or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › 9-speed drive train upgrade - road bike
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

9-speed drive train upgrade - road bike - Page 2

post #31 of 42

Just my $.02

 

Over the past 4 seasons I've gone from 9-spd 12-25 with 39x53 standard to 10-spd 11-28 with compact 34x50. I liked the low gearing for early season, but didn't really need it once I'd gotten some miles under my belt, and felt like there wasn't enough high end. I recently installed some Praxis 36x52 chainrings, and an 11-25 cassette. Have yet to ride it, but figure the 36x25 is lower than my former 39x25 low, and the 52x11 should be plenty high enough for my needs.

 

Compact looked good on paper, but just didn't do it for me IRL, and standard 39x53 was just a little too tall with the max 27T (I think) rear I could run with 9-speed.

 

On 2nd thought, I think I had cobbled a 9-spd 11-23 together with a 9-spd 12-25 to create a 11-25, which worked pretty well with the 39x53. I went to compact after ACL surgery, thinking the lower gearing would cause less strain on the knee, but immediately missed the 53x11 high gear on descents.

The Roubaix I bought at the end of 2013 came with 10-speed, and it's only taken me two years to nail down my gearing options.:rolleyes 


Edited by MT Skull - 5/9/15 at 7:49am
post #32 of 42

Why do I get the feeling that biking is even more gear-nerdish than skiing?

post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 

Why do I get the feeling that biking is even more gear-nerdish than skiing?

Imagine if skis had hundreds of parts that all affect performance... and are all interchangeable/upgradeable? Cyclists have an excuse... 

post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

Imagine if skis had hundreds of parts that all affect performance... and are all interchangeable/upgradeable? Cyclists have an excuse... 

Clearly.

I just want to get a cheap chro-moly frame to put my alloy bike's components on. I feel a can of worms coming on.
post #35 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

Imagine if skis had hundreds of parts that all affect performance... and are all interchangeable/upgradeable? Cyclists have an excuse... 

Clearly.

I just want to get a cheap chro-moly frame to put my alloy bike's components on. I feel a can of worms coming on.

 

Well, one classic EpicSki response to post like this is, "Here, buy mine!" So here's hoping that works out for you. :)  Steel is real.

 

But yes, even assuming none of the old parts has wear issues, putting one bike's parts on another frame generally IS a can of worms unless they are from very similar time periods and were essentially similar bikes to start with. To use a refrain popular in my family when I was growing up, "There's always something." Meaning, essentially, Murphy's Law. For example, if you tried to put a MTB fork from 10 years ago on a current MTB frame (or vice-versa) you might very well run into a challenge with tapered vs. non-tapered head tubes and steerer tubes. If you have to replace a bunch of parts you sometimes find that getting a whole new bike is cheaper, just like if you were going to replace components on a car.

 

Even upgrading parts on the same frame can be a pain. I have an "older" (meaning 6 or 7 year old) MTB handlebar and stem. If I want to get a new bar OR stem, I'm more or less forced into getting BOTH, because the standard diameter for MTB bars has changed since then and there is precious little choice in parts compatible with the old-school specs.

 

It's probably a good lesson in perspective to keep in mind when folks come on here and ask why they shouldn't just put their 1995 bindings on their 2015 skis. "They're perfectly good bindings!"

post #36 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MT Skull View Post
 

Just my $.02

 

Over the past 4 seasons I've gone from 9-spd 12-25 with 39x53 standard to 10-spd 11-28 with compact 34x50. I liked the low gearing for early season, but didn't really need it once I'd gotten some miles under my belt, and felt like there wasn't enough high end. I recently installed some Praxis 36x52 chainrings, and an 11-25 cassette. Have yet to ride it, but figure the 36x25 is lower than my former 39x25 low, and the 52x11 should be plenty high enough for my needs.

 

Compact looked good on paper, but just didn't do it for me IRL, and standard 39x53 was just a little too tall with the max 27T (I think) rear I could run with 9-speed.

 

On 2nd thought, I think I had cobbled a 9-spd 11-23 together with a 9-spd 12-25 to create a 11-25, which worked pretty well with the 39x53. I went to compact after ACL surgery, thinking the lower gearing would cause less strain on the knee, but immediately missed the 53x11 high gear on descents.

The Roubaix I bought at the end of 2013 came with 10-speed, and it's only taken me two years to nail down my gearing options.:rolleyes 

 

Yeah, your post traces some of my thoughts about this pretty closely. I'm currently running a 52 - 39 on my triple (ignoring the granny) and 11-26 in back. The 39 x 26 is only a little bit too big  a gear for the steepest climbs. I'd probably be fine with a 39 x 28 or a 36 x 25. (I haven't calc'd the gear values here so don't nit pick - I'm approximating.) I think a 34 ring would be too small unless I start doing more "destination" rides with steeper / bigger hills than we have locally. I don't like cross-chaining habitually and prefer to stay off the biggest cogs when on the big ring and vice-versa. Feel like if I ran a 34 I would be end up in the small-small combinations too much, or else I'd end up treating the smaller ring essentially like a granny and spending all my time on the big ring.

