annual snowfall aside, upstate NY is an excellent place for all kinds of cycling. For the gravel/dirt road enthusiasts, there's lots of racing and riding:

https://www.ridelcc.com/mudslinger-gravel-series.html
http://blackflychallenge.com/
http://www.rideoswegocounty.bike/getting-happy-in-the-valley.html

The Old Erie Canal Trail (https://www.ptny.org/bike-canal/map/) lives up to its nickname of "the long level," but passes through miles of beautiful country. Lots of rail trails also dot the landscape statewide.

Greg

[R3awak3n]

dunno if anyone mentioned it but absolute black now has rings that work on modern cranks that are subcompact... downside is.. they are ugly.



also the praxis subcompact is fantastic, praxis rings are some of the best out there. I did love my white industries and shifitng was fine but when compared to the praxis. uh uh, shoddy shifting. I like the easton crank a lot, would love to try it and do hope more companies come out with sub compact cranks

[zzy]

Remember that it took Shimano until 2006 to even release a compact crank. Thank god for FSA for pushing that along.

I actually agree with AngryScientist - why can't someone make an affordable 110BCD middle ring to pair with a 30 inner? This is basically what Sugino does for their $$$ supercompacts. I've tried several outer rings in this config but the crank bolts always get in the way. We have piles of 110/74 BCD cranks out there - make them great again!

I'm currently using a WI 48/30 and the shifting is far from ideal..

[benb]

If it's a double just make mine have no more than a 14 tooth difference between the rings, so I'd pick 44/30 over some of these other options.

53/39 just shifts so much better than 50/34.

That said it really sounds like a lot of people just need a triple.

Yesterday I took my Space Horse on some hilly single track and stuff, usually I'd take my MTB there but I was there and felt like going off the road. I could have used lower than the 34x32 low gear a few places. I was in the bottom gear probably turning 80rpm at most and right on the verge of spinning the rear tire. Same thing carrying baggage or pulling a trailer.

But the 44 ring would drive me bonkers on the way back from the dirt part of the ride if I was unloaded. Way too low.

I would have just said Shimano, etc.. probably just have the viewpoint that a triple solves all these problems better than any of these silly subcompact/compact options but then they are going and cancelling the triples because everyone is still insane about this macho thing with only having 2 rings.

[KarlC]

Well I want a bigger range, I want a 53/34 with an 11-32

I need the 53 with 11 out back for the pace line and going down hills solo

I need the 34 with 32 out back to my weak legs and steep hills

.

[Mark McM]

Remember that it took Shimano until 2006 to even release a compact crank. Thank god for FSA for pushing that along.

Shimano has made 110mm BCD cranks since about 1982. The first were triple cranks (for MTBs), but by the late '90s, they made 110mm double cranks, which were labeled 'Hyperdrive-C' (Hyperdrive compact). These might not have been on your radar, since they were entry level cranks made for hybrid bikes. It was in the '00s that Shimano brought the 110mm BCD to their upper level groups.

I actually agree with AngryScientist - why can't someone make an affordable 110BCD middle ring to pair with a 30 inner? This is basically what Sugino does for their $$$ supercompacts. I've tried several outer rings in this config but the crank bolts always get in the way. We have piles of 110/74 BCD cranks out there - make them great again!

Those Sugino OX series chainrings aren't really middle chainrings, they are specifically made to be outer chainrings - middle chainrings don't have chain anti-jam pins, but Sugino's OX series chainrings do have the anti-jam pins. So even Sugino's sub-compact solution is a bit of a non-standard hodge-podge.

[muz]

Well I want a bigger range, I want a 53/34 with an 11-32

I need the 53 with 11 out back for the pace line and going down hills solo

I need the 34 with 32 out back to my weak legs and steep hills

.

I often hear this, but never really understand. 53x11 at 120rpm is 46mph. Really?

[FlashUNC]

It's only a matter of time as the median age of the customer base continues to climb.

The pool ain't gettting any younger or larger.

[GregL]

I often hear this, but never really understand. 53x11 at 120rpm is 46mph. Really?
Gotta' agree on this one. With the exception of downhill on our tandem, I need a 53x11 about once a year. It's usually in a race with a downhill and/or tailwind finish. And even then, I really don't need it as much as want it. Heck, I've ridden fast pacelines with a 46T big ring many times.

Greg

[sandyrs]

But the 44 ring would drive me bonkers on the way back from the dirt part of the ride if I was unloaded. Way too low.


a 44-11 at 90rpm with a 700x32 tire is 29mph. Do you really need to crush it at 30+ mph on the ride back from the trail? My experience riding my cx bike with a 40-11 high gear around here has been absolutely fine, and that even includes some fairly long road rides.

[zzy]

Shimano has made 110mm BCD cranks since about 1982. The first were triple cranks (for MTBs), but by the late '90s, they made 110mm double cranks, which were labeled 'Hyperdrive-C' (Hyperdrive compact). These might not have been on your radar, since they were entry level cranks made for hybrid bikes. It was in the '00s that Shimano brought the 110mm BCD to their upper level groups.

I'm fully aware of Shimanos triple cranks and even the older compact drive - I'm clearly referring to road doubles with standard road chainline. I remember when roadies were shamed for having a 39x27 in the back...


Those Sugino OX series chainrings aren't really middle chainrings, they are specifically made to be outer chainrings - middle chainrings don't have chain anti-jam pins, but Sugino's OX series chainrings do have the anti-jam pins. So even Sugino's sub-compact solution is a bit of a non-standard hodge-podge.

Obviously not what I meant - I mean a big ring in the middle position with chain drop catcher, recessed chainring bolts on the inside, and approprate ramps and pins. Exactly like the OX901.

[muz]

Gotta' agree on this one. With the exception of downhill on our tandem, I need a 53x11 about once a year. It's usually in a race with a downhill and/or tailwind finish. And even then, I really don't need it as much as want it. Heck, I've ridden fast pacelines with a 46T big ring many times.

Greg

I have stayed with the lead group on brevets while riding 48x18 fixed gear, sometimes drafting tandems. Of course they could have dropped me if this were a race, but if you are trying to maximize efficiency, it's best to tuck and coast once you get to 30mph, if not earlier.

[AngryScientist]

nevermind

[dogrange]

I put these Absolute Black oval rings on a Dura Ace 9000 crank last week. They have 48/32 and 46/30 options, among others. I wanted 46/30 and these fit on my existing crank so I went for them. I have to say I am surprised by how much I like them - I was sort of skeptical of the oval thing, but they are noticeably more smooth when I am standing and not noticeable when seated.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180427/1eb5fd94ef9f3c970aa19fc2e1d9b8f4.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180427/984ebf94c1dca2f4739b1704532316a0.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark McM]

Obviously not what I meant - I mean a big ring in the middle position with chain drop catcher, recessed chainring bolts on the inside, and approprate ramps and pins. Exactly like the OX901.

Why would someone make such a thing? These would only fit Sugino OX series cranks, which are a very small production aftermarket component. The world-wide demand for these chainrings is too small to warrant another aftermarket company tooling up for it.

This is why I called the OX series cranks a hodge-podge: On the surface, they look like they would use off-the-shelf standard chainrings, but in reality they use special proprietary chainrings. The same is true of the Praxis Works sub-compact, which looks like it uses standard 110 BCD chainrings, but in reality requires a special proprietary inner chainring and chainring bolts.

[colker]

I would have just said Shimano, etc.. probably just have the viewpoint that a triple solves all these problems better than any of these silly subcompact/compact options but then they are going and cancelling the triples because everyone is still insane about this macho thing with only having 2 rings.

^^^^^^^^^^^
:hello::hello:;);):banana::banana:

A triple ring crankset is the right one if you want to do everything on your bike and you are not a superfit athlete.
So they are cancelling the triple ring crankset. Instead we have disc brakes and 12 speed cassettes.
Thank you.

