|Going with the 12-32||rideslikeagirl|
May 13, 2002 2:11 PM
|Since the conversion to a triple was just turning out to be too costly (new cranks, bottom bracket, shifters, etc), I decided to try the 11-28. Hey, for $20, I'd try just about anything if it makes life easier.
But, Performance didn't have the 11-28, so my dear hubby went with the 12-32. Will still have the 53-39 in front.
Anyone else have this combo? Only concern is that I'll be missing some of the middle gears I would normally cruise in.
|re: Going with the 12-32||mwood|
May 13, 2002 2:51 PM
|Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm 100% sure someone will!), but I believe you will have to use a mtb-type rear der., which won't cost much: Shimano LX is like $30-35.
|re: Going with the 12-32||jason in nh|
May 14, 2002 4:02 AM
|ohh you are 100% right. you need a long cage rear mech, or you will keep busting your drop out.|
|Running a 12-30 8 speed here...||Ron B|
May 13, 2002 3:14 PM
|With a 53 x 39 front ring set.
For the most part I really like the combination. If you ride a lot in the flats you will probably miss some of the middle gears. If you ride rolling hills or do lots of climbing you won't miss them too much.
As mentioned above, I would recomend that you go with a mountain bike rear derailleur. I'm running an STX-RC rera deraliieur, but an LX would work just as well and not cost much money.
|re: Going with the 12-32||LC|
May 13, 2002 5:23 PM
|Flat rides are the only time when the wide spacing will be felt. When on flats use it for training your spinning or low cadence strength and you will be stronger for doing it, and may even be able to go back to your old cassette one day.|
May 13, 2002 9:42 PM
|I put this suggestion in your previous post after skipping past this one! Well duh is me. You *could* even go for a 12-34, that's just a little closer to the same benefit as a triple.|| |