53t / 39t an obsolete crankset ?

[cnighbor1]

Does anyone in this group still ride a 53t / 39t crankset?
Or is 52t / 36t and 50t /34t the correct crankset to ride
I ask because I have for sale 3 new the old 53t / 39t cranksets Campagnolo
and with no interest in them I assume 53t / 39t crankset is obsolete
thanks
Charles

[Gummee]

Gravel bikes are 34/50 till CX season then they drop to 34/44

Road bikes are all 39/53

Road cassettes are mostly 11/26 or 12/26 for the area outside DC where I live

YMMV

M

[BobO]

I have 53/39 on my TT bike.

[Keith A]

I'm still riding 53/39 and only have one compact crankset. Florida is ___________

[BobbyJones]

Still on 53/39 but the rear cassette has gotten bigger (11-32) on my daily rider-light tourer-gravel bike.

I have one DA9000 equipped bike with an extra set of compact rings, but they've never made it out of the packaging.

53/39 x 12-27 still my favorite setup.

[tuscanyswe]

I prefer a 52 but i still ride them large chainrings.. Id say its more common than compacts around here.

[Elefantino]

Haven't had a standard crankset since we left Florida.

[BobC]

It is all I have.

[Ralph]

I mostly ride a Campy Chorus 52/39 around here with 10 speed 13-26. (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26)

[FlashUNC]

Use a 53/39 on one bike here in the Bay Area. My climbing cadence is like Ullrich anyways so it works out.

[82Picchio]

52/53 - 39 is the 1980s compact. Back then 42+ small ring was "standard." I have bikes with 42 and 39-tooth small chainrings that I still ride in Oakland-Berkeley hills (1000' of climbing per 10 miles), at late-middle age of 57. My legs will grow more obsolete, but, as they do so, I'll resort to longer-caged rear derailleurs and even Wolf road link if I have to. My vintage Nuovo Record, Super Record, C-Record, and 9-speed Record cranks are too pretty to give up.

[Ken Robb]

Maybe your prices are too high?

[Bostic]

I can't imagine doing the Nifty Ten Fifty on a standard 53/39. Even with a 32t cog that would be pain going up Marin or Centennial and those are early in the ride.

[jtbadge]

Isn't it hard to sell stuff here with PSAs pushing all of the FS ads out of view?

[Clean39T]

Planning a return to 39/53 on my road-racer, but will be pushing my all-rounder to 32/48 or lower...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Clean39T]

Isn't it hard to sell stuff here with PSAs pushing all of the FS ads out of view?Zing!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[FlashUNC]

I can't imagine doing the Nifty Ten Fifty on a standard 53/39. Even with a 32t cog that would be pain going up Marin or Centennial and those are early in the ride.

Anyone who voluntarily climbs Marin should be immediately evaluated in a psych ward.

[weiwentg]

Does anyone in this group still ride a 53t / 39t crankset?
Or is 52t / 36t and 50t /34t the correct crankset to ride
I ask because I have for sale 3 new the old 53t / 39t cranksets Campagnolo
and with no interest in them I assume 53t / 39t crankset is obsolete
thanks
Charles

I'm on a 52/36 subcompact myself, paired to a 11-30 cassette. The thing is, we know (https://www.velonews.com/2019/05/bikes-and-tech/gear-issue-friction-differences-between-1x-and-2x-drivetrains_493185) that larger chainrings and larger cogs mean lower drivetrain friction. Most cassettes are being designed around 52/36 or 50/34 cranksets, so they start with 10 or 11t cogs. One knowledgeable commenter remarked about this (https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=236387&highlight=drivetrain+friction):

To amplify MarkMCM and Jason from Ceramicspeed's point.. the 10t and even 11t cog are currently some of the biggest efficiency sins remaining in pro cycling, yet exist due to the ongoing obsession with weight as larger cogs require larger chainrings and more chain.

So, I dunno. Maybe 53/39 should make a comeback at some point, and maybe it will. I'm pretty sure a lot of road cyclists could live with a 53/39 crankset and a 12/32 or 12/34 cassette. Problem is, no stock 12/32 11s or 12s cassettes appear to exist. Shimano have no (https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/product/component/ultegra-r8000/CS-R8000.html) 11s R8000 cassettes starting with 12t cogs, although they do have a junior gears 14t cassette. They seem to have had (https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/product/component/ultegra-6800/CS-6800.html) a 6800 12-25 cassette, but that doesn't give you the low gears. Campy appear to have (https://www.campagnolo.com/US/en/Components/campagnolo_11_sprockets_old) a mid-range 11s 12-27 cassette.