[ptourkin]

^^^^^^^^^^^
:hello::hello:;);):banana::banana:

A triple ring crankset is the right one if you want to do everything on your bike and you are not a superfit athlete.
So they are cancelling the triple ring crankset. Instead we have disc brakes and 12 speed cassettes.
Thank you.

Especially if you hate change and want 50% of your gearing to overlap with no added benefit. Enjoy.

[dem]

46/30 is my dream crankset too, with a 10-42 cassette, you get a super low low and a super high high. :)

I also wish Shimano would let you mix and match road/mtb Di2 deraillers.

It is all very annoying that I have to create a frankenstein drivetrain to get the gearing I want.

(I also have a bike with a triple in similar range, but I feel like I am playing the piano when I ride the triple, so I can see why triples are dead.)

[KarlC]

Well I want a bigger range, I want a 53/34 with an 11-32

I need the 53 with 11 out back for the pace line and going down hills solo

I need the 34 with 32 out back to my weak legs and steep hills

.


I often hear this, but never really understand. 53x11 at 120rpm is 46mph. Really?

With 50x11 I spin out when the pace line pack is at full speed and often going down a long descent. I cant say what rpm our speed I'm at as I'm watching the guys in front of me or the road very carefully right then.

.

[sg8357]

That would work great. The problem is, nobody has made a 94mm BCD crank in years, and all the existing 94mm BCD cranks use BBs (square taper, Octalink or ISIS) which require threaded BB shells, so they can't be used on most of today's carbon frames.

IRD makes new 94bcd cranks, TA makes rings.

http://store.somafab.com/irdwicorodoc.html

Threaded BB shells are making a comeback.

[muz]

With 50x11 I spin out when the pace line pack is at full speed and often going down a long descent. I cant say what rpm our speed I'm at as I'm watching the guys in front of me or the road very carefully right then.

.

It's easy to figure out the rpm if you know the speed :)

Is this while racing, or on a casual group ride?

I have to say I have found 50x12 to be lacking, but mostly due to poor technique on my part. If you crest before the tandem and hope to get on their wheel on the descent, forget it. If you slow down and stay on their draft, you won't need as much power on the descent. It is hard to spin fast and apply a lot of power at the same time.

[KarlC]

With 50x11 I spin out when the pace line pack is at full speed and often going down a long descent. I cant say what rpm our speed I'm at as I'm watching the guys in front of me or the road very carefully right then. .

It's easy to figure out the rpm if you know the speed :)

Is this while racing, or on a casual group ride?

I have to say I have found 50x12 to be lacking, but mostly due to poor technique on my part. If you crest before the tandem and hope to get on their wheel on the descent, forget it. If you slow down and stay on their draft, you won't need as much power on the descent. It is hard to spin fast and apply a lot of power at the same time.

You would think it would be ez to just look down at my Garmin but as I said during those times I dont chance it.

I have never raced but Thursday nights at 6pm on Fiesta Island in San Diego there could be a pack of 20-40 really strong guys, some ex pros, a rare pro or 2. Im just barely hang on for a few laps and 50x11 does not cut it for me, maybe if I could spin smoother at a higher rpm ?

Its fun to try and pass a tandem on a down hill.

.

[marciero]

...
This is why I called the OX series cranks a hodge-podge: On the surface, they look like they would use off-the-shelf standard chainrings, but in reality they use special proprietary chainrings. The same is true of the Praxis Works sub-compact, which looks like it uses standard 110 BCD chainrings, but in reality requires a special proprietary inner chainring and chainring bolts.

I have a set of the Sugino. Not sure what model but they do use outboard bearings. I just used regular TA rings, an inner and a middle for the outer ring. It must have been a middle position, it is recessed from the inside and I see no chain jam pin. So it seems like you're only giving up the chain jam pin, and the fact that you cant use standard chainring bolts. That doesn't seem too hodgy-podgy. Are you sure the bolts are proprietary? They seemed pretty standard but it's been a while since I installed.

[R3awak3n]

46/30 is my dream crankset too, with a 10-42 cassette, you get a super low low and a super high high. :)

I also wish Shimano would let you mix and match road/mtb Di2 deraillers.

It is all very annoying that I have to create a frankenstein drivetrain to get the gearing I want.

(I also have a bike with a triple in similar range, but I feel like I am playing the piano when I ride the triple, so I can see why triples are dead.)

30 front, 42 back you might as well walk the bike. That is way low, even for my out of shape self

[Mark McM]

IRD makes new 94bcd cranks, TA makes rings.

http://store.somafab.com/irdwicorodoc.html

That crank is basically a retro throwback. It uses a square taper BB, and thus can not fit on most new frames made today. TA 94mm chainrings are specified as 9spd, and may not work well on 11spd (or 12spd) drivetrains.


Threaded BB shells are making a comeback.

Maybe on custom and small volume frames, but that ship has sailed on mass production bicycles.

[dem]

30 front, 42 back you might as well walk the bike. That is way low, even for my out of shape self

Ha ha, you'd think! It's certainly not required on road grades, but off road I use it every time. Once you get over 20% grade, it's essential (not the least of which is on skinny tires you can't stand or you spin out.. so you need to stay seated for traction.)

Nobody rides with me either, so I'm obviously a dummy. :)

Here's a nasty bit of steepness.. including my failure at the end and having to hike.. but yeah, that's 569 watts at 5.1 mph.

[Mark McM]

I have a set of the Sugino. Not sure what model but they do use outboard bearings. I just used regular TA rings, an inner and a middle for the outer ring. It must have been a middle position, it is recessed from the inside and I see no chain jam pin. So it seems like you're only giving up the chain jam pin, and the fact that you cant use standard chainring bolts. That doesn't seem too hodgy-podgy. Are you sure the bolts are proprietary? They seemed pretty standard but it's been a while since I installed.

Yes, you can use a middle position 110mm BCD chainring in the outer position of the Sugino OX cranks. Unfortunately though, you are unlikely to find a 110mm BCD middle position chainring larger than 38 teeth, and certainly not one as large as 46 teeth. That's why Sugino had to make their own special outer chainrings for the OX cranks.

The proprietary bolts I was referring to were for the Praxis Works sub-compact crank, which uses a special chainring and bolts to fit a 32 teeth chainring onto a 110mm BCD spider (the smallest normally possible for 110mm BCD is 33 teeth).

[Mark McM]

30 front, 42 back you might as well walk the bike. That is way low, even for my out of shape self

That is very low, but not so uncommon for very steep, long hills. And on pavement anyway, you can still go faster riding these gears than you can walking.

Consider: These sizes of chainrings are common for the Mt. Washington Hill Clmib. And not only can ride faster than you can walk on this climb, you can even ride faster than you can run. There are both running and cycling races on this mountain, and the cycling times are faster than the running times (even though the cyclists have to lift the extra weight of the bike up the mountain).

[Zee]

You would think it would be ez to just look down at my Garmin but as I said during those times I dont chance it.

I have never raced but Thursday nights at 6pm on Fiesta Island in San Diego there could be a pack of 20-40 really strong guys, some ex pros, a rare pro or 2. Im just barely hang on for a few laps and 50x11 does not cut it for me, maybe if I could spin smoother at a higher rpm ?

Its fun to try and pass a tandem on a down hill.

.

You West coast are making me blush.

I ride without data beyond turning Strava on and putting my phone in my jersey at the car, but the pancake Midwest and relatively slow rides I do have been fine on 46/36 and 11/23. Sprints only get to 35-38...

I don’t think I’ve found myself wringing out 46/11 yet, but certainly need more gear off road than I currently have. 28/34 should be enough, but I’ll find out soon.

Seeing any support for the 48t was strange enough, but the previously mentioned Easton product looks terrific.

[Lovetoclimb]

Also in the making it work camp for my gravel riding in Pisgah, the Smokies, and beyond. Around here a 34x40 low gear on my Soma Wolverine is often just getting by. Picture 5 hrs in, and you have a loose 30 minute climb with switchbacks or sustained pitches at 10% gradient. A 1:1 is definitely not going to suffice.

