Thread on compact crankset

Bicycle related chatter & discussion
User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 May 2007, 16:41

Standard topic per any decent cycling forum... :P

Does anyone use these? What's the pros and cons?

I am thinking about going the compact route and wondered if this is a wise choice. I understand the wider gear ratios available (1-2 less than my triple at the bottom end) than a standard crankset and would just add that bit of extra for those hills. And with a 11 cog, top end gearing won't suffer either if ever I reach that level. Without actually trying them out, it's just damned hard to know. As much as I hope I'll get stronger in the legs in the future, but age will always go against me over time and I still want to do RNP etc... :wink:

Any suggestions?

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 19 May 2007, 17:01

I have a compact chainring on my commuter. It is a 34/50 and I think that a 36/50 is a better choice.

Run the numbers through a spreadsheet and have a look at the gearing ratios that you can achieve with each choice. I run a 12-21 on the back as my commute isn't very hilly, but I often find myself in a bit of a bind when swapping between he 34 and the 50 on the front. I am often in the 34/12 and am a bit lazy about changing to the 50.

I have felt several times that I should have gone 36 as I don't have to change the rear gear as much when changing on the front.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 May 2007, 17:29

If you move to 36 at the front, aren't you trading off some of your lower end at the same time? Given what you said, have you thought about getting a 11-23 or similar?

The other question is, is the front chainring shifting an issue? I read that some people complained of poor shifting, dropped chain etc. Are they just noise? More related to poorly adjusted derailleurs and user issues? Or are they real?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 19 May 2007, 17:54

Why don't you go for a 36 and run a slightly wider cassette.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 19 May 2007, 18:50

Yes, a 36 on the front does trade off some at the low end. You need to consider the gap between the chainrings. While a difference of 2 teeth doesn't sound like much, it roughly equates to one gear on the back.

So if you are in 34/12 ( on a 12-21 9 speed cassette, so you are running 12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/21), and you want to go to the 50, you have to drop down to 17 to get the next gear, that is a jump of 5 gears.

Using the same cassette on a 36/50, when moving from 36/12 you only have to go down 4 gears to the 16.

As Mike said though, run a bigger range on the back to compensate for the 36 rather than the 34.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 May 2007, 19:40

Why don't you go for a 36 and run a slightly wider cassette.
I assume this question was directed to my earlier post.

Well, 1) I understand that most compacts come in 34 and it might be extra $ to change it to 36. 2) I already have cassettes on my wheels and would like to keep the same cassettes if possible.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 May 2007, 19:44

That's an interesting point about the amount of rear cassette shifting required to join up to the next gear when you change your front ring. Can I assume that you find it bothersome? With my present triple 52 -> 42, a quick 2 gear change at the back is pretty convenient. Is this something against the choice of compacts?

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 19 May 2007, 20:09

I have a compact on my touring bike. Did have 50/36 for the first time i took it down to Tassie, but then when i swapped to 175mm cranks i decided to go for 50/34 just so i had a bit lower gear. The cassette i'm running is 12-26, and i found i would like to have an 11 there, because when you're riding down the highway with a nice tailwind you sort of hit the limit of your gears.

On my road bike i stick with standard 53/39 because i prefer closer gears, and 11-23, never really needed anything smaller, probably have, but i suffer through the steep bits.

Anyway, i'd say with 50/36 and 11-23 you should be fine.

User avatar
lindsay
Posts: 380
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 15:29
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby lindsay » 19 May 2007, 20:13

I've been working through this one with Joanne. She has a Shimano CT (compact touring) fitted to her new bike. This has a 50/32. I think the jump is too great so I dug a 36 out of my junk box today & fitted it. We'll see how she goes tomorrow to Waterfall. 50/36 is the same gap as a 53/39 so I think it'll work better.

I don't think the compact is necessary because the 39 small ring on a regular Shimano chainset is good. The problem as I see it is the 53. This is just too big and for the regular rider and anyone who thinks they can sprint it out at 53/12 is dreaming. I have a 51 & I love it, 51/15 or 51/14 for sprinting is just right. Those big fella's trying to wind-up the 53/12's is the best leadout a rider can get. :P

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 19 May 2007, 20:55

53/12 is a mammoth gear but it depends what terrain your on. For example the down hill run into the mad mile at sutho, if it was a real race you would want a pretty serious gear. 51/14 would be no where competitive. Of course heffron is a different kettle of fish & it would be good there, but you gear your bike for all probable situations, unless you want to change the gear per event or stage like the pros do...

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 19 May 2007, 21:04

This has a 50/32.
Pretty sure it was a 34. Front derailleurs can't really handle a difference more than 16 teeth, and that's right at the limit.