 

The bigger issue I have is with the 52 chainring. I find that I just don't spend that much time on it except on the rare occasions when I'm in a big group ride. Typically I'm riding solo or with 2 - 3 friends. Seems like I would do well with something like a 50 - 36 and a slightly smaller cogset like you went to. I'm guessing the 50 - 11 combination would be adequate for me except in very rare downhill-with-a-tailwind instances. Thing is, if I go with, say, a 50-36, now all of a sudden I am not talking about buying a take-off crankset as-is anymore.

post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

Well, one classic EpicSki response to post like this is, "Here, buy mine!" So here's hoping that works out for you. :)  Steel is real.

 

But yes, even assuming none of the old parts has wear issues, putting one bike's parts on another frame generally IS a can of worms unless they are from very similar time periods and were essentially similar bikes to start with. To use a refrain popular in my family when I was growing up, "There's always something." Meaning, essentially, Murphy's Law. For example, if you tried to put a MTB fork from 10 years ago on a current MTB frame (or vice-versa) you might very well run into a challenge with tapered vs. non-tapered head tubes and steerer tubes. If you have to replace a bunch of parts you sometimes find that getting a whole new bike is cheaper, just like if you were going to replace components on a car.

 

Even upgrading parts on the same frame can be a pain. I have an "older" (meaning 6 or 7 year old) MTB handlebar and stem. If I want to get a new bar OR stem, I'm more or less forced into getting BOTH, because the standard diameter for MTB bars has changed since then and there is precious little choice in parts compatible with the old-school specs.

 

It's probably a good lesson in perspective to keep in mind when folks come on here and ask why they shouldn't just put their 1995 bindings on their 2015 skis. "They're perfectly good bindings!"


Yeah.  What sucks is that my gear-nerd knowledge about bikes and components dates from the mid-1970s (Campy was king; as were double-butted Reynolds 531 hand-braised lugged frames).  I bought a friend's alloy road bike a few years ago; it has nice components, but he's 6' 3" and I'm 5" 6".

post #38 of 42
Thread Starter 
^^^

Join the mid seventies club, buddy. That was part one of my biking life. Then there was a 20 year hiatus where I didn't ride. Now lots of things are different. Like ... you clamp the seatpost in the stand, not the seat tube.
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

^^^

Join the mid seventies club, buddy. That was part one of my biking life. Then there was a 20 year hiatus where I didn't ride. Now lots of things are different. Like ... you clamp the seatpost in the stand, not the seat tube.

I miss my PR-10 -- but it's true everything works better now. And is more complicated. The buddy who sold me the alloy bike just bought a Santa Cruz Bronson cc; I just get boggled hearing him talk about the shocks.
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 

 I bought a friend's alloy road bike a few years ago; it has nice components, but he's 6' 3" and I'm 5" 6".

errr... there is no way the same bike fit both of you. I'm gonna take a wild guess that it's not you.

post #41 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

errr... there is no way the same bike fit both of you. I'm gonna take a wild guess that it's not you.


Right.

post #42 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Yeah, your post traces some of my thoughts about this pretty closely. I'm currently running a 52 - 39 on my triple (ignoring the granny) and 11-26 in back. The 39 x 26 is only a little bit too big  a gear for the steepest climbs. I'd probably be fine with a 39 x 28 or a 36 x 25. (I haven't calc'd the gear values here so don't nit pick - I'm approximating.) I think a 34 ring would be too small unless I start doing more "destination" rides with steeper / bigger hills than we have locally. I don't like cross-chaining habitually and prefer to stay off the biggest cogs when on the big ring and vice-versa. Feel like if I ran a 34 I would be end up in the small-small combinations too much, or else I'd end up treating the smaller ring essentially like a granny and spending all my time on the big ring.

The bigger issue I have is with the 52 chainring. I find that I just don't spend that much time on it except on the rare occasions when I'm in a big group ride. Typically I'm riding solo or with 2 - 3 friends. Seems like I would do well with something like a 50 - 36 and a slightly smaller cogset like you went to. I'm guessing the 50 - 11 combination would be adequate for me except in very rare downhill-with-a-tailwind instances. Thing is, if I go with, say, a 50-36, now all of a sudden I am not talking about buying a take-off crankset as-is anymore.
No, but I would think there's a bunch of folks less than thrilled with compact (34-50), that would let those cranks go at a semi-reasonable price. Then you just need to buy the 36T ala carte.

Things were so much simpler back in the day; 42-52 was pretty much the standard, and I was young enough, and fit enough that I could get away with a close ratio in the back.

Now my road cassette looks more like my mountain cassette from 20 years ago, and I look more like the Michelin man in bike clothes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › 9-speed drive train upgrade - road bike