I'm using the Ultegra 46/34 crankset with XT 11-40 and it all shifts remarkably well. However slightly lower without having to increase my cassette size would be nice, especially when I load up that bike for big touring days on said terrain.

[GregL]

I'm using the Ultegra 46/34 crankset with XT 11-40 and it all shifts remarkably well. However slightly lower without having to increase my cassette size would be nice, especially when I load up that bike for big touring days on said terrain.
If I was loading up a bike for touring on gravel, I'd want a triple crank. I would have the gear range I want with smaller jumps on the cassette. I know that many folks think triples are dead/redundant/unnecessary, but they are invaluable for loaded touring. Trying to do loaded touring with a double crank is, for me, trying to hammer a nail with a socket wrench - wrong tool for the job.

Greg

[93KgBike]

Funny how things can invert themselves over time; back in '98 or '99 I was searching all over for a clamp on front derailleur that would let me run 48/30 on my mountain bike, because I had a twelve mile road-ride to get to the trails and was so tired of spinning along at 46-12. I was able to save almost 20 minutes each way running 48-11, as I recall.

For what it may be worth, there are adapters that allow threaded internal BB in press fit frames. A '98 Zipp 300 carbon crankset running a threaded titanium bb is still lighter than a lot of current OEM setups; pricey though, if you can find it.

[Black Dog]

It seems that riders fall into two groups.

Group one: Prefers small jumps on a cassette and thus a triple is best to maximize range.

Group two: Wants range and does not mind the large jumps between cogs. This is the 1x or sub compact group running a 6-52 ;) on the back.


I would take a triple personally. I hate it when I am in a good rhythm and am 1 gear too big or too small away from being dialled in.

[oldpotatoe]

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

Those that ‘need’ lower than 1:1 gearing is a teeny, teeny, tiny segment. I wouldn’t expect even shimano to tool up for a crank like that. Actually pretty funny...so many harkened for a ‘compact’...now sounds like what would be perfect, is a ......triple.

[marciero]

Yes, you can use a middle position 110mm BCD chainring in the outer position of the Sugino OX cranks. Unfortunately though, you are unlikely to find a 110mm BCD middle position chainring larger than 38 teeth, and certainly not one as large as 46 teeth. That's why Sugino had to make their own special outer chainrings for the OX cranks.

The proprietary bolts I was referring to were for the Praxis Works sub-compact crank, which uses a special chainring and bolts to fit a 32 teeth chainring onto a 110mm BCD spider (the smallest normally possible for 110mm BCD is 33 teeth).

TA does have these rings. I have a 44 on my Sugino crank. Before that I was doing this middle-as-outer setup with a 110/74 Race Face triple crank set up as a double. As far as I know they are still in production. I've always gotten them from Peter White. He has them listed as large as 46. They get pricey though-the odd-number teeth especially.

[NHAero]

For grins last night, I laid the NDS of a Sugino AT against the NDS of an old Shimano XT (which has a 94/58 BCD, and has 44-32-22) and the difference in the crank arm offset and therefore Q factor is so dramatic - it just doesn't feel like a good option for a road bike.

[BikeNY]

I agree with the need for 'super compact' cranksets. 48/32 and 46/30 would be great. And it really wouldn't be hard to do, as lots of cranks these days use removable spiders and direct mount rings. All they need to do is make a 5 arm 94mm BCD spider with the proper offset for road cranks, or make a direct mount big ring with mounting holes for the smaller ring, again, 94mm BCD would be perfect.

Shimano seems really slow to react to trends like this, and SRAM is pushing their 1x drivetrains, so I'm not expecting anything from them anytime soon. FSA now makes a couple of cranks with those chainring options, with proprietary rings of course.

For me, I don't want super low gearing with a 30t chainring and 46t cassette cog, I want to keep a tighter cassette to keep jumps reasonable and still have low enough gearing. I have no use for a 50x11 top end, totally useless for me. I'm currently running 46/33 TA rings on a 110BCD crank and an 11-36 cassette. Works for most of my riding, but I'd like my low to be lower. My high end is plenty.

Also, someone mentioned a triple being required for touring, I disagree with this. For touring, you need a lower gear range, not a wider gear range. When I'm on tour, I'm usually coasting down the hills and recovering, not trying to push a 50x11 gear!

[bigbill]

I hope that Shimano offers some more variation in their Ultegra line. I've got a 36/46 crankset but I think a 34 would be more useful. The ten tooth jump is nice and smooth, but isn't that big of a difference. My gravel bike has the above crankset and an 11-32 cassette. I guess the solution is an 11-34 but I'd rather have a larger span on the front and a tighter ratio in the rear.

[jtbadge]

I hope that Shimano offers some more variation in their Ultegra line. I've got a 36/46 crankset but I think a 34 would be more useful. The ten tooth jump is nice and smooth, but isn't that big of a difference. My gravel bike has the above crankset and an 11-32 cassette. I guess the solution is an 11-34 but I'd rather have a larger span on the front and a tighter ratio in the rear.

Luckily a 34t Ultegra ring is only like $20. Easy to try that option!

I’m running 46-34 in the front and a SRAM 11-36 in the back.

[Jaybee]

Luckily a 34t Ultegra ring is only like $20. Easy to try that option!

I’m running 46-34 in the front and a SRAM 11-36 in the back.

Yup, 46-34 is what my all-road bike is running. The issue is when you want a chainring smaller than a 110 bcd allows (34, 33?).

[David Tollefson]

For me, I don't want super low gearing with a 30t chainring and 46t cassette cog, I want to keep a tighter cassette to keep jumps reasonable and still have low enough gearing.

My position as well. I have a gravel build in-process that will be using a SRAM X5 crank, 39/26 in front and I plan on pairing it with a 11-26 or 11-28 for off-pavement riding. I'd love to get the 42 up front, but apparently for all its listing on the SRAM site, it's only available as OEM.

I'm currently running a 46/34 on FSA Gossamer cranks both for the road bike and the gravel bike, with 11-23 on the road, 11-32 off.

[unterhausen]

It seems that riders fall into two groups.
Group one: Prefers small jumps on a cassette and thus a triple is best to maximize range.
Group two: Wants range and does not mind the large jumps between cogs. This is the 1x or sub compact group running a 6-52 ;) on the back.
I would take a triple personally. I hate it when I am in a good rhythm and am 1 gear too big or too small away from being dialled in.I wouldn't mind having small jumps on the cassette, but triples are a pain. But I'm using 10 speed, 46/34 chainrings with an 11-36 cassette, and the number of times I really wished I had an intermediate gear have been few and far between. I have wished I had a lower gear a couple of times though. I'm old and fat, and I put out more power at high cadence.


I feel like the number of people that really need a 50/11 is considerably smaller than the people that could use a crank with 46/30 chainrings. I think we have already seen a major shift away from road to all-road bikes, and 46/30 might actually be too high for that application most of the time.

[BikeNY]

Forgot to add, I sent an email to Wolftooth pleading with them to make something to fill this void. Not holding my breathe though...

[Rada]

Also, someone mentioned a triple being required for touring, I disagree with this. For touring, you need a lower gear range, not a wider gear range. When I'm on tour, I'm usually coasting down the hills and recovering, not trying to push a 50x11 gear!

You are right that lower range gearing is desired for loaded touring. That is why a mountain triple is usually preferred instead of a road triple.

[Billybob62]

Add me as anopther convert to 46-30. I'm a little retro grouchy so don't mind the IRD subcompact with good old square tapered bottom bracket. On the topic of low gearing, I just read that Chris Froome had a low gear of 34-32 on his bike when he spun up the Zoncolon this week. If he can get through a Giro stage with a 50-11 high gear, 46-11 is plenty for me......

[ptourkin]

One of them has gone 12s 10-51 with no front derailleur in the XTR group.

