Best GROUP w/ TRIPLE crankset? ~ for my IF Indepdence!

[raygunner]

I'm looking for the best group w/ a triple crankset for my incoming Indy Fab Independence frameset.

I was thinking Dura-Ace 7803, whatcha think?

Any input?

[Marcusaurelius]

Well I've always been a partial to campagnolo especially anything with chorus 9 speed shifters but campagnolo does't offer much in triple anymore so I think shimano triple would be a good choice.

If it is a loaded touring bike, I would use the suggested mountain rear derailleur and sugino xd crankset. I changed my touring bike crank to 48/38/26 chainrings because I didn't need the lower 36 tooth middle ring.

[NRRider]

I was thinking Dura-Ace 7803, whatcha think?

I seem to recall lots of places were blowing out Dura Ace triple shifters a couple months ago. Check around--you should be able to get a good deal.

[raygunner]

What about a group w/ a compact crank?

Like Sram Red?

Any downsides on using a compact crank on a touring bike?

[palincss]

What about a group w/ a compact crank?

Like Sram Red?

Any downsides on using a compact crank on a touring bike?

A compact triple is the classic crank for a touring bike.

[MRB]

I was thinking Dura-Ace 7803, whatcha think?
Any input?
I don't remember all the details, but it seems like the Ultegra triples are better than the Dura Ace triples, because the chainring sizes are better thought out.
I have an older Triple Ultegra (6510) with 32-42-52 rings and it works great.
Those are the chainring sizes I would want if I was going new. Plus at least with the older ultegra, the brifters were double or triple compatible.

Hope this helps.

[palincss]

I'm looking for the best group w/ a triple crankset for my incoming Indy Fab Independence frameset.

I was thinking Dura-Ace 7803, whatcha think?

Any input?

What do you want of your gearing? What range do you need? What kind of shifters do you like?

Indy Fab claims the Independence is a loaded touring bike, and shows it decked out with a rear rack and a lowrider rack. If you actually do load this bike front and rear with 30-40 lb of gear and plan to go touring in hilly country, you won't need much of a high gear but you probably will need a much lower low gear (say something between 22-27") than Dura Ace usually provides.

If you're serious about touring, you'd be far better off with a 110/74 or MTB microdrive crank, a 9spd MTB rear derailleur -- tell you what, take a look at how a top-line loaded touring bike spec'd by an expert, Bruce Gordon, is equipped: http://bgcycles.com/rnr.html and take it from there.

[eddief]

http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=30&action=list&Category=181&brand=397&modelid=1099&type=T

[RPS]

If you're serious about touring, you'd be far better off with a 110/74 or MTB microdrive crank, a 9spd MTB rear derailleur -- tell you what, take a look at how a top-line loaded touring bike spec'd by an expert, Bruce Gordon, is equipped: http://bgcycles.com/rnr.html and take it from there.Cool info. The specs show 22/32/44 cranks with either 11-32 or 11-34 cassettes. That's really low -- below 20-inches -- for a road bike.

I can't imagine that low a gear even with a 40 or 50 pound load on a single bike. :)

BTW, with road triple and 11-28 cassette you can get fairly low gearing also.

[Bradford]

Depends what you are going to do with it. Mine is set up for loaded touring, but with enough flexibility for riding without panniers. I toured on it last year, but mostly I pull the Chariot, do errands, and use it for spring and fall rides.

My Independence has a mix of 9 speed Ultegra Triple crank, XT rear D, TA rings, and some flavor of Shimano bar ends, with the left one set to friction. Rings are 26, 40, 51. Cassette is a SRAM 13-32 (I think, either way it is the one with the big jump at the end, maybe even even 34).

Typical of most touring set ups, it started a mixed bag and I've swapped in a little of this and a little of that over the years.

[SoCalSteve]

I'm looking for the best group w/ a triple crankset for my incoming Indy Fab Independence frameset.

I was thinking Dura-Ace 7803, whatcha think?

Any input?

I own 4 x 7803 groups (Moots,Kirk, Serotta Ottrott & Serotta Hors Categorie). IMHO there is nothing better for all around versatility.