[prototoast]

"obsolete" might be slightly strong a word, but I would never buy a 53/39, and wouldn't recommend one for anyone either (at least for Bay Area cycling terrain--Florida might be a different story). The market for 53/39 is definitely weaker than it was 10 years ago, and I'd expect them to go for at least a 30% discount to compact cranks.

[Ronsonic]

I'm on the Gulf Coast of Florida and it's 53-39 on the road bike.

I will use the small ring into the wind.

46-36 on the gravel/whatever bike.

[bfd]

Problem is, no stock 12/32 11s or 12s cassettes appear to exist.

Huh?! Campy has 12-32 11 speed Centaur cassettes for like $55!

https://www.probikekit.com/bicycle-cassettes-sprockets/campagnolo-centaur-11-speed-cassette-silver/11479821.html

Miche also sells an 11 speed 12-32 and 12-30 cassette for both Campy and Shimano, if you can find them in stock.

Good Luck!

[jamesdak]

Isn't it hard to sell stuff here with PSAs pushing all of the FS ads out of view?

Right! So I should do a PSA pointing out the sale of his chainrings so everyone sees them and they sell. Then I can remove the PSA and all's good, right?:p

[jamesdak]

I think I still have more 53/39 and 53/42's than anything on my 25 or so bikes. Unless the bikes main purpose is long mountain climbs I still prefer the 53/39. I didn't realize this was no longer the preferred setup.

Heck, riding the Argal fast this weekend with it's 50/34 11-34 setup left me wanting my normal 53/39 chainrings. I was spending too much time in the bottom 3 gears.

[jtbadge]

Right! So I should do a PSA pointing out the sale of his chainrings so everyone sees them and they sell. Then I can remove the PSA and all's good, right?:p

Seriously, though - he alone has started almost 200 threads in the Classifieds since posting his cranks for sale.

[parris]

I've gone to 38/48 with an few different cassettes ranging from 12-27 through 11-32.on one of my bikes. I had the 130 chainrings already and wanted to give it a go. The combo shifts great and works very well for a good amount of my riding.

I REALLY like the 48 up front with most cassette ratios that are commom today.

[weiwentg]

Huh?! Campy has 12-32 11 speed Centaur cassettes for like $55!

https://www.probikekit.com/bicycle-cassettes-sprockets/campagnolo-centaur-11-speed-cassette-silver/11479821.html

Miche also sells an 11 speed 12-32 and 12-30 cassette for both Campy and Shimano, if you can find them in stock.

Good Luck!

Thank you for pointing that out! Looks like I was misinformed.

[jamesdak]

Seriously, though - he alone has started almost 200 threads in the Classifieds since posting his cranks for sale.


LOL, but I LOVE the PSA's! :banana::banana::banana:

[Matthew]

I only have 53/39 on my road bikes. If they are so obsolete they should be cheap when I need a few. Anyone got any new or like new 7900 B type 53/39's? My cassettes are 12-25 too. Are those odd now as well?

[JeffWarner]

I only have 53/39 on my road bikes. If they are so obsolete they should be cheap when I need a few. Anyone got any new or like new 7900 B type 53/39's? My cassettes are 12-25 too. Are those odd now as well?


53-39 crank and a 12-25 cassette is what I’ve been riding since I started in the late 90’s.

Too set in my ways ...and not subjected to long climbs .... to change. I’ve looked at compacts or mid -compacts the last few times I needed a new group set and didn’t like the wide spacing of the cogs or the jump between the big and small ring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mt2u77]

I went to a 52/36 and I'm pretty happy with it. That said, it's borderline and I would go no smaller on a road bike. I'm using the 52 almost all the time except for climbs (mostly short, punchy climbs in my area). I'm cheap, so I like to wear out the inexpensive inner rings when I'm just putting in miles. It's hard to do that without excessive cross-chaining with a compact.

[fiamme red]

I do long, hilly rides on my Merckx with 53/39 crankset and a 13-26 cassette. It's all right. But if I were building up a bike from a frame, and I wanted a double chainring, a 48/38 would probably be my first choice.

[AngryScientist]

Depends on riding style and terrain obviously; but I think many cyclists; especially those who climb have embraced the new lower gear options available today.

I did however hear that some of the pros were pushing 60t rings for the TTT in this year’s tdf though; so it’s all about tuning your chainrings to the specific task.


In general I think more cyclists than ever are recreational and not racing. For a better rounded bike lower gears are usually better suited to varied terrain.