Edit: early reports were wrong. There is a FD https://bikerumor.com/2018/05/25/2019-shimano-xtr-m9100-unveiled-this-changes-everything/

http://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/exclusive-shimano-xtr-gets-12-speed-for-1x-single-chainring-with-two-cassette-options-and-more-good-for-gravel/

[Mark McM]

For grins last night, I laid the NDS of a Sugino AT against the NDS of an old Shimano XT (which has a 94/58 BCD, and has 44-32-22) and the difference in the crank arm offset and therefore Q factor is so dramatic - it just doesn't feel like a good option for a road bike.

I just recently installed a Suntour XC-Pro Microdrive crank on one of my road bikes (94mm/56mm BCD) fitted with only the middle and outer chainrings to use as a double. These cranks were originally designed for a 115mm square taper spindle, and I fitted them to a 103mm spindle. This provided a decent chainline for a road double with a reasonably low Q factor.

I have 44/29 chainrings mounted, and matched with an 11/12/13/14/15/17/19/21/23/26/29 cassette, gives a very low 1:1 low gear, a reasonable 4:1 high gear, and acceptably tight jumps between gear ratios.

[oldmill]

I just switched from a 50-34 to a 48-32 Praxis. Very nice, but I wish I had gone with the 46-30 from Fsa, because the low gear still isn’t low enough for gravel hills. I’m now wondering if I should bite the bullet and switch, or just change the cassette to an 11-34 or 11-36 (from the current 11-32). That would probably entail switching the derailleur too, from Dura Ace, so it may be a wash cost-wise. Not sure what the best option is, if anyone has any thoughts.

[oldpotatoe]

I just switched from a 50-34 to a 48-32 Praxis. Very nice, but I wish I had gone with the 46-30 from Fsa, because the low gear still isn’t low enough for gravel hills. I’m now wondering if I should bite the bullet and switch, or just change the cassette to an 11-34 or 11-36 (from the current 11-32). That would probably entail switching the derailleur too, from Dura Ace, so it may be a wash cost-wise. Not sure what the best option is, if anyone has any thoughts.

Find a low cost triple(like 130/74mm bcd), put 46 on middle position, 30t on small. Recognize you can as small as 38/26(maybe 24?).

[R3awak3n]

I just switched from a 50-34 to a 48-32 Praxis. Very nice, but I wish I had gone with the 46-30 from Fsa, because the low gear still isn’t low enough for gravel hills. I’m now wondering if I should bite the bullet and switch, or just change the cassette to an 11-34 or 11-36 (from the current 11-32). That would probably entail switching the derailleur too, from Dura Ace, so it may be a wash cost-wise. Not sure what the best option is, if anyone has any thoughts.

What kind of gravel hills are you doing in ny-nj that require even lower gearing? I am not in super shape and have same setup as you and it seemed very sufficient for d2r2 which is probably the steepest dirt I have been on in the area

[dem]

I just switched from a 50-34 to a 48-32 Praxis. Very nice, but I wish I had gone with the 46-30 from Fsa, because the low gear still isn’t low enough for gravel hills. I’m now wondering if I should bite the bullet and switch, or just change the cassette to an 11-34 or 11-36 (from the current 11-32). That would probably entail switching the derailleur too, from Dura Ace, so it may be a wash cost-wise. Not sure what the best option is, if anyone has any thoughts.

32 to 30 front is hardly worth it.. I'd bite the bullet and go with the ultegra midcage (GS), wolftooth roadlink and an 11-36 (many people have done the 11-40 in this combo as well.)

I know of no one who says they have too low of gearing, unless they're just self-justifying. Those unlucky times you find a bulldozer fire road that hits 30-40%, it's either ride or walk.. and I always prefer ride. :)

[Jaybee]

I just switched from a 50-34 to a 48-32 Praxis. Very nice, but I wish I had gone with the 46-30 from Fsa, because the low gear still isn’t low enough for gravel hills. I’m now wondering if I should bite the bullet and switch, or just change the cassette to an 11-34 or 11-36 (from the current 11-32). That would probably entail switching the derailleur too, from Dura Ace, so it may be a wash cost-wise. Not sure what the best option is, if anyone has any thoughts.

I'd go 11-36 plus the Wolftooth RD extender. Keep your DuraAce.

[PNW]

the gearing on my zanc is literlly perfect for me. 46/30 front, 11-32 back.

i've used both the high/high and the low/low plenty, and am able to use the entire gear range without wanting anything higher or lower.

now i love the WI crankset, but if i could have a matchy-matchy crankset with the rest of the group - that would be sweet!

https://instagram.fewr1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/vp/40db747eaed16956e9ecf1cecc2613ac/5B67D088/t51.2885-15/e35/31123378_1632052206913424_5491463472912793600_n.jp g


Sexy...

[Ralph]

I don't understand why some people say a triple is a "pain". You do need correct parts.

You may or may not wish to use one.....but I have one on one of my bikes....and it sets up and shifts about like any other bike. it's not more finiky or anything like that. Simple to adjust and keep adjusted....just like a double......if you know how. The front triple does add some weight....maybe 80-100 grams....but so does those huge rear cassette cogs on some of the new double set ups.....a wash to me.

I would argue a triple shifts better in front than a double since the chainrings have less tooth gap between them....if the rings are matched to be used together. (and my Campy ones are)

I can see the industry moving away from FD's of any kind. Maybe cheaper and less to figure out how to shift with the new electronics and hydraulics. But to me it is not progress. Just marketing.

[oldmill]

What kind of gravel hills are you doing in ny-nj that require even lower gearing? I am not in super shape and have same setup as you and it seemed very sufficient for d2r2 which is probably the steepest dirt I have been on in the area

“Require” would definitely be too strong. More like want It’s a pretty good setup, and I may end up sticking with it. But there are still plenty of roads on either side of the Delaware River (gravel and otherwise) that leave me thinking it would be nice to have one more lower gear. If you’re familiar with area, I’m thinking here of hills like Uhlerstown Rd and Federal Twist, to name a few.

[R3awak3n]

“Require” would definitely be too strong. More like want It’s a pretty good setup, and I may end up sticking with it. But there are still plenty of roads on either side of the Delaware River (gravel and otherwise) that leave me thinking it would be nice to have one more lower gear. If you’re familiar with area, I’m thinking here of hills like Uhlerstown Rd and Federal Twist, to name a few.

not familiar and I get what you are saying. Not necessary but would be nice. I have definitely gone up some hills where I wish I would have something easier. Also if bike is loaded the even easier gears are definitely welcome.

Another crankset you could look at is the easton EC90 SL. Their new rings are 47/32 and 46/30

[oldmill]

Yes R3 - I have noticed that Easton crank, and it has indeed inspired a bout of feverish credit-card suppression. I’m going to give this one a little more time. If you see me hitchhiking or passed out along the 115km D2R2 Route, you’ll know I made the wriong choice. Break glass, contact Easton in that case. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Hindmost]

Find a low cost triple(like 130/74mm bcd), put 46 on middle position, 30t on small. Recognize you can as small as 38/26(maybe 24?).

I did this in the superior Italian 135/74mm bcd. Currently running a 42 in the middle and a 28 small on an on/off road bike. Works amazingly well.

[R3awak3n]

Yes R3 - I have noticed that Easton crank, and it has indeed inspired a bout of feverish credit-card suppression. I’m going to give this one a little more time. If you see me hitchhiking or passed out along the 115km D2R2 Route, you’ll know I made the wriong choice. Break glass, contact Easton in that case. Thanks for the suggestion.


:hello:

[Marc40a]

I’m running 46-34 in the front and a SRAM 11-36 in the back.

For the riding that I want to do more of, this sounds close to ideal to me. If a mid cage derailleur could handle a 40t cassette, even better

[NHAero]

What is the chainline you get, between the two remaining rings?

yes, i'm running a few bikes with modified campy triples to run my preferred 46/30 - but this is not exactly an off the shelf modern solution....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-22dWnbb5ogg/Wmz82BBmWBI/AAAAAAAAC9s/l76DkNpujAc6jiJiR-WV70RwzCbv7EgTQCLcBGAs/s800/IMG_1980.JPG

[doomridesout]

Shimano is getting on board in the next three months, I can say no more in public.