Listen, you get a perfectly amazing 53t/39t double with the added bonus of the bailout-granny 30t chainring...

What more could you ask for in a drivetrain?

Just askin'

Steve

[sg8357]

What about a group w/ a compact crank?

Like Sram Red?

Any downsides on using a compact crank on a touring bike?

Touring compact doubles are 46/28 with a 13-32 in back.
That is Campy territory, Shimano only likes its magic chainrings.
Campys pseudo friction front shifters handle odd ring and front
mechs much better than Shimano.

My touring group consists of Shimano mtb rear mech, Campy triple front,
Suntour power ratchet bar-cons, Sugino crankset. Clicky shifters are for racers. :)

[palincss]

Cool info. The specs show 22/32/44 cranks with either 11-32 or 11-34 cassettes. That's really low -- below 20-inches -- for a road bike.

I can't imagine that low a gear even with a 40 or 50 pound load on a single bike. :)

BTW, with road triple and 11-28 cassette you can get fairly low gearing also.

That may be low "for a road bike" but we aren't talking about a road bike here (where "road bike" is defined as a road racer intended to carry no load at all except the rider and what he can stuff into his pockets) but rather a loaded touring bike. As for not being able to imagine a low below 20", I found the 18 inch gear on my Rock 'n Road Tour to be very handy while climbing Massanutten Mountain with 50 lb of gear. Until you've tried it, it's hard to fully comprehend just how much a full load of gear weighs you down on steep hills. There's no overpowering a grade with your strength; trying to do is like pissing in the ocean.

Most "road triples" have a granny of 30T or more, so with that 11-28 cassette (and you'll find that 11 to be entirely without value when touring loaded) you will have a gear higher than 27". That may be satisfactory for you; for all I know, you could be the next Lance Armstrong. But there's a long history of bicycle touring, and historically most tourists have found 27" to be about the highest a granny should be, with 25" or lower being common.

The 110/74 triple was the classic touring crank long before it was adopted by MTB, in fact, long before anyone ever heard of a mountain bike. The 110/74 triple commonly came with a 24 or 26T granny. Back then, touring freewheels went to 28 or 32 on the largest sprocket.

Back to "road triples" for a moment: the big ring on these is a 52 or a 53. Coupled with an 11T sprocket you get a gear in the vicinity of 128 inches. That may be useful to you in a sprint, but you can be 100% sure you won't be doing any sprinting at all with a touring load. In fact, you will find a gear that high entirely useless. Gravity and coasting are going to give you all the speed and momentum you ever dreamed of (and then some) on downhills. You can be sure you won't be worrying about how to go faster, rather you'll feel as though you're riding a falling safe and your biggest concern will be how on earth will you get this beast stopped, so you don't end up like the climax of the song "Wolf Creek Pass".

[Ray]

Touring compact doubles are 46/28 with a 13-32 in back.
That is Campy territory, Shimano only likes its magic chainrings.
Campys pseudo friction front shifters handle odd ring and front
mechs much better than Shimano.

My touring group consists of Shimano mtb rear mech, Campy triple front,
Suntour power ratchet bar-cons, Sugino crankset. Clicky shifters are for racers. :)
The bottom line is that nobody makes or markets a dedicated group for loaded touring. For light touring, supported tours and light-load credit card tours, a standard triple or compact double will probably do it, and stronger riders won't even need that. But loaded touring is too small a market for the manufacturers wasting their time assembling a dedicated group.

So, for best results, its mix and match time. I do the same thing as sg8357. My 'touring' bike has a Shimano mtb derailure with a 12-32 cassette, a Campy triple front derailure (because it seems to work better with compact rings), an old Ritchey 110/74 crank with 46-26-24 rings, and barcon shifters. I use Shimano indexed barcons because I'm running 9-speeds and I like the clicky shifters. But I've happily run friction barcons with 7 and 8 speed setups in the past. But the key is the FRONT shifter is all friction all the time. Which you really need for those non-standard front rings.