[Matthew]

I'm with you Jeff. Been riding the same for years. No need to change here in with the terrain in my area. I'm 52 now and could see me needing a little more compact down the road but honestly I can climb all the hills here in my big ring. If I lived in northern Michigan I'd likely feel differently. Steeper climbs there.

[BRad704]

I did however hear that some of the pros were pushing 60t rings for the TTT in this year’s tdf though; so it’s all about tuning your chainrings to the specific task.





In general I think more cyclists than ever are recreational and not racing. For a better rounded bike lower gears are usually better suited to varied terrain.


GThomas was using a 58t, I only know that because of GCN.

I have 53/39:11-30 on my road race and TT (11-28) bikes. CX gets a 50/34:11-28 because it's a hand me down group.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HenryA]

I only have 53/39 on my road bikes. If they are so obsolete they should be cheap when I need a few. Anyone got any new or like new 7900 B type 53/39's? My cassettes are 12-25 too. Are those odd now as well?

I may be in serious trouble. At the end of winter I replaced my old parts with new. 53/39 and 12/25, just like before.

Did I do something horribly wrong?





:help:

[cyan]

Planning a return to 39/53 on my road-racer, but will be pushing my all-rounder to 32/48 or lower...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I've gone to 38/48 with an few different cassettes ranging from 12-27 through 11-32.on one of my bikes. I had the 130 chainrings already and wanted to give it a go. The combo shifts great and works very well for a good amount of my riding.

I REALLY like the 48 up front with most cassette ratios that are commom today.

I do long, hilly rides on my Merckx with 53/39 crankset and a 13-26 cassette. It's all right. But if I were building up a bike from a frame, and I wanted a double chainring, a 48/38 would probably be my first choice.

Why 48 for the big chainring? Is it for flat or hills? If flat, don't most people want at least 52; if hills, most will likely spin out with 50 on the descent?

[HTupolev]

Why 48 for the big chainring? Is it for flat or hills? If flat, don't most people want at least 52; if hills, most will likely spin out with 50 on the descent?
52-tooth chainrings came to popularity in an era when typical freewheels had small cogs of around 14 teeth. Compared with a drivetrain using a modern cassette with an 11-tooth small cog, a 52-14 is comparable to a 41-11. Even the 52-13 top gear that Eddy Merckx won loads of races on is comparable to a 44-11. In that light, a 48-11 is actually a monster high top-end gear.

If you're on a road bike with 700x25 tires, and you have a 48-11 top-end gear, you're able to get over 30mph without your cadence rising above even 90rpm. Things don't get really spinny until you're approaching 40mph. The only reason that's not more than adequate for flat-ground riding is if you're an elite sprinter, or are in an elite race with a tailwind.

If hills, is it possible to spin out on the descent? Well, maybe. Does it matter?
If I'm on a solo ride, and I'm doing 40mph on a descent, tucking and coasting can be just as good of an option as putting out a huge amount of power to go slightly faster.
If I'm on a group ride, I don't have any choice but to do whatever speed the group is doing. But, if the group is doing over 40mph on a descent, there's an enormous amount of draft. Unless the person at the front is delivering a huge effort, I likely won't have to do much pedaling to keep up.

I sometimes take a vintage bike with a 52-14 top-end to spirited road rides attended by regional cat 3-ish racers. I don't always manage to keep up with the fast group, but even when I do, the top-end gearing only occasionally becomes an issue.
And a majority of people on road bikes are weaker than me and ride with weaker groups, where the speeds where it's necessary to keep pedaling are lower. I'd argue that most road bikes are sold with considerably higher top-end gearing than their users have much real use for.

Anyway, a smaller big ring can reduce the frequency with which you need to bail to the small ring, without requiring huge cogs on the cassette. So you can spend most of your time riding the drivetrain as if it's a 1x while still enjoying tight-spaced road gears, but you still have a nice small ring to bail to if you need it. One of the big complaints about 50-34 and 52-36 compacts is that many people feel like they're constantly "between" the two rings, and a smaller big ring can eliminate the problem.

[retrofit]

I ride a Campy Athena compact 34-50 on my "modern" bike and a Campy Super Record 42-50 on my my vintage bike.

My wife still rides a 39-53, though will eventually switch to a compact.

[parris]

HTUPOLEV stated one of my reason's for giving the 48 a go very well. I often times found that with52-53 that I just wasn't in the big ring much. There was also the "in between" gear deal with some chain ring combos. The other thing I like is that with just a 10 tooth jump the front shifts even smoother than the other combos that I've used.