[fried bake]

Shimano is getting on board in the next three months, I can say no more in public.



This makes me very happy. I shan’t repeat a word of it however.

[TheseGoTo11]

Those that ‘need’ lower than 1:1 gearing is a teeny, teeny, tiny segment. I wouldn’t expect even shimano to tool up for a crank like that. Actually pretty funny...so many harkened for a ‘compact’...now sounds like what would be perfect, is a ......triple.

I think the segment of riders that could benefit from gearing lower than 1:1 is larger than any of us bike nerds appreciate. There’s a ton of people who ride, and ride often, but don’t live and breathe the inside intricacies of componentry like us. They don’t document their dream gearing on forums like this, they just ride on what the bike shop sold them. So you don’t hear their opinions, which makes them easy to overlook. I did Ride the Rockies with my wife a few years ago, which was eye-opening. Half the participants were probably retirees, many of whom were riding nice bikes albeit over geared for their style of riding and ability. Even “compact” 50/34 rings are too much for a good chunk of riders out there. But, they’re still buying the bikes despite being poorly suited to them. Point is, unless there’s a critical mass rejecting what’s currently on offer, despite its inadequacies, what’s Shimano’s or SRAM’s incentive to offer a more suitable alternative (like a triple)? In terms of the entire population of bike buyers, I suspect the portion that is vocal about what they want in gearing and other components isn’t large enough to make the risk of additional product lines worth the reward.

[R3awak3n]

Sub-compact is the future for sure. Most people don’t need s 50 but could use a 32 or even a 30. I love my 48-32. I think that is about perfect. Just recently dis 45-34 and again, its actually really good for a round here. Rolling hills I can stay on the 46 all day long.

With cassettes getting bigger you can easily do 1:1 with a 34 small ring but I prefer having a smaller ring in the front and closer ratios in the back.

Can’t wait to see what shimano will have to offer. Makes sense they are the ones to do it. Sram is all invested in 1x and campy is more into racing stuff and I dont think pros will be going sub compact for a while

[Zee]

Sub-compact is the future for sure. Most people don’t need s 50 but could use a 32 or even a 30. I love my 48-32. I think that is about perfect. Just recently dis 45-34 and again, its actually really good for a round here. Rolling hills I can stay on the 46 all day long.

With cassettes getting bigger you can easily do 1:1 with a 34 small ring but I prefer having a smaller ring in the front and closer ratios in the back.

Can’t wait to see what shimano will have to offer. Makes sense they are the ones to do it. Sram is all invested in 1x and campy is more into racing stuff and I dont think pros will be going sub compact for a while

Shimano is getting on board in the next three months, I can say no more in public.

I like what you mentioned about SRAM being 1x and Campy being racer oriented, but I have to add Shimano is feeling more responsive to the industry and retail trends. If that is a good or bad thing, I do not know, but I think it is at least a sensible business decision.

A non-mountain rear derailleur with a clutch that supports a front mech and this sub compact crank rumor are nice additions to the market.

[AngryScientist]

. Sram is all invested in 1x

that's true, but sram is also very well set up to go sub compact in a heartbeat, as mentioned in another thread, since most of their road cranks use a detachable spider. all they need to do is rebrand some of their mtb subcompact bcd spiders for "gravel" and boom, they have sub compact compatibility for the road.

i'm happy and excited to see what will come out in the next few years in this space.

i just dont need or use a ring bigger than 48 pretty much ever.

[NHAero]

Nick, what is the chainline you get with that Campy Veloce set-up using the two inner rings? Thanks

[AngryScientist]

Nick, what is the chainline you get with that Campy Veloce set-up using the two inner rings? Thanks

that's a good question. i have no idea. i can try and measure it this weekend though.

this is the measurement we are talking about, correct?

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/images/stronglight-chainline-diagram.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

What is the chainline you get, between the two remaining rings?

Done this more than once. Campag triples were designed to easily use the middle ring for the entire cogset range w/o a weird chainline. Putting the big ring on the middle position results in a nice chainline since a line from the middle CR to the middle of the cogset results in a line parallel to the top tube..proper CL..

[oldpotatoe]

Sub-compact is the future for sure. Most people don’t need s 50 but could use a 32 or even a 30. I love my 48-32. I think that is about perfect. Just recently dis 45-34 and again, its actually really good for a round here. Rolling hills I can stay on the 46 all day long.

With cassettes getting bigger you can easily do 1:1 with a 34 small ring but I prefer having a smaller ring in the front and closer ratios in the back.

Can’t wait to see what shimano will have to offer. Makes sense they are the ones to do it. Sram is all invested in 1x and campy is more into racing stuff and I dont think pros will be going sub compact for a while

Not sure about that. With 'road' cogsets coming in the 32/34t(+) variety..having a wee small ring makes ratios that for some, just aren't useable..for road 'enthusiasts'...a 30t small and 34t big cog, type thing.

Bigger cogsets, and 12s is way cheaper than making a new crankset...I think very few would opt for a teeny small ring and giganto cogset, IMHO, unless loaded touring or that sort of thing.

I find it 'interesting' of this talk about subcompacts and in the same breath, many extol the virtues of road, 1by..curious..:)

[NHAero]

The answer perhaps is somewhat altered by the newer 11 speed large cog cassettes such as the Ultegra 11-34, that move the center of the cassette inward (correct?). What is the chainline of these cassettes? Is it a smaller number than 10s cassettes?


Done this more than once. Campag triples were designed to easily use the middle ring for the entire cogset range w/o a weird chainline. Putting the big ring on the middle position results in a nice chainline since a line from the middle CR to the middle of the cogset results in a line parallel to the top tube..proper CL..

[NHAero]

Yes, thanks

that's a good question. i have no idea. i can try and measure it this weekend though.

this is the measurement we are talking about, correct?

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/images/stronglight-chainline-diagram.jpg

[Mark McM]

Done this more than once. Campag triples were designed to easily use the middle ring for the entire cogset range w/o a weird chainline. Putting the big ring on the middle position results in a nice chainline since a line from the middle CR to the middle of the cogset results in a line parallel to the top tube..proper CL..

Also, since most Campagnolo triple cranks use square taper spindles, chainline can be adjusted by offsetting the BB and/or using a longer spindle. (This may affect Q factor, so the spindle length/offset may be a compromise between chainline and Q factor. And don't get me started about how current chainline standards are sub-optimum due being based on over-simplified assumptions.)

[oldpotatoe]

The answer perhaps is somewhat altered by the newer 11 speed large cog cassettes such as the Ultegra 11-34, that move the center of the cassette inward (correct?). What is the chainline of these cassettes? Is it a smaller number than 10s cassettes?

Don't think so..altho the RH flange of shimano 11s hubs is farther inboard, I doubt that moves the cogset inboard..just makes room for the 11th cog. Even if it did, it's only about 1.5mm

10s shimano center to flange vs 11s shimano ctr to flange.

[NHAero]

The question I'm asking is, on my collection of 8-9-10s wheels, all of which accept the 11-34 11s cassette, I think that the reason that cassette fits, and the road 11s cassettes don't, is because the largest cog is moved inboard, and the small cog sits in the same position as the 10s cassette. If that is true, then the chainline moves inward.

Does the image below verify what I'm describing? I can see that the shift in chainline is minimal, say, 1 mm.

Don't think so..altho the RH flange of shimano 11s hubs is farther inboard, I doubt that moves the cogset inboard..just makes room for the 11th cog. Even if it did, it's only about 1.5mm

10s shimano center to flange vs 11s shimano ctr to flange.

[Gummee]

You would think it would be ez to just look down at my Garmin but as I said during those times I dont chance it.