If you gotta have brifters, ergo works better than STI because its sort of a power ratchet itself with a lot of little steps. Shimano basically has three main stops with limited ability to trim. Works brilliantly with the prescribed rings but not so well with non-standard rings. The problem with using Campy brifters is that they're not compatible with Shimano mtb stuff, so if you use Campy hubs and cassettes, you're limited to a 29 tooth cog in back. More than enough if you're not carrying a load - might not be if you are. I guess you can use a shift-mate or something to match Campy brifters to Shimano mtb derailure and cassette, but I'm always suspicious of kludges. Just sticking with barcons seems like the best idea. Also because the rear shifter has a friction mode, so if you get in trouble in Lower Slobovia and have to stick an old 5-speed freewheel based wheel in the bike, you can still shift the damn thing. Not that this happens often, but it has been know to occur.

-Ray

[Ray]

There's no overpowering a grade with your strength; trying to do is like pissing in the ocean.
What's wrong with pissing in the ocean? Pissing in the ocean is good. It makes you feel MUCH better and the ocean doesn't mind in the least. Other than that I agree with everything in this post!

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

There's no overpowering a grade with your strength; trying to do is like pissing in the ocean.

Pissing in the ocean is damn easy, you probably don't even need a cycling coach to learn!

The true intened use of the bike hasn't really come up, so let's cover all bases.

If you're looking to be hip while riding from one cafe to the next, I would suggest a single speed with as many pink annodized parts as you can get.

If you're looking for a show bike, take a look at the pictures from NAHBS and pick out something you like.

If we're talking loaded touring bike, do not underestimate how low a gear you're going to need. This from a guy who's low gear on his road bike is a 44x21. On a road bike you can leverage your body weight on the pedals, either sitting or standing to get up hills. With a loaded bike that don't work. Another thing that doesn't work so well is pushing a loaded touring bike up a steep hill with cycling cleats...

[97CSI]

Am running a Centaur triple set-up and don't think you can go wrong with them. Ran Daytona before they changed the name to Centaur. Especially good with '08 and older Ergo levers.

[Volant]

I like the DA 7803 set-up with a 12-27 cassette. It really helps get me up some 25% grade (2 miles long at average 15%) at about the 60 mile mark in a local ride. It's slow going, but not painful.
I've never had any issues with DA.

[Ken Robb]

What's wrong with pissing in the ocean? Pissing in the ocean is good. It makes you feel MUCH better and the ocean doesn't mind in the least. Other than that I agree with everything in this post!

-Ray

It attracts sharks.

[raygunner]

Thanks for all the help!

As much as it's gonna be a loaded touring bike, it's also going to be my Costco bike. So you know it's gonna be loaded!

[Ken Robb]

Ray wrote:

So, for best results, its mix and match time. I do the same thing as sg8357. My 'touring' bike has a Shimano mtb derailure with a 12-32 cassette, a Campy triple front derailure (because it seems to work better with compact rings), an old Ritchey 110/74 crank with 46-26-24 rings, and barcon shifters. I use Shimano indexed barcons because I'm running 9-speeds and I like the clicky shifters. But I've happily run friction barcons with 7 and 8 speed setups in the past. But the key is the FRONT shifter is all friction all the time. Which you really need for those non-standard front rings.

If you gotta have brifters, ergo works better than STI because its sort of a power ratchet itself with a lot of little steps. Shimano basically has three main stops with limited ability to trim. Works brilliantly with the prescribed rings but not so well with non-standard rings. The problem with using Campy brifters is that they're not compatible with Shimano mtb stuff, so if you use Campy hubs and cassettes, you're limited to a 29 tooth cog in back. More than enough if you're not carrying a load - might not be if you are. I guess you can use a shift-mate or something to match Campy brifters to Shimano mtb derailure and cassette, but I'm always suspicious of kludges. Just sticking with barcons seems like the best idea. Also because the rear shifter has a friction mode, so if you get in trouble in Lower Slobovia and have to stick an old 5-speed freewheel based wheel in the bike, you can still shift the damn thing. Not that this happens often, but it has been know to occur.