As for the 53, i find the bigger ring is smoother, that's why i like it. If i was going compact for racing i'd probably try and go 51/36, maybe i'd even think about 51/37 if i could find a 37. However i won't need to worry, as i'm happy with what i have.

User avatar
fenn_paddler
Posts: 154
Joined: 28 Mar 2007, 08:30
Location: Petersham

Postby fenn_paddler » 19 May 2007, 21:28

Standard topic per any decent cycling forum... :P

Does anyone use these? What's the pros and cons?

I am thinking about going the compact route and wondered if this is a wise choice. I understand the wider gear ratios available (1-2 less than my triple at the bottom end) than a standard crankset and would just add that bit of extra for those hills. And with a 11 cog, top end gearing won't suffer either if ever I reach that level. Without actually trying them out, it's just damned hard to know. As much as I hope I'll get stronger in the legs in the future, but age will always go against me over time and I still want to do RNP etc... :wink:

Any suggestions?
Hi Weiyun,

I run 50/36 chainrings with an 11-23 cluster on the back, and love it.

The two biggest advances I noticed when I got back into bike riding after a 15 year break were gear changers in the brakes and the compact crankset. The 50/36 is great because you get a granny gear for the hills without resorting to a 26 on the back or a triple chainring.

Cheers,
Alan Whiteman

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 19 May 2007, 21:55

Can I assume that you find it bothersome?
I wouldn't say bothersome, but as I know my commute route fairly well, I find at times that I am reluctant to change up to the 50 on the front, as I know I will only have to knock it down again when I have to stop at a set of lights.

On the road bike (with 53/39) I tend to stay on one chain ring for longer. When riding to Waterfall (as an example) I would probably stay in the 53 until the hill at the end of Tarren Point Rd. Then stay in the 39 until just after the Waterfall turnaround.

On the commuter, I tend to only start with the 34, I very rarely start on the 50 (but then again the bike is heavier, so a lower starting gear is needed), so whenever I hit a red light I have to knock down to the 34.

James

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 19 May 2007, 23:02

On the mad mile at Sutherland, we are going so fast after running down the hill just past the last set of lights, that I run 53/11 going up the hill and continue to use the 53/11 all the way to the sprint line.

At Heffron, I doubt that I'd ever use higher than 53/13 in the sprint.

What gearing you use is really dependent on the individual.

Weyiun, why do you want to get rid of the triple?

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 May 2007, 23:33

Weyiun, why do you want to get rid of the triple?
I'm not. :wink:

Ummm... Thanks guys for the wealth of opinion. It's a lot to consider.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 19 May 2007, 23:49

So if your not changing it, why do you want to know ?

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 May 2007, 23:53

Because I am plotting on my next setup.

I think I'll need to do a RNP ride and take more careful note of just which gears I need to survive.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 24 May 2007, 08:28

Sorry to resurrect this, but another thing that occurs with the compact on my commuter is chain suck.

Because there is a large step between the two gears, it is a lot easier to be powering when you change gears, as a result, there is quite a lot of tension in the chain and so it can get stuck on the chain rings.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 24 May 2007, 10:31

Thanks for the additional comment. I've also read about this chain suck issue elsewhere. Gosh, it's so hard to know...

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 24 May 2007, 12:38

Hey I'm running compact on my new bike 50/34, 11-23 & i actually think you would probably like it weiyun. I can't see the chain getting stuck if you get ultegra or Dura or higher end campy, i guess if you overlap too much you'll have problems but you've got to use your commonsense with these things. Well the debate goes like this anyway for me, i could change the chainrings/cranks and put 53/39 on there & i may well do with 170mm cranks over the 175mm to suite my track and fixie. But if you loook at the gear ratios of the two; the 53/11 would get you up to a max 130 inch verse 122 inch with a 50/11. Which in my opinion and the guys at the track last night, you would only use this gear to gain speed on a descent. So if you plan to race down hill a 53 chain ring is essential because your likely to get dropped in that situation. & if you plan to go racing down hill anytime soon then i would consider standard gearing. on a flat circuit 122 is a massive gear with a reasonable cadence, we most guys race on 92 on the track, 96 is BIG.

