's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Smaller gear rings in lieu of 53x39??(12 posts)

Smaller gear rings in lieu of 53x39??coonass
Oct 4, 2002 4:33 PM
I give!! Uncle!! What are your recommendations for smaller gear rings for Record 10 and Dura-ace? Where can I view other choices??
re: Smaller gear rings in lieu of 53x39??LC
Oct 4, 2002 5:08 PM
With 130 BCD you can go to a 38, but it is not worth it. 48 or 50 big ring can be found, but it won't help up the hills since you are already in the small ring. I have an old Shimano RSX crankset (110 BCD) with 36 / 46 that is sweet, but good luck in finding one. For Shimano you best bet is change to a mtb cassette and rear deraileur so you can still use your shifters. Campy your SOL
re: Smaller gear rings in lieu of 53x39??flying
Oct 4, 2002 6:12 PM
39x26 or 29 not small enough?
He wouldn't have asked if it was. nmzray61
Oct 4, 2002 7:29 PM
You would be surprised ( nm)flying
Oct 4, 2002 11:15 PM
Many still think 24 is as low a back as you can get on the road.
Clarification of ring sizescoonass
Oct 5, 2002 5:16 AM
I feel that the 53 is larger than I need for general riding....I don't race; but I think that a smaller large ring (50??) might be a better performer for cruising and I wasn't sure if I reduced the outer ring, would I have to reduce the inner ring.. (Previous threads on this subject have 'planted the seed') Not many hills here; mainly would like to keep the chain straight and still maintain the ability to mash some gears when the testosterone elevates......make any sense??
50/39 and 12-25 (even 13-29) in Campy 10? Try this out...nmSpunout
Oct 5, 2002 5:48 AM
Ritchey Crankspeter in NVA
Oct 5, 2002 9:29 AM
Don't know if they are available anymore...110 BCD. I have them on my road bike (39/52) and cross bike (34/48).
50/39 * 13-26Steve98501
Oct 5, 2002 12:38 PM
I also found I never needed and seldom used my 53*12, except on the occasional downhill. I built my last bike with a 50*13 as my highest gear, which still gets me over 30 mph at a reasonable cadence. Since I cannot sustain 30 mph for more than a short sprint, I just don't need any higher gearing. I also have a 13-28 cassette for the mountains that provides almost 3 gear-inches less than the 26. This is all with Campy gearing.

I just finished working on a used bike I bought for my daughter that was Shimano equiped. I changed the 52/42 chainrings for 50/38 and installed a 11-28 cassette that was laying around, but am looking for a 13-28 or 13-30 that should work OK for her.

When I consider that 53/39s are what pro cyclists use, I have to wonder why any recreational and fitness rider like myself would use that gearing.

Oh, and mis-matching chainrings is no problem. Shifting is clean and smooth once the adjustments are dialed in.
50/39 worksLC
Oct 5, 2002 1:43 PM
I use a 50/39 with a 11-23 for many races and it works great. I rarely have to use the small ring that way, and 50-11 it gives me slightly bigger gear than a 53-12. It it nice for spinning too. You will have to adjust the height of the front derailleur.
re: Smaller gear rings in lieu of 53x39??bigskulls
Oct 5, 2002 10:18 AM
I posted a similar question a while ago. The answer is....
Oct 5, 2002 5:59 PM
It looks like Peterwhite's site is down while he's relocating his shop, but I'll catch up w/him after he re-opens.......I believe that the 50 is what I'm looking for...the 39 is really ok on both bikes; I have a 27 on the DA (my 'hill' ride:)) and a 26 on the R10.....the hills here are only about 1/2 to 3/4 mile long, but will be about 400-600 ft climb...and when you don't have many hills to climb on a typical ride, these seem be challenging....Any other good ring sites for a 50cr for DA & R10 setups?
Thanks again!