Ken writes:

This is very true in my experience re: Campy vs. Shimano front shifting. With Campy you always have the equivalent of a Power Ratchet friction shifter for the front which means you always have to get the trim right when shifting to the middle ring but you can use any reasonable combo of rings and it works the same. With STI when you are using the regularly supplied Shimano rings of appx. 52-42-30 you can just bang shifts up and down without a thought of trimming but when I used 48-38-28 I had to fiddle back and forth with the stepped trim clicks to get things right in the middle ring.

I hate the prices and limitations of Campy drivetrain parts but I prefer Campy Ergo shifters with my non-standard triple cranks and rings so I'm thinking about trying a J-tek on my next build.

[palincss]

What's wrong with pissing in the ocean? Pissing in the ocean is good. It makes you feel MUCH better and the ocean doesn't mind in the least. Other than that I agree with everything in this post!

-Ray

Exactly. Your minute contribution is lost in the vastness -- just as your trying to overpower the massive inertia of a touring load is lost. Trying to muscle around a loaded touring bike feels a lot like pushing against a girder supporting an elevated train line: your muscles may get a nice isometric workout, but that girder isn't going anywhere.

[palincss]

Another thing that doesn't work so well is pushing a loaded touring bike up a steep hill with cycling cleats...

It's not quite as bad with SPD cleats as it is with "road" cleats. Also, when you stop for a widdle and a Moon Pie at a country store, you're much less likely to fall on your ass on the linoleum.

:)

[palincss]

Apropos of Campy vs Shimano, I have a Campagnolo Racing T front derailleur on my Velo Orange. The drivetrain otherwise is a fine example of "touring mix and match": Shimano XTR M900 110/74 triple, 24/36/46, 9spd Shimano Deore XT long-cage rear derailleur, Harris Cycles Century Special 9spd 13-30 cassette, Shimano bar end shifters.

That Campagnolo front derailleur is simply marvelous, the best shifting FD I've ever used on this sort of a drivetrain. I must be getting to be a bit of a bore on the iBOB list on the subject, because I can't get over the amazement that Campagnolo, which ordinarily has no interest whatever in gearing of this sort, should have produced a front derailleur that works so very, very well.

Since I'm using bar end shifters, front shifting is pure friction; any difference in cable pull compared to Shimano front derailleurs is meaningless.

And the Racing T front derailleur was cheap: something like $40 at the LBS. Cheap enough, in fact, that they looked it up two or three times because they couldn't believe it either.

[CNY rider]

It's not quite as bad with SPD cleats as it is with "road" cleats. Also, when you stop for a widdle and a Moon Pie at a country store, you're much less likely to fall on your ass on the linoleum.

:)

That is, however why I'd suggest eating the Moon Pie before........well, you know. ;)

[palincss]

That is, however why I'd suggest eating the Moon Pie before........well, you know. ;)

Hierarchy of Needs, my friend... :)

[Bradford]

Two more points.

1) Under no circumstances would I ever tour with STI. Too delicate, too hard to fix on the side of the road, and not flexible enough for the wide range I ride in (because there is no friction option). I did a 500 mile loaded tour with a friend using STI and he was working on it every day and could never get the shifting to work smoothly...and he was using a standard spread.

2) I never liked the mountain gearing that a lot of touring bikes have with a 46 big ring. I ride my touring bike around without a load a lot more than I ride it on tours, so I like to have the big ring for those rides. After years of experimentation, I like the 24/26--40--50/51 combinintation the best. I spend most of my time in the 40, then drop down for hills or shift up when I want to go fast. On tours, my 51 just comes along to enjoy the scenary.

[bzbvh5]

Am running a Centaur triple set-up and don't think you can go wrong with them. Ran Daytona before they changed the name to Centaur. Especially good with '08 and older Ergo levers.

Actually, the campy Comp triple that uses a Centaur bottom bracket. For that reason people consider it a Centaur triple. There is no Centaur triple crank set according to the web site. The actual crank set and matching front derailer and long cage rear derailer go by the name of Comp. I use this setup on my bike with the Centaur brakes and brifters and love everything about it. The only down side is that it doesn't come in a 172.5 crank arm length.

[Dave]

You don't have to use a Campy crank to have a Campy triple drivetrain. I used five different FSA cranks (53/39/28) with Campy triples over four seasons. I much prefer Campy's front shifting.