I have never raced but Thursday nights at 6pm on Fiesta Island in San Diego there could be a pack of 20-40 really strong guys, some ex pros, a rare pro or 2. Im just barely hang on for a few laps and 50x11 does not cut it for me, maybe if I could spin smoother at a higher rpm ?

Its fun to try and pass a tandem on a down hill.

.

One Fiesta Is ride, I was groveling at the back of the pack, tongue dragging on the front tire trying like a sonofagun to stay on the wheel ahead of me. I was hanging on for grim death. DID NOT want to get dropped right there

Managed to look down at my computer and the back of the pack, guttered out on the left side of the road, was doing 56-58kph.

M

[Mark McM]

The question I'm asking is, on my collection of 8-9-10s wheels, all of which accept the 11-34 11s cassette, I think that the reason that cassette fits, and the road 11s cassettes don't, is because the largest cog is moved inboard, and the small cog sits in the same position as the 10s cassette. If that is true, then the chainline moves inward.

I believe that is true. But Shimano specs. state that 11speed road bikes must use 11spd specific hubs, and that when used on a road bike, a spacer must be placed beneath the cassette (to restore chainline). While you can put an 11-34 11spd cassette on a 10spd road hub, it is not an officially endorsed Shimano system (and you're on your own with the chainline). In my experience, a few millimeters deviation in chainline has little consequence.

[Ed-B]

I believe that is true. But Shimano specs. state that 11speed road bikes must use 11spd specific hubs, and that when used on a road bike, a spacer must be placed beneath the cassette (to restore chainline). While you can put an 11-34 11spd cassette on a 10spd road hub, it is not an officially endorsed Shimano system (and you're on your own with the chainline). In my experience, a few millimeters deviation in chainline has little consequence.

I think Shimano is being pedantic with this stipulation. I don't know why they would make this cassette with the removable spacer to fit 10 speed hubs unless they thought people would buy them and use them in this configuration.

Well, the only other scenario that I can imagine is the intended use of the 11-34 cassette fitted to 135mm spaced rear 10 speed hubs on "gravel" bikes, and not a "road" bikes with 130 spaced rear ends. That would move the chainline further outward, certainly.

[Ed-B]

Not only this, but Sram has a whole group of clutch rear derailleurs that work with two ring setups and road oriented shifter ratios, not just those 1x versions that everyone recognizes.

It's possible to build a Sram clutched drivetrain in just about any configuration you'd want.


...sram is also very well set up to go sub compact in a heartbeat, as mentioned in another thread, since most of their road cranks use a detachable spider. all they need to do is rebrand some of their mtb subcompact bcd spiders for "gravel" and boom, they have sub compact compatibility for the road.

i'm happy and excited to see what will come out in the next few years in this space.

i just dont need or use a ring bigger than 48 pretty much ever.

[Gummee]

I just recently installed a Suntour XC-Pro Microdrive crank on one of my road bikes (94mm/56mm BCD) fitted with only the middle and outer chainrings to use as a double. These cranks were originally designed for a 115mm square taper spindle, and I fitted them to a 103mm spindle. This provided a decent chainline for a road double with a reasonably low Q factor.

I have 44/29 chainrings mounted, and matched with an 11/12/13/14/15/17/19/21/23/26/29 cassette, gives a very low 1:1 low gear, a reasonable 4:1 high gear, and acceptably tight jumps between gear ratios.

I still have a 'S' (not the flag) Specialized Microdrive crankset in my bin o fun if anyone's still running long cranks (175) and needs the lower gears. I know I have a new(!) 20t and possibly a useable 22t inner ring

I don't see myself needing these

M

[Gummee]

Not only this, but Sram has a whole group of clutch rear derailleurs that work with two ring setups and road oriented shifter ratios, not just those 1x versions that everyone recognizes.

It's possible to build a Sram clutched drivetrain in just about any configuration you'd want.

The new RX805 clutched road derailleur from Shimano is a good thing. I have a trio of them now. Haven't tried them with anything other than the hydro/mechanical levers

M

[Ed-B]

The new RX805 clutched road derailleur from Shimano is a good thing. I have a trio of them now. Haven't tried them with anything other than the hydro/mechanical levers

M

Yeah, definitely a good thing, albeit a little late. I put an RX800 clutch derailleur on my neighbors Cannondale Slate. I think the clutch was a little stiff, I may open it up and relax it a bit with the tension adjustment.

I'm hoping that they produce a clutch version for their other levels - especially R7000 105. I'd like to put one on a bike that I'm riding now.

Having different pull ratios for their mountain and road rear derailleurs has put Shimano at a disadvantage up till now. They have some really nice mtb clutch derailleurs that are not compatible with their road groups - unless you use a Tanpan or similar cable pull adapter. And di2 can use the mtb unit, but that's a whole different system there.

[Joxster]

Someone mentioned it earlier *due to the minimal requirement* or uptake why waste R&D to produce a product only 5% desires

[Ed-B]

Someone mentioned it earlier *due to the minimal requirement* or uptake why waste R&D to produce a product only 5% desires

I don't think there's much R&D required for this stuff, it's all known and proven technology. For the most part, it's the cost of tooling, manufacturing, and the costs associated with marketing and distribution. And, personally, I'd bet that more than 5% of the market wants it. The growing part of the market certainly wants it.

[Spoker]

I have a MTB crank 42/28 and never bothered to hook up a front shifter.
Really don't miss the 42.

[oldpotatoe]

The question I'm asking is, on my collection of 8-9-10s wheels, all of which accept the 11-34 11s cassette, I think that the reason that cassette fits, and the road 11s cassettes don't, is because the largest cog is moved inboard, and the small cog sits in the same position as the 10s cassette. If that is true, then the chainline moves inward.

Does the image below verify what I'm describing? I can see that the shift in chainline is minimal, say, 1 mm.

Actually it fits because the biggest cog is dished to clear the spokes. But in any case, it's really small and a MM or so won't have any big impact on chainline.

[oldpotatoe]

I don't think there's much R&D required for this stuff, it's all known and proven technology. For the most part, it's the cost of tooling, manufacturing, and the costs associated with marketing and distribution. And, personally, I'd bet that more than 5% of the market wants it. The growing part of the market certainly wants it.

Subcompact? Really doubt it's anywhere close to 5% and regardless, unless the big boys who sell 'bikesouttaboxes' ask for it, it won't happen. The technology is certainly there but the $(yen?) to actually manufacture a subcompact crank..with a different BCD(4 arm?) is YUGE..

[PaMtbRider]

Specialized is already using Praxis 48-32 cranksets on some models. Shimano will have something similar by the end of the year.

[Ed-B]

Subcompact? Really doubt it's anywhere close to 5% and regardless, unless the big boys who sell 'bikesouttaboxes' ask for it, it won't happen. The technology is certainly there but the $(yen?) to actually manufacture a subcompact crank..with a different BCD(4 arm?) is YUGE..

It's already happening.

[oldpotatoe]

It's already happening.

Are there subcompact cranks 'out there', sure but how many by shimano or sram? Subcompact has been around for a long time, but we'll see if they become mainstream..doubt it, certainly not on the level of 'Compact. As a matter of fact, Mid-Compact(52/36) far out sells 'compact these days.

[Joxster]

And Sram want you to go 1X

[Ed-B]

Are there subcompact cranks 'out there', sure but how many by shimano or sram? Subcompact has been around for a long time, but we'll see if they become mainstream..doubt it, certainly not on the level of 'Compact. As a matter of fact, Mid-Compact(52/36) far out sells 'compact these days.

Perhaps 52/36 mid-compact cranks outsell 50/34 compact cranks in the performance road bike segment.

I do think sub-compact will become mainstream in the market segment where they fit - gravel and adventure bikes. They'll be competing with 1x drivetrains in that segment, not everyone wants a 1x drivetrain. I think there's more than a 5% market potential for sub-compacts, especially when you consider that road bikes sales are essentially flat and gravel/adventure bike sales are increasing. Many people don't want to deal with traffic today - we're even seeing that trend here on Paceline, one of the most road oriented forums on the net.