[Ruimteaapje]

53/39 on all my bikes with 12/25, 13/26 and 13/29 depending on the terrain (Campagnolo 10sp)

[bigbill]

3 of my 5 road bikes have 53/39 with 12-27 cassettes. My BLE has a 50/34 and I don't like it, even with a 12-25. I don't feel like I have that many useful gears for the terrain around here. My lone Shimano bike has Ultegra 8000 with a 52/36 and an 11-28. I really like that combo, all kinds of useful gears around here. If I could change anything it would be to get rid of the 11 and add another midrange cog.

[Mzilliox]

this morning i drank coffee in my coffee cup, then i folded laundry

wait, what are we talking about here? i lost track

[Spaghetti Legs]

All but 2 of my bikes (so about 15-16) are 53-39 or 53-42. The compact crank
bikes come out for the really long days with hard climbing but the standard cranks are still used on 80-100 feet/mile days as long as I don’t need to go more than 40 or 50 miles.

That being said, if I was buying a new group set (not sure that I’ve ever done that) I’d buy compact.

[GregL]

When I became a road cycling enthusiast in the late 1980s, the 53/39 chainring combination was just starting to get popular. I dutifully followed the herd, using the 53/39 with a 12-21 cassette for flat races/TTs, 12-23 for most races, and 12-25 for hilly races. When Dura Ace 7700 introduced the 12-27 cassette, I loved it. When I built up my most recent road bikes, I went with the "mid-compact" 52/36 chainrings and the 12-28 cassette. I love the close ratio cassette with the 36/28 climbing gear! Couldn't imagine going back to 53/39 now.

Greg

[R3awak3n]

I just don't need the big gears so I have 46/34, 47/32 and 50/34. I do have to admit that there is nothing like pushing a 53/39, something about it I miss (until I have to climb)

[tctyres]

isn't it hard to sell stuff here with psas pushing all of the fs ads out of view?

boom! :)

[El Chaba]

Everything I own is 53/39, 53/42, or 52/42. It is flat to rolling here and these combinations more than cover the needed ratio ranges. The combination is far from obsolete for me. Increasingly, I am seeing riders at the local World Championships show up with things like a 50/34 and a 11-30 cassette and they spend a lot of time shifting about trying to find the right gear for a quick pack....22 gears and it isn't there. Take into consideration, though, that I'm a bit of a curmudgeon and use all manner of things that the marketing departments have announced as no longer working...tubulars...tires less than 25 mm wide....mechanical derailleurs...rim brakes...10 speed cassettes...

[fiamme red]

52-tooth chainrings came to popularity in an era when typical freewheels had small cogs of around 14 teeth. Compared with a drivetrain using a modern cassette with an 11-tooth small cog, a 52-14 is comparable to a 41-11. Even the 52-13 top gear that Eddy Merckx won loads of races on is comparable to a 44-11. In that light, a 48-11 is actually a monster high top-end gear.

If you're on a road bike with 700x25 tires, and you have a 48-11 top-end gear, you're able to get over 30mph without your cadence rising above even 90rpm. Things don't get really spinny until you're approaching 40mph. The only reason that's not more than adequate for flat-ground riding is if you're an elite sprinter, or are in an elite race with a tailwind.

If hills, is it possible to spin out on the descent? Well, maybe. Does it matter?
If I'm on a solo ride, and I'm doing 40mph on a descent, tucking and coasting can be just as good of an option as putting out a huge amount of power to go slightly faster.
If I'm on a group ride, I don't have any choice but to do whatever speed the group is doing. But, if the group is doing over 40mph on a descent, there's an enormous amount of draft. Unless the person at the front is delivering a huge effort, I likely won't have to do much pedaling to keep up.

I sometimes take a vintage bike with a 52-14 top-end to spirited road rides attended by regional cat 3-ish racers. I don't always manage to keep up with the fast group, but even when I do, the top-end gearing only occasionally becomes an issue.
And a majority of people on road bikes are weaker than me and ride with weaker groups, where the speeds where it's necessary to keep pedaling are lower. I'd argue that most road bikes are sold with considerably higher top-end gearing than their users have much real use for.

Anyway, a smaller big ring can reduce the frequency with which you need to bail to the small ring, without requiring huge cogs on the cassette. So you can spend most of your time riding the drivetrain as if it's a 1x while still enjoying tight-spaced road gears, but you still have a nice small ring to bail to if you need it. One of the big complaints about 50-34 and 52-36 compacts is that many people feel like they're constantly "between" the two rings, and a smaller big ring can eliminate the problem.Thanks, that was a great explanation.