You can use the new 2009 Centaur shifters or even the new 11 speed shifters to create an 11 speed triple, with a small modification to the cable clamp bolt on a 10 speed RD.

[palincss]

You can use the new 2009 Centaur shifters or even the new 11 speed shifters to create an 11 speed triple, with a small modification to the cable clamp bolt on a 10 speed RD.

Perhaps -- but in the context of a loaded touring bike, why would you want to?

A close-range gearbox may be fine on an unloaded racer, but with a loaded touring bike a proliferation of tiny little 1-tooth jumps between gears simply doesn't buy you anything worth having. You could use a wider range, provided the extra gears were at the bottom end -- as I said earlier in this thread, super high gears with a touring load are simply a waste of time -- but of course Campagnolo 11 doesn't provide that. That's true of Shimano 10 as well, unless you go to those wide-range IRD cassettes... but let me draw your attention to something Ti Designs said last May:



The IRD 10-speed wide range cassette one all of their 2007 touring tandems never worked. I'm the only full time tandem sales person in a shop which is one of the top 10 tandem dealers in the world. At one point last year I had 4 tandems hanging in the basement of the shop waiting for a working solution - that's about $25,000 worth of non-shifting bikes and 8 pissed off customers. I could put a Shimano 12-27 on there and the things would shift great, but they wanted the gearing range. Last year I saw over a dozen broken 10-speed chains from our tandem customers - that's just the ones I heard about. I don't know of any 9-speed chains breaking. My trip to the bike show had two missions, to find out what Santana and Co-Motion were doing about the problem, and to talk to Shimano and find out if there's a good solution in the pipeline. The Shimano guys were all about the new coasting bikes, they could care less about tandems - it's all about market share. The tandem guys are just responding to market demands, people want 10-speed and they want wide range gearing on their tandems, and they want it all to work well. The tandem component market sucks to put it mildly. Last year Co-Motion help up delivery for a month 'cause they didn't have tandem cranks. Both Co-Motion and Santana use the same 10-speed wide range cassette, so they probably had IRD build them and never found out about the shifting problems until long after the specs were down on paper and the pre-season bikes had been shipped.
--
The IRD 10-speed wide range cassette one all of their 2007 touring tandems never worked. I'm the only full time tandem sales person in a shop which is one of the top 10 tandem dealers in the world. At one point last year I had 4 tandems hanging in the basement of the shop waiting for a working solution - that's about $25,000 worth of non-shifting bikes and 8 pissed off customers. I could put a Shimano 12-27 on there and the things would shift great, but they wanted the gearing range. Last year I saw over a dozen broken 10-speed chains from our tandem customers - that's just the ones I heard about. I don't know of any 9-speed chains breaking. My trip to the bike show had two missions, to find out what Santana and Co-Motion were doing about the problem, and to talk to Shimano and find out if there's a good solution in the pipeline. The Shimano guys were all about the new coasting bikes, they could care less about tandems - it's all about market share. The tandem guys are just responding to market demands, people want 10-speed and they want wide range gearing on their tandems, and they want it all to work well. The tandem component market sucks to put it mildly. Last year Co-Motion help up delivery for a month 'cause they didn't have tandem cranks. Both Co-Motion and Santana use the same 10-speed wide range cassette, so they probably had IRD build them and never found out about the shifting problems until long after the specs were down on paper and the pre-season bikes had been shipped.
-- http://serotta.com/forum/showthread.php?p=551773&highlight=IRD#post551773


I have no idea if these issues have been resolved.

[Bradford]

super high gears with a touring load are simply a waste of time
What do with the bike the rest of the time if you don't have high gears?

I may have bought my touring bike for touring, and I certainly use it for that, but it gets a lot more use riding around town without panniers. The reality is that you don't use the big ring for touring anyway, but you still use it for other rides. That is why I think the best combination is small ring in the mid 20s , a middle ring around 40, and a big ring around 50. You end up with a touring bike that you can actually use all the time.

[Pete Serotta]

GO WITH STEVE ON THIS....I HAVE ULTEGRA AND IT WORKS WONDEFULLY....Personally I like triple better than compact but that is just me...