It will be interesting to see what Shimano does...They're a conservative company, and they're not always the first to get in on a trend, but when they go, they're in it to win it. They're not likely to give up the OEM sub-compact crank business without a competitive entry of their own.

[oldpotatoe]

Perhaps 52/36 mid-compact cranks outsell 50/34 compact cranks in the performance road bike segment.

I do think sub-compact will become mainstream in the market segment where they fit - gravel and adventure bikes. They'll be competing with 1x drivetrains in that segment, not everyone wants a 1x drivetrain. I think there's more than a 5% market potential for sub-compacts, especially when you consider that road bikes sales are essentially flat and gravel/adventure bike sales are increasing. Many people don't want to deal with traffic today - we're even seeing that trend here on Paceline, one of the most road oriented forums on the net.

It will be interesting to see what Shimano does...They're a conservative company, and they're not always the first to get in on a trend, but when they go, they're in it to win it. They're not likely to give up the OEM sub-compact crank business without a competitive entry of their own.

This horse is about dead BUT, yes, GRoad stuff is increasing but it's still a fraction of the overall 'bike' market. So..it's really a niche in a niche. You hear, anecdotally, on this forum about the numbers who ride dirt and also use Campagnolo and work on their own bikes..but these, I think, don't reflect the general bike market.

I don't have any problem with 'sub compact', I have been 'building' them with a triple using the middle ring position and small ring, for decades.

[Mark McM]

I don't have any problem with 'sub compact', I have been 'building' them with a triple using the middle ring position and small ring, for decades.

I've done this myself, and it can work well, but this solution is becoming less viable, due to changes in frame/BB/crank standards. Many modern frames can't use 3 piece cranks (separate arms and spindles), so a 2 piece crank (integrated spindle) crank must be used. With the advent of compact cranks and wide range cassettes, there are very few 2 piece triple chainring cranks. In addition, 2 piece cranks typically have no ability to adjust chainline and Q factor, like you can with 3 piece cranks.

MTB cranks can be fitted with "sub-compact" size chainrings, but these cranks have wider chainlines than road drivetrains, not to mention much wider Q factors. With the widening of rear axles (to make room for ever fatter tires and disc brakes), the chainlines and Q factors of MTB cranks are getting ever wider.

So, for gravel/all-road/adventure bikes, there exists a void to be filled for cranks with road-like chainlines and Q factors, and MTB-like chainring sizes.

When MTBs first came out, they had to make due with adapting existing drivetrain components to off-road use. When the MTB market got larger, MTB specific drivetrain components became available. If the gravel/all-road/adventure bike market increases, there will be enough demand for drivetrain componentry specific to these bikes. This has already started to happen, what with a few sub-compact cranks and clutch derailleurs that work with drop-bar shifters.

[NHAero]

I think there are other considerations as well. I've been trying various ways to get this lower gearing on a 20 year old Litespeed MTB converted to drop bars, with a top pull FD, and I want to convert to 11 speed hydro. Finding a FD that will work is confusing to me. With the 9s XT FD that came with the bike, I can barely set up the 2x10 so that the chain doesn't rub in gears I want to use. On my Anderson, I mocked up a Sugino AT triple with the middle and inner rings, and neither a 10s CX70 or an 11s Ultegra R8000 looks like it will work (and that's with a Phil Wood BB that gave reasonable triple chainline - it's 125mm R+5 - but the triple was set up with a 9s FD and barcons so not restricted to the indexed travel of the 11s RS685 brifter I have on there now.

Just sayin' it also gets harder as far as I can see when you're aiming for 11s. Mark mentioned using the Campy Ultrashift with many "clicks" of indexing, but once we add hydro brakes into the mix, what is the solution?

NOt trying to be argumentative here - both OP and Mark McM have given me a lot of valuable insight into this. I'm getting more likely to start with a new frame to achieve what I want, because I've spent some good $ trying to get both of these bikes set up with low gears and not with mega wide cassettes.

[Joxster]

Are there subcompact cranks 'out there', sure but how many by shimano or sram? Subcompact has been around for a long time, but we'll see if they become mainstream..doubt it, certainly not on the level of 'Compact. As a matter of fact, Mid-Compact(52/36) far out sells 'compact these days.

Baisically it's time for the Stronglight 49D to make a resurgance again.

[Ti Designs]

I don't get this thread. I must be getting young...

[dem]

As someone who runs crazy low gears, the most aggravating part of all of this is SRAM and Shimano *both actually make enough parts to let you use what you want* - but they choose not to.

Just let us mix-n-match appropriately, ugh.

[Gummee]

I don't get this thread. I must be getting young...

I don't like my 34t big cog for 99% of the riding I do. Today included.

I think a 30t is about the biggest thing I need. ...sometimes. Rarely

M

[Joxster]

I don't like my 34t big cog for 99% of the riding I do. Today included.

I think a 30t is about the biggest thing I need. ...sometimes. Rarely

M

I've only just moved up to a 25T

[saab2000]

I thought compact cranks and super low gears were for other people, until I didn't.

I did a few crazy hard 'adventure' rides in western Virginia a few years ago and while I survived in a 39x25 the first year, it was stupid. But the final year I did it I had a 34x32 and for the first time I felt it was a low enough gear for the hardest climbs, but on some slopes an even lower gear would have been OK. I have no idea of the gradient, but they were plenty steep, and on unpaved roads where standing wasn't really an option.

Even where I currently live there are a couple sections of road where I get into my lowest gear for a couple hundred meters at a time. It's nice to have.

Heck, even pros have been known to use a 34x32. Contador is one of them. If it's OK for Contador it's probably OK for anyone here.

A subcompact crank would be very welcome in some places, even for super fit riders. The pic below appears to be a Pinarello Team Sky bike.

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/shimano-low-gears-vuelta-630x420.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

I don't get this thread. I must be getting young...
I don't like my 34t big cog for 99% of the riding I do. Today included.
I think a 30t is about the biggest thing I need. ...sometimes. Rarely
I've only just moved up to a 25T

I almost never use my 26 or 27t cog..both bikes have a compact. 38 on one and 36 on the other. A gent I know just did L'Eroica in Italy, the big boy(160k?) with a 42/26..he said it was hard, next year using a VO compact but 34/26, says he'll be fine..

Yes, I know gearing is very personal BUT teeny small rings and giganto cogs in back..niche w/i a niche. If you need that, ways today to get it but all bikes 'on the floor' going to be subcompact, uber low gear GRoad bikes? Don think so..IMHO, of course.

[NHAero]

A big shout-out to Mark McM! I now have the Litespeed fitted with the Force 22 crankset, the North Shore Billet 104-64 spider, and Shimano 40-28 chainrings. Works great with the CX70 FD and a 6600 shifter. I just put a 6800 shifter on, and a R8000 RD, and an 11-40 11s cassette, and it's fussy but working. What I had hoped for, and indeed worked out, is that the chainline is such that the 40T ring centers on the 11s cassette, so that it works as a 1x with a bailout granny ring. It's also a nice tight Q factor. I'm going to try a 24T small ring, and swap the cassette to an 11-34, to get the same low gear, with a tighter spacing on the cassette, and better shifting. Low cost experiment!

[doomridesout]

What in the name of god are you doing with this bike?

A big shout-out to Mark McM! I now have the Litespeed fitted with the Force 22 crankset, the North Shore Billet 104-64 spider, and Shimano 40-28 chainrings. Works great with the CX70 FD and a 6600 shifter. I just put a 6800 shifter on, and a R8000 RD, and an 11-40 11s cassette, and it's fussy but working. What I had hoped for, and indeed worked out, is that the chainline is such that the 40T ring centers on the 11s cassette, so that it works as a 1x with a bailout granny ring. It's also a nice tight Q factor. I'm going to try a 24T small ring, and swap the cassette to an 11-34, to get the same low gear, with a tighter spacing on the cassette, and better shifting. Low cost experiment!