But actually, I'd be happy with a 48x13 big gear (almost equivalent to a 52x14), since I'm a plodding tourist, not a racer.

[nachetetm]

Last week during a ride I found an old guy riding a 53-39. He was old school and coming from another region, so his gear wasn't adapted to the area. Here everyone is on compact cranks, just too hilly for anything else. 53-39 would be perfect... If there were still triples, so 53-39-30. That, with a 12 spd 11-29 cassette, ideal for me.

[chiasticon]

around here, basically the road racers have 53/39 and everyone else is on mid-compact or compact.

[fiamme red]

Last week during a ride I found an old guy riding a 53-39. He was old school and coming from another region, so his gear wasn't adapted to the area. Here everyone is on compact cranks, just too hilly for anything else. 53-39 would be perfect... If there were still triples, so 53-39-30. That, with a 12 spd 11-29 cassette, ideal for me.I ride mostly with a 52/42/30 triple. It works well for me. I'm in the 42t ring most of the time. I prefer it to a 39t for rolling terrain.

[berserk87]

I've ridden 53/39 on my road and TT bikes for 25 years. In the rear I've had 12-23, 13-23, 11-21, 11-23 and 11-25 and that's it.

Rings have gotten more diverse. I don't think that 53/39 is obsolete, but there are so many other options now. I think that so many crank choices have diluted the market for any one type. In addition to ring choice, you have to factor in crank length, and bottom bracket type, which really adds to the specificity factor when marketing your wares.

When I started, 53/39 was the standard. I can't recall folks thinking about other options. You just rode 53/39. That's what bikes off-the-shelf came with and what people chose for a build.

The older I get, the more I can appreciate the idea of a compact. I'm not ready to switch. We have varied terrain in my area: flat to the north and west and hilly to the south. I manage on the hills but I'm a larger dude than most, so I can't equate gearing specifically to my mediocrity at climbing...

[Mark McM]

The 53/39 combination has certainly lost a lot of its popularity (it's certainly less ubiquitous than it used to be). But maybe it will be resurrected again the future. Keep in mind that the 110mm BCD (today's 'Compact' cranks) was resurrected not once, but twice. It started out a 'Touring' crank in the early '80s, as a counterpoint to the 144mm BCD 'Racing' cranks of the day. The 110mm BCD began to lose favor when the 130/135mm BCD 'Racing' cranks appeared. The 110mm BCD was then resurrected as an 'MTB' crank about a decade or so later. It then went out of favor again when 94mm BCD 'Micro' cranks appeared in the early '90s. The 110mm BCD was resurrected again as a 'Compact' crank in the early '00s. The point here is that there are many factors in bicycle design and usage that drive the selection of chainring sizes.

What will it take for the 53/39 to be resurrected? If the market ever moves toward smaller wheels, we'll need bigger chainrings to compensate. Why would the market move to smaller wheels? Maybe if urban mobility drives the demand for more compact bikes that are easier to store & park in tight settings (or easier to fold up for storage).

[bigbill]

I've got a 55/44 somewhere in a box. I used it for TT with a 13-26 cassette. Wasn't really that awesome, my knees hurt to think about it.

[crankles]

Anyone who voluntarily climbs Marin should be immediately evaluated in a psych ward.

I've lived here 20 years and done Marin twice...which was two times too many.
The first time was when I 1st moved here and didn't know what I was in for...I just kept thinking...this can't go on like this...this can't go on like this...
The 2nd time was because...well...senility.

[berserk87]

I've got a 55/44 somewhere in a box. I used it for TT with a 13-26 cassette. Wasn't really that awesome, my knees hurt to think about it.

Yeah - supposedly the 55 allows you to run a straighter chainline in the middle of the cassette, which purportedly saves a few watts.

I've never ridden poorly at a TT and been able to blame it on the chain deflection. Like you, I can't see it. I've had several buddies try to get me to gear up to a 56 big ring. No thanks.

[82Picchio]

I can't imagine doing the Nifty Ten Fifty on a standard 53/39. Even with a 32t cog that would be pain going up Marin or Centennial and those are early in the ride.

Who said anything about doing Nifty Ten Fifty on a 53/39? That said, a friend did the Berkeley Hills Death ride on a 52/39 a few years ago. I was on something significantly smaller.

