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

[muz]

Originally Posted by GregL

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.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by zzy

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]

Originally Posted by benb

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^


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]

Originally Posted by colker

^^^^^^^^^^^


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]

Originally Posted by 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

.

Originally Posted by muz

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]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[KarlC]

Originally Posted by 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. .

Originally Posted by muz

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]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

...
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]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by sg8357

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.

Originally Posted by sg8357

Threaded BB shells are making a comeback.

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

[dem]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

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.