[NHAero]

You may well ask! Sort of a D2R2 monster cross from a 20 year old formerly high end Ti mountain bike. Drop bars, YBB rear end, 26x2.2 Conti Speed King tires, roll well on pavement but handle single track too. 2x11, and next step is to go hydro on the disc brakes. I'm not claiming it makes sense, but it's really fun to ride...



QUOTE=doomridesout;2510746]What in the name of god are you doing with this bike?[/QUOTE]

[unterhausen]

I now have the Litespeed fitted with the Force 22 crankset, the North Shore Billet 104-64 spider, and Shimano 40-28 chainrings. Works great with the CX70 FD and a 6600 shifter.
they don't seem to have any part numbers on their site, is that crank listed for use with that spider? I only see one spider that's 2x https://northshorebillet.com/collections/drivetrain-components/products/2-x10-104-bcd-spider-for-sram-x0-x9-cranks?variant=11504867137

[NHAero]

If you go to the thread I started about two minths ago that is titled Subcompact gearing. - 42-28 possible with T47 BB, Mark McM goes over this in detail. The Force22 cranks are carbon, so they need a 2x10 version of the spider that fits on an XO crankset. and I am using a GXP BB so the choice I made to get the right spider was XO and GXP. Bolts right up and gives a perfect road chainline.

they don't seem to have any part numbers on their site, is that crank listed for use with that spider? I only see one spider that's 2x https://northshorebillet.com/collections/drivetrain-components/products/2-x10-104-bcd-spider-for-sram-x0-x9-cranks?variant=11504867137

[unterhausen]

Okay, thanks. That thread is here: https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=232810

I had some vague recollection that some sram spiders weren't interchangeable, but maybe that was the carbon/aluminum issue, not road/mtb. I have an mtb crank on my gravel bike, but it's very heavy. I think the spider swap will be a lot better.

[owly]

Will be switching to a sub-sub? 2x 10sp compact on the gravel bike in the next couple of weeks, after being on 1x.

Easton EC90SL cinch crank.
Raceface 2x cinch spider (104/64bcd).
10/11sp Chinook rings: 40/26 (Chinook can go to 42t with 104bcd).
12-27 cassette.
Red front derailleur using a top-pull adaptor from Carbon Ti.
X0 short-cage clutched rear.

Worked out that I'll be centered around the 15t cog on the flats, so that will give one-tooth jumps, two-steps either side (cadence options).

[NHAero]

Looking forward to your change-out and what you learn. It looks to me that the Chinook rings above 40T are only outer rings of triples and may bolt to the outside of the spider, not the inside. I think for the SRAM cranks with North Shore Billet spider it needs to be a middle ring, but perhaps the outer rings can be used in that position.

Will be switching to a sub-sub? 2x 10sp compact on the gravel bike in the next couple of weeks, after being on 1x.

Easton EC90SL cinch crank.
Raceface 2x cinch spider (104/64bcd).
10/11sp Chinook rings: 40/26 (Chinook can go to 42t with 104bcd).
12-27 cassette.
Red front derailleur using a top-pull adaptor from Carbon Ti.
X0 short-cage clutched rear.

Worked out that I'll be centered around the 15t cog on the flats, so that will give one-tooth jumps, two-steps either side (cadence options).

[unterhausen]

do you think you could post a couple of pictures of your setup?

[NHAero]

Will do when I get home tonight.

do you think you could post a couple of pictures of your setup?

[cageybee]

I'm had been struggling for a while trying to find my Goldilocks gearing. Recently changed to a 48-32 Praxis with a 12-25 and couldn't be happier (the 16 cog is my sweet spot for 75% of my riding). It's not as drastic a change as would be a 46-30 or smaller, but the grades I ride here don't really warrant going there. I can now make it up the rare and relatively short 15-20% grade without splitting my quads, and have yet to top out. I do intend to install an 11-32 for Flanders sportive as I'll likely need those upper bailout gears for the longer steeper climbs.

[NHAero]

And if it helps, if that 11-32 is a Shimano 11s, you can swap in a 12T for the 11T - I've done that on my 11-34.

I'm had been struggling for a while trying to find my Goldilocks gearing. Recently changed to a 48-32 Praxis with a 12-25 and couldn't be happier (the 16 cog is my sweet spot for 75% of my riding). It's not as drastic a change as would be a 46-30 or smaller, but the grades I ride here don't really warrant going there. I can now make it up the rare and relatively short 15-20% grade without splitting my quads, and have yet to top out. I do intend to install an 11-32 for Flanders sportive as I'll likely need those upper bailout gears for the longer steeper climbs.

[Look585]

And if it helps, if that 11-32 is a Shimano 11s, you can swap in a 12T for the 11T - I've done that on my 11-34.

While this is technically possible, it would be of spurious value, given cog #2 is a 12t in the 11-32, resulting is this gearing:

12,12,13,14,16,18,20,22,25,28,32

:eek::eek::eek:

The 11-34 (and 11-40, if you can squeeze it in your system) works fabulously in this manner as cog #2 is a 13t.

[bfd]

While this is technically possible, it would be of spurious value, given cog #2 is a 12t in the 11-32, resulting is this gearing:

12,12,13,14,16,18,20,22,25,28,32

:eek::eek::eek:

The 11-34 (and 11-40, if you can squeeze it in your system) works fabulously in this manner as cog #2 is a 13t.

Are Shimano 11 loose cogs available? if so, then maybe you can replace the 11t first cog with a 12t first cog and then add a 15t cog to give:

12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-25-28-32

I believe this is the same gearing as the Campy Centaur 12-32 cassette.

Good Luck!

[NHAero]

You make an excellent point! Duh on my part.

While this is technically possible, it would be of spurious value, given cog #2 is a 12t in the 11-32, resulting is this gearing:

12,12,13,14,16,18,20,22,25,28,32

:eek::eek::eek:

The 11-34 (and 11-40, if you can squeeze it in your system) works fabulously in this manner as cog #2 is a 13t.

[NHAero]

SRAM Force22 carbon cranks, the ones with the removable spider. These came with the 110 BCD spider. I swapped with North Shore Billet 104/64 spider, and bought Shimano 40-28 XT chainrings (the outer had to be filed to fit on the spider, thanks Shimano). Wheels Mfg GXP BB.

do you think you could post a couple of pictures of your setup?

[Mark McM]

Looks spiffy! That looks like a "standard" road front derailleur - does it shift the smaller chainrings okay? Looks like you were fortunate that the frame used a clamp on derailleur, so you could mount it lower than usual.

[AngryScientist]

excellent! thanks for the follow-up with this, well done!

[unterhausen]

SRAM Force22 carbon cranks, the ones with the removable spider. These came with the 110 BCD spider. I swapped with North Shore Billet 104/64 spider, and bought Shimano 40-28 XT chainrings (the outer had to be filed to fit on the spider, thanks Shimano). Wheels Mfg GXP BB.That does look good. Thanks to you and especially to Mark McM, this is exactly the crank I have been looking for.


I have a Shimano CX70 fd on my gravel bike with a mountain 42-28 crank. It shifts fine.

[NHAero]

The front derailleur is a top pull CX70 10s. It looks as if it might shift an even smaller ring, so I have a 24T ring on order. If that works I'll put the 11-34 cassette on in place of the 11-40 to get tighter gear spacing. Then next move is to try the 11s front STI shifter to see if I can set it up with the CX70 and avoid chain rubbing.

Mark, this is a great hack, and the bike is coming together. Thanks for all of your terrific information and generosity in walking us through it.

Also, the crank has almost as low of a Q factor as can clear these stays.

Finally - the clamp on fd is key - I just couldn’t get this setup to shift on the anderson because of the braze-on tab even with the adapter that lowers the fd. It wants to be in-between.

Looks spiffy! That looks like a "standard" road front derailleur - does it shift the smaller chainrings okay? Looks like you were fortunate that the frame used a clamp on derailleur, so you could mount it lower than usual.