[Mark McM]

Huh?! Campy has 12-32 11 speed Centaur cassettes for like $55!

https://www.probikekit.com/bicycle-cassettes-sprockets/campagnolo-centaur-11-speed-cassette-silver/11479821.html

Miche also sells an 11 speed 12-32 and 12-30 cassette for both Campy and Shimano, if you can find them in stock.


The Centaur 12-32 cassette does exist, but it appears to be a bit funky. According to the Campagnolo Spare Parts Manual, the sprocket combination is:

12-13-14-15-16-17-19-22-25-28-32

That doesn't seem like a very useful sequence. I've seen this quite often - small (one tooth) sprocket differentials in the small end of the cassette, followed by much larger (3 or 4 tooth) differentials at the large end. Why do the do this? I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer a more uniform changes in gear size as I go up and down the cassette. Campagnolo's other cassettes have much more regular sprocket size differentials. For example, the 11spd 12-29 cassette is:

12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29

These two cassettes use the same 7 smaller sprockets, and then the 12-32 jumps to large tooth differentials, and the 12-29 stays with sensible differentials.

In contrast, the Miche and IRD have a more evenly distributed sprocket sequences for their 12-32 cassettes:

Miche: 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-26-29-32
IRD: 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28-32


I'll not be using the Campagnolo 12-32 cassettes, and will instead be using the Miche or IRD cassettes.

[CSKeller]

I have a 53/39 on my classic steel Gängl with a 12-29 cassette. It works great and looks right. :banana::banana::banana:

Yes, I live in Colorado and some say I'm 'old' (53) but it works great. In fact I rode that bike for a whole week of commuting....(21 miles one way, hilly rolling terrain East of the Springs). I love it!

btw, my other road bikes are compacts...for riding IN the mountains!

[Red Tornado]

Been running a 53/39 & 11-23 combo for years. Central Texas. Was no problem when I was fit. Nowadays I'm wishing for more than a 39-23 quite often. Probably next will be either 52/36 or maybe 50/34, possibly 12-25 or something close for the cassette. 52/36 or 50/34 are what most folk on newer bikes/drive trains are using now in my neck of the woods. I see lots of cross chaining with riders that use a 50/34.

Currently building a backup road/occasional gravel bike. It will most likely be 50/34 & already have an 12-27 cassette on the rear wheel.

[steelbikerider]

52/36 and a 12/25 gives you lots of gears with very little overlap and would be perfect for those low water crossings common in the area. Its tough to go over 45 with the shorter downhills in the area so a 52/12 is a nice top end.
I use a 52/38 and 12/28 when in the hill country but miss the 52/18 for solo on the flts.
I gave up on a 53 when I turned 54, Since I had more years on my body than teeth on my chainring, it didn't matter anymore.

[paredown]

I'm still riding two bikes with 53-39, Campy 10 with one 13-26; the other 13-29. I find these past couple of years--with health issues and lost fitness--that the lows are barely low enough.

My "new" setups are going to be Campy 50-40-30 triples with 12-26 rears--the bail-out small ring is getting necessary...

[Steve in SLO]

To OP Charles,
As you can see by the responses here, these size chainrings are not obsolete. Many of us still run them, including me. Might suggest that you check eBay completed items for sale prices and deduct 10–15% as a pricing starting point. This would net you the same amount here as on eBay.

[oldpotatoe]

Does anyone in this group still ride a 53t / 39t crankset?
Or is 52t / 36t and 50t /34t the correct crankset to ride
I ask because I have for sale 3 new the old 53t / 39t cranksets Campagnolo
and with no interest in them I assume 53t / 39t crankset is obsolete
thanks
Charles

LOTS of responses BUT..I have a 48/36 on my 11s bike and 50/38 on my 7s friction shifter/freewheel bike..really depends on the rider BUT a 53/11 is a giganto gear as is a 50/11...I think a 50/36 is quite useful and could be put on that 135mm BCD crank.

[parris]

OP if they decide to make a 36 that'll fit on a 135 bcd crank that would be a very cool thing and I'd order a couple of them.

[Mark McM]

LOTS of responses BUT..I have a 48/36 on my 11s bike and 50/38 on my 7s friction shifter/freewheel bike..really depends on the rider BUT a 53/11 is a giganto gear as is a 50/11...I think a 50/36 is quite useful and could be put on that 135mm BCD crank.

I'm not sure what you mean here. A 36 tooth chainring can not fit on a 135mm BCD (39 tooth is the minimum). The only way to fit a 36 tooth chainring on a crank with a 135mm BDD is in the inner position of a triple crank, because the inner BCD is only 74mm (which will fit down to a 24 tooth chainring).