On the other end of the spectrum the 34/23 gets you down to 39.9 inch verse 45.8 with a 39/23. Which i havn't had a chance to test yet but 5 inches is normally very noticeable, but i don't know how noticeable when your down at the 40s. In truth though the average bike rider would benefit much more from the lower end of the spectrum than having the higher gears because to put it into perspective i'm holding onto a waterfall on the way back to Sutherland on 81 inch, which with compact gives you an extra 40 inches of gearing to play with, but going up hill like in the national park if your gear is too big you will really suffer & for no real reason. I always used to ride a triple chain ring for the first couple of years and it is much better to be spinning than pushing. But that's my cut, i mean i would recommend the compact for most people, the only reason i will be considering standard is for those extra few gears upwards, because my bike is purely going to be set up for racing & not much racing uphill...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 24 May 2007, 20:20

Thanks Simon for your angle on this. I appreciate what you've said and the remaining concern is whether my preferred range falls smack in between the gear ranges provided by the two rings. I'll have to take a bit more mental note of my typical range of gears on my present triple and see just how those gears are provisioned on the CT. Irrespective, I've found the 42 middle ring is very versatile when matched with a 12-25 cassette. Hard to imagine how a 50/34 will handle it.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 24 May 2007, 20:58

Weiyun, you have made huge improvement in performance over the last 6+ months. Perhaps your needs will continue to change over the next 6 months as that improvement continues.

User avatar
FAswad
Posts: 305
Joined: 07 Mar 2007, 14:52
Location: Mortdale NSW 2223

Postby FAswad » 26 May 2007, 12:42

Triple: standard gearing with extra lower gears for those who need it (like me)

Compact: a compromise

Thats what it essentially is...

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 26 May 2007, 18:07

I'm inclined to agree, personally I'd use a standard double or for an extra 100-150gms a triple. Like many things, its personal choice.

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 26 May 2007, 18:28

If i needed something lower than what i've got, i'd go compact rather than triple. Probably mostly because it's lighter, and requires less equipment changes. You only have to swap the cranks if you want to change, while with triple there's the shifters, front derailleur, and i think you also need a long cage rear derailleur.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 26 May 2007, 20:06

You also need a wider BB if you want to go from a double to a triple.

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 27 May 2007, 01:09

You also need a wider BB if you want to go from a double to a triple.
Don't need a different one for the external cup bottom brackets, though you're right in that you'd need one for the older type.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 07 Jun 2007, 10:41

Final decision to be made on the cassette. As I've already have 12-25s on my present setup. Should I order a 11-23 as an everyday/race cassette with the CT, or a 13-27 for those hard climbing rides? I can see rationale for both at present. I would prefer not to go 13-29 for that extreme baleout as it'll require a medium RD. I guess if it'll be that bad, then I'll just use my triple. And I wondered what a 11-21 would be like when paired with a CT?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 07 Jun 2007, 10:43

Do you feel the gaps between the gears on the existing 12-25?

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 07 Jun 2007, 10:49

I have noticed it once or twice. Can't quite remember the exact circumstances. Otherwise I guess I've adapted to it. Yet again, I suspect the 11-23 cassette will be similar to the 12-25 in terms of spacing as it's just a linear move. But the 11-21 could be interesting, though may not be appropriate for my level of riding.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 07 Jun 2007, 11:07

Do you have 10 speed or 9 speed ?

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 07 Jun 2007, 11:12

10 speed.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 07 Jun 2007, 11:18

Then I wouldn't bother with 11-21, the closest I'd go would be 11-23

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 07 Jun 2007, 14:38

I still haven't got anything bad to say about the compact 50-34, 11-23 combination. It still seems like a good gear ratio. Even for the sprint on the way back from waterfall, which i know most people are not in favour of at the moment, 50/11 is a massive gear, even for the down hill sprint. So i don't think you'll have to worry too much there. I haven't had a chance to try out the smallest gear yet, maybe on Monday, through the national park. but i assume the 34/23 will be alot better than a 39/23. But if a triple chain ring takes your fancy go for it...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 07 Jun 2007, 16:03

Thanks Simon. Forgot that you are also on a CT.

Yes, the 11 cog would be somewhat irrelevant for me on 50, but thought it might come in handy on the 34 by extending its range a bit. Yet again, that's bad cross chaining.

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 07 Jun 2007, 20:45

I put the road bike on the rollers after my track sprint session tonight and at sprint cadence, not totally max i could hit 99 kms/hr on the 50/11. So if you were descending that's probably about what you could produce in a down hill sprint, assuming you had the momentum at around that speed prior to the sprint, well I can't really see many people in the world winding up that gear to max cadence otherwise...

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 07 Jun 2007, 21:53

Thanks Simon. Forgot that you are also on a CT.

