Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Yep, I am with Ian. According to the review in the >latest endurance mag, a 50/11 front combo is the same >as a 53/12. >Taller actually if this is right.. <a rel=nofollow >target=_blank >href="http://www.wvcc.org.nz/trackgears.htm">http://www >.wvcc.org.nz/trackgears.htm</a> > >If Cippo is using a 53-11, what are we doing with one? >But a 50-11 I makes more sense when used with a lower >36 on the front. There are many people using them in >Wellington these days, and not just old slow guys. >Mark Renall and Jason Mcarty both use compact drive >and they climb pretty well! >Cheers >jeff > > >>>Does anyone have any direct experience of compact >>>cranks? I'm told that they are good for old fellas on >>>hills but am reluctant to shell out for something I >>>don't know much about apart from what I've read. All >>>opinions gratefully received. >> >>Robin, I don't have any specific experience of compact >>cranksets. However, rather than commenting on getting >>a lower gear by using a 36 or 34 chainring I would >>like to make an observation on the higher gears. >> >>On my timetrial bike I have a 53 tooth chainring, and >>mostly use the 15-17 cogs at about 100 rpm. That is >>between 93 and 82 inch gear. I would get similar gears >>on a 50 tooth chainring with 14-17 cogs. The point >>being that for most of us mortals road bikes are >>generally over-geared. I reckon I could happily ride >>with a 48 tooth outer chainring (11 tooth smallest >>cog), which should give ample capacity for a 34 tooth >>inner ring. >> >>Ian

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.