I own 4 x 7803 groups (Moots,Kirk, Serotta Ottrott & Serotta Hors Categorie). IMHO there is nothing better for all around versatility.

Listen, you get a perfectly amazing 53t/39t double with the added bonus of the bailout-granny 30t chainring...

What more could you ask for in a drivetrain?

Just askin'

Steve

[palincss]

What do with the bike the rest of the time if you don't have high gears?

I may have bought my touring bike for touring, and I certainly use it for that, but it gets a lot more use riding around town without panniers. The reality is that you don't use the big ring for touring anyway, but you still use it for other rides. That is why I think the best combination is small ring in the mid 20s , a middle ring around 40, and a big ring around 50. You end up with a touring bike that you can actually use all the time.

As a general rule, on a single I need a high gear no higher than 96-100 inches. Anything higher than that is a waste of time for me. And that's for unloaded bikes.

[Bradford]

As a general rule, on a single I need a high gear no higher than 96-100 inches. Anything higher than that is a waste of time for me. And that's for unloaded bikes.
Really? Sure is a lot of fun to push a bike on a slight downhill using 100-110 gear inches. There are few things in life more amusing than trying to shift one more time and realizing you are already out of gears.

Riding a bike that tops out at 95 gear inches is like driving a golf cart with a govenor. Sure it is pratical, but where is the whoopie factor?

[palincss]

Really? Sure is a lot of fun to push a bike on a slight downhill using 100-110 gear inches. There are few things in life more amusing than trying to shift one more time and realizing you are already out of gears.

Riding a bike that tops out at 95 gear inches is like driving a golf cart with a govenor. Sure it is pratical, but where is the whoopie factor?

When you weigh 0.1 tons, I find you get all the whoopie factor going downhill you need by simply giving in to the embrace of gravity, with which I enjoy a Special Relationship.

Besides, I live and ride in rolling country. There aren't any really long hills to speak of, and I can easily get up to 34 mph spinning a 96" gear before the slope changes and I'm climbing again. But even back in 1972, when I lived in Monticello NY in the Catskill Mountains, I found the 104" gear that was the top gear on my P15 Paramount to be a waste. I changed the freewheel so that the top gear was a 54x15 (97") and it was a remarkable transformation, giving me a high gear I could actually use.

[Ray]

Really? Sure is a lot of fun to push a bike on a slight downhill using 100-110 gear inches. There are few things in life more amusing than trying to shift one more time and realizing you are already out of gears.

Riding a bike that tops out at 95 gear inches is like driving a golf cart with a govenor. Sure it is pratical, but where is the whoopie factor?
Different strokes. I'm with Steve. I have a high of 104 on one bike and 108 on another. With the 104 I can spin up to about 37 mph pretty easily, with the 108 just about 40 mph. Beyond that speed, I'm on a pretty good downhill and can make more speed by tucking and getting aero and letting gravity do the work. I've never gone faster than 50 mph on a bike and don't really feel the need to. But if I ever did, it wouldn't be because I was pedaling!

-Ray

[Ken Robb]

Really? Sure is a lot of fun to push a bike on a slight downhill using 100-110 gear inches. There are few things in life more amusing than trying to shift one more time and realizing you are already out of gears.

Riding a bike that tops out at 95 gear inches is like driving a golf cart with a govenor. Sure it is pratical, but where is the whoopie factor?

You just need some real hills to answer this need. :)

[palincss]

Different strokes. I'm with Steve. I have a high of 104 on one bike and 108 on another. With the 104 I can spin up to about 37 mph pretty easily, with the 108 just about 40 mph. Beyond that speed, I'm on a pretty good downhill and can make more speed by tucking and getting aero and letting gravity do the work. I've never gone faster than 50 mph on a bike and don't really feel the need to. But if I ever did, it wouldn't be because I was pedaling!

-Ray

I've hit an indicated 65 mph on a tandem one time. 2 mile long straight downhill with no crossroads and no traffic, stoker screaming all the way. Top gear 54 x 12, and you can bet we weren't pedalling when we hit 65.