Yes, the 11 cog would be somewhat irrelevant for me on 50, but thought it might come in handy on the 34 by extending its range a bit. Yet again, that's bad cross chaining.
Yes, but the 12 isn't crossed and if it only went down to 12, then you would only have the 13 to go down to. Besides crossing isn't as bad on a 10 speed as its narrower than a 9 speed.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 07 Jun 2007, 22:23

Thanks again everyone for chipping in. The order is now in and CT it is. I ended up going for an 11-25 cassette and it should have RNP covered for both downs and ups. Given it is a relatively new combo for Campag, it's worth a try.

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 07 Jun 2007, 23:02

A bit late, but i would have said the 11-23 would be more suited than the 11-21 for you, since when you go to compact it's mainly to reduce cassette range, or get rid of triple, and on a standard crankset if you used 39 and 25 it's smaller than 34 and 21.

Anyway, 11-25 sounds like a good decision, i forgot that this cassette was available (don't think the shimano ones are yet, SRAM have an 11-26, though not suitable for campy, and not light enough for me). You'll have a nice low gear for the uphills if needed, and a nice big gear for the downhills. I've got a 26 on my touring bike with compact cranks, and that's been low enough for loaded touring.

Sounds like the new bike should be together soon, let us know when it's together.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 08 Jun 2007, 04:34

Sounds like the new bike should be together soon, let us know when it's together.
Yes, all the parts should be in in another 7-10 days time. I'll have to start to prep the frame and work out just exactly how the IS headset fits together. :roll:

I also need to get a cable cutter and a spanner for the BB cups.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 08 Jun 2007, 09:07

Thanks again everyone for chipping in. The order is now in and CT it is. I ended up going for an 11-25 cassette and it should have RNP covered for both downs and ups. Given it is a relatively new combo for Campag, it's worth a try.
I'm running 11-25 and I don't notice the gaps. Its an individual thing.

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 08 Jun 2007, 16:54

What kind of wheels are you putting on? A direct swap from the Bianchi?

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 08 Jun 2007, 17:12

I already have two sets of wheels, so no additional investment there. Fulcrum R5 for regular riding and training, and Ksyrium ES for those special occasions.

Managed to put together the headset and fork earlier and will need to work out how to cut the carbon steerer next. Planning to use a mini hacksaw for the job. Will do a small test cut to make sure the technique won't cause anything nasty and leave the final trim after I'm properly fitted.

I am pretty amazed by the simplicity of these IS headsets and its drop in sealed bearings. I still remember years ago when I first attempted to service the headset of my old Raleigh SA 3 speed, all the bearing balls dropped left right and centre. It was chaos and I gave up on ever touching the headset of that bike again. :oops:

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 08 Jun 2007, 17:20

Hey what do you think of the ksyriums? Do know if there is any significant difference between ksyrium ES & SL wheels sets? I'm starting to think about racing wheels for my road bike and they're pretty high on the list. That and Dura ace low profile wheels. I prefer the silver look to the black, so SL's look abit more appealing. But if there is any competitive advantage, colour isn't important...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 08 Jun 2007, 17:43

Hey what do you think of the ksyriums? Do know if there is any significant difference between ksyrium ES & SL wheels sets? I'm starting to think about racing wheels for my road bike and they're pretty high on the list. That and Dura ace low profile wheels. I prefer the silver look to the black, so SL's look abit more appealing. But if there is any competitive advantage, colour isn't important...
OCP difference from what I can see plus 50g reduction in weight due to certain use of CF hub sleeve and other alloy shavings. You also get a pair of pretty wheel bag. :shock: You are most welcome to try my set and see what you think. But it's Campag freehub.

In retrospect for a naive shopper, there are criticisms on the various forums on Ksyrium's freehub seal, stiffness, aero spec and price. Yet again, Ksyrium is a factory wheel with a reputation for being "bomb proof". If I had known better and thinking of a factory wheel, I probably would have leaned for Fulcrum (Campag) R1 or Zero in that price range.

Irrespective, I can't complain with my K-ES. It's light (1450g) and has what I would describe as a much suppler ride than the R5. While some people are sceptical of that description, the explanation apparently lies with the shallower rim used. So it's not my halucination. Subjectively it climbs a bit nicer than the R5 whenever I swap them around on my local hills. But that's hardly scientific. Or maybe it was just the supple ride that was less stressful on my senses and the close to 1/2kg weight reduction.

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 08 Jun 2007, 23:14

I'm in favour of custom built wheels. Generally they're cheaper, lighter and stronger (when built well).

Or there are some carbon wheels on ebay for $700, from Taiwan. Look reasonable, but it's hard to tell if they'd be stiff enough. http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... &rd=1&rd=1

As for the Carbon steerer. I've got a steerer cutting guide and the appropriate hacksaw blade if you want to use them. I know where the guide is, think i can find the hacksaw, otherwise just use a 32T hack saw blade, mine is some sort of carbide or diamond encrusted blade, so basically just a roughened edge, which means it won't be likely to tear up the fibers. Just remember always measure twice, and take it slow.