Probably came pretty close one other time, on a camping tour riding a loaded tandem coming down the hill from Harpers Ferry to the bridge on rt 340. We had no computer back then, but we rolled right up on some cars and had to pull out into the left lane to pass them and nobody ever obeys the speed limit there, so we must have been going well over 60. Top gear on that bike was a 52x14.

[Dave]

Perhaps -- but in the context of a loaded touring bike, why would you want to?

A close-range gearbox may be fine on an unloaded racer, but with a loaded touring bike a proliferation of tiny little 1-tooth jumps between gears simply doesn't buy you anything worth having. You could use a wider range, provided the extra gears were at the bottom end -- as I said earlier in this thread, super high gears with a touring load are simply a waste of time -- but of course Campagnolo 11 doesn't provide that. That's true of Shimano 10 as well, unless you go to those wide-range IRD cassettes... but let me draw your attention to something Ti Designs said last May:



I have no idea if these issues have been resolved.

I merely noted that it is possible for someone to create an 11 speed triple. Users can decide if such a setup offers them an advantage. The orginal post did not mention loaded touring as the exclusive use.

Campy 11 speed cassettes were made by adding one cog LARGER to all existing offerings, except the 11-25. They did not make any of the cassettes have tighter spacing than 10 speed. The 12-27 is the only cassette that might be desirable for someone who was using a 12-25 and wanted a little lower gearing.

If you want wide spacing with Campy, then you have to settle for an offbrand cassette or a 13-29 10 speed. Even the 13-29 has all 1-tooth jumps up to the 17T cog, then it goes 19-21-23-26-29.

[ericspin]

I own 4 x 7803 groups IMHO there is nothing better for all around versatility.

Listen, you get a perfectly amazing 53t/39t double with the added bonus of the bailout-granny 30t chainring...

What more could you ask for in a drivetrain?

Just askin'

Steve

Steve, once again we seem to be living in parallel universes.

I love the 7803 crank and it's looks grew on me quickly.

Mine is for sale..........attached to my IF Planet X which I have pretty much setup as an all-rounder and use bar end shifters.

Anyway, 7803 is hard to beat.

[BengeBoy]

I have a Dura Ace 7803 triple and I wouldn't recommend it for loaded touring.

As noted above, the smallest chainring up front is 30T. That is not small enough for loaded touring. I set my bike up originally with a Jtek shiftmate in back connected to an XTR mountain derailleur and a 9-speed cassette that went up all the way to 34T. That gave me a super-low low gear but never did shift well. I finally got rid of that set-up and put a standard DA rear derailleur and 10-speed cassette in rear. It's fantastic, now -- but IMHO is definitely *not* low enough for loaded touring.

In my experience a low gear of around 20 gear inches is necessary for loaded touring (though maybe I'm just a wimp).

For loaded touring I'd copy the drive-trains of one of the builders who regularly make loaded touring bikes -- Co-Motion, Rodriguez, Bruce Gordon. Some good ideas for drive-trains on their website you can just copy.

[dogdriver]

I've hit an indicated 65 mph on a tandem one time. 2 mile long straight downhill with no crossroads and no traffic, stoker screaming all the way.


This is why you never give the stoker a computer-- just let them look at the nosegunner's when the ride is over.

Ultegra triples work great. I spent 2 seasons rehabbing a knee with 6603, liked having the "normal" gearing with the bailout gear when necessary (I went with a triple 'cus the knee doc told me to ride as much as I wanted, but to avoid cranking on a too-high gear.). Ultegra is, me thinks, more durable than DA, a big consideration on a touring bike.

That said, you might want to think about a 9 speed mtb drivetrain setup, especially if the entire vehicle weight (bike, rider, stuff) is getting close to 300 pounds. One of my 29er mtb's has a 3x10 DA/XTR drivetrain (long story) and I've snapped a couple chains. 9 speed is stonger, and you want to minimize mechanicals on a real tour.

My $.02, Chris

[97CSI]

If you want to run a Campy triple you can get a 26t small ring from TA. I'm running a Centaur triple with a 50/38/26 chainring set on the front and 11-34t on the back with DA bar-end shifters and an XT RD.