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 08 Jun 2007, 23:27

How do you know the hubs are any good either? they have to cut the prices somewhere...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 08 Jun 2007, 23:33

Thanks James. I'll do a test cut when I have all the components. Should there be problems, I'll come and seek your assistance. Glad there's a backup option and I will be very careful with my measurement.

As for Simon's wheelset. I would have thought an aero wheel would suit the type of racing he'll be in. A set of lightweight climbing wheels probably would not be of much value.

BTW, I have a bag full of cable end caps. Let me know if anyone need them.

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 08 Jun 2007, 23:48

What rims would you use for building? Carbon Deep V i would assume. Tubular? & Dura ace hubs? DT spokes?

Lightweight climbing wheels would help the man who can't climb...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 08 Jun 2007, 23:57

TWE seemed to be the hot favourite local wheel builder at the moment. I understand he is on the Sth side of Capt Cook Br. Might be worthwhile visiting him and have a chat and see what he can offer.

http://twowheelsenterprises.com.au/

As for lightweight climbing wheels, would you participate in that many races that involve significant climbs amongst all the flats and sprints? In any case, welcome to try my Mavics. Maybe during one of the RNP rides or even on Sat in Centennial Park.

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 09 Jun 2007, 00:32

Yeah, i guess it's a bit of a risk buying the unknown.

Anyway, for my next race wheel build i'll most likely be going with Carbon rims from http://www.m5-ligfietsen.nl/site/EN The price is right for them. Their hubs are nice as well, and supposed to be very good, and they're light, but i'm not sure what i'll be using. I have to decide on the frame i'm getting first, it's a tough call between the Alloy and Carbon Canyon, though i'm leaning towards the Carbon (enables more parts choice) and the i have to decide how i'm going to keep my bike legal, which might invole the Hub choice.

To answer the other questions. Tubular? yes for dry opens only, (alloy rims in rain, and strong wind). Dura Ace hubs? It's one of my choices, i'm thinking either Dura-Ace, M5, or White Industries, and i'll probably go 24 spokes front and rear. DT spokes? I'm thinking Sapim Cx-rays at the moment, though DT Aerolites are simmilar, so it'll come down to cost, but if i wanted the lightest, it'd be Pillar Titanium spokes.

For climbing, you generally want light weight rims, which also help acceleration, though you need the depth for the aero advantage when the road isn't going uphill (have to reduce the resistance against momentum as much as possible). For a flat race heavier rims are usually better, that's why the Cosmic Carbones were always said to be good for flat races, since the increased rim weight maintained momentum, though i think the newest version of them are lighter.

I'l try and calculate a rough cost for the wheels i'm thinking of building, but if you're thinking of something more similar to Ksyriums, or want clinchers, i'd probably go for some 30mm niobium rims, built to whichever hubs you want, 24 spokes front 28 rear.

I'll leave you to ponder....

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 09 Jun 2007, 00:44

Ok, a quite estimate on the carbon wheels using Dura-Ace hubs would be around $1200 including shipping could be less (don't think shipping would be too much more). Then it depends on who you want to build the wheels as well.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6991
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 09 Jun 2007, 08:49

What rims would you use for building? Carbon Deep V i would assume. Tubular? & Dura ace hubs? DT spokes?

Lightweight climbing wheels would help the man who can't climb...
I would of thought you would of being a medium climber like Huw and me. Heavy but strong.

The TWE wheels seem to be good value for money to me and are backed up with truly excellent after market service. Haven't heard any complaints from Sideshow_Bob about them. Last time I saw Greg, he had a TWE on the front.

James F, when are you back on the bike ?

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 09 Jun 2007, 10:54

When we first started riding i used to be a good climber, i used to win most of the climbs. But now that i do so much sprint training i'm just lazy, it's abit like when you see Petacchi get off his bike on the first climb in the tour. I remember down in Tassie earlier this year the first real climb i got off and walked but as the week went on and i got some real kms into my legs i got alot more efficient. I did win a few of the climbs down there i remember, I beat Eugene and James F to the summit on a couple of occasions, i got absolutely destroyed on on other occasions though. But yeah it's all about laziness and priorities....

User avatar
T-Bone
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Nov 2006, 22:50
Location: Up the Hill

Postby T-Bone » 09 Jun 2007, 12:02

I'm back on the bike when it stops raining.


Return to “Conversation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests