Bike Triple Crankset Question

Shouldn't be a problem, only issue might be chain wear. LBS might recommend new chain and cassette if there is wear. A purist might say you need to shorten the chain but i don't think it's an issue unless you run a tight ranged cassette. How many miles on the current drive train?

Do you need a triple? Are you touring? Or will a compact set do? if you are 'just' road riding a compact should suffice and you will have less wear on the chain as it will be shifting less.

I use a triple on my steel touring bike but have a compact on my carbon bling.

My advice would be to buy the best you can afford. There are several good offers around. try Merlin or Chain Reaction but remember you have an 8 speed especially when replacing the block. Which shifters do you have?

Hi

the shifters are prob shimano sora STIs

the rear cassette was I think an 8 speed 12-26, so a reasonable match to the 52/42/30 that was std fit...

keeping a triple should retain the wider gear choice and closer ratios, and more uphill capability...the only downside is a little more weight......and the potential ridicule of having a 'granny' gear...

The 105 triple should work, you may lose a little top end speed/power...a lesser 'big' gear..

( I run triples on both my road bikes, inc the carbon bling one..)

Enjoy

You may have already done it, but changing the tyres can also be great upgrade...

there are some good options, for me the Continental GP4000s is unbeatable, prefer 25mm width , (although if you have mudguards fitted you may need to come down to 23mm).

Thanks for the replies...

Ameden, you are right about the shifters; they are Sora's.  I was under the impression that since they are indexed for 8 speed I couldn't change the cassette for a 9 speed which I guess I would have to do if I went for a compact twin.

Lutyens, I don't 'need' a triple since its mainly for short training rides (up to 30 miles) and the odd sprint Triathlon.  I just thought that keeping a triple would make the whole process of changing the crankset easier in terms of set up with the existing cassette and derailleur.

The bike has done about 3k (low mileage I know!); the new rims are shod with Conti 'gator tyres.

Thanks again, this is really helpful stuff!

All yr above comments make sense...

if you do change, forgot to say that it may be best to get a new chain...

good luck

Any recommendations on a chain?  Think I am going for a Shimano 105 50/39/30 as a minimum, if I can find one!

Nope. Wouldn't think so. Can't see how. Chain wear comes overwhelmingly from just pedalling, especially with dry or dirty chains.

I would probably just stick with a triple. All the other gear is compatible. Weight differences will be negligible.

The 105 is a decent upgrade, but it is possible you won't really notice much difference. I upgraded on my tourer to a Shimano crankset that had the outboard bearings. It was a nice move (compared to the OEM inboard bearing set-up that was really well behind the other componentry).  Seems a bit stiffer, and spins very nicely. There are solid engineering reasons for wider-spaced bearings, so if you achieve that, it is perhaps worth it.

Yes, get a new chain. They're all pretty good (Shimano, Wipperman, KMC, SRAM, Rolhoff (used by Campy) are the main brands). Shimano chains use a special joining pin (supplied with the chain) but it works well. More common these days is a joining link that can be detached and re-attached without a tool (but with very greasy hands). Provided you have the right width (8-speed), everything is pretty much compatible, chain-wise.

Moving over three rings will stretch the chain hence my comment! I know that we are all supposed to control the spread between the outermost rings but it happens. It will happen less on a compact set. And there is a lot of duplication/very similar gear ratio over a triple. The advantage of a triple and that closeness comes into its own when you have a loaded bike. Hence my question. 

But heh, as others have said a 105  is a very good place to start, enjoy.

Chain "stretch" comes not from it being stretched but from wear in the pins and bushings. This caused by what it does more than 99% of the time. Not by what it does for less than 1% of the time. Especially as the tension is reduced for front shifts by the rider easing momentarily on the pedals for the shift.

(You can put a lot of pressure on a chain if you shift the rear when applying full power - although I would still argue it does little to wear the chain, but might increase the chance of it breaking)

I have done something very similar with lowering the gear ratios, and the only problem i have is the re-adjustment on the front mech. For some reason it's a bugger to get right, and stay right.

I have a 105 front mech which maybe worn, or perhaps i need a better quality one?

Debs

If it is set up as a triple front set, then stay with a triple.

I have two cycles, and no car, and these have different gearings.

The old steel framed cycle has 53-42 on the front [friction Campy Record system], and 14- 14 on a six cog freewheel at the real [more Record friction system], and this is quite high geared, except that the whole bike is light and very responsive.

The newer and very fine carbon forked, ally framed one has Campy Veloce indexed shifting of a Stronglite front pair of 50-36, so a wide range that avoids much duplication of ratios, and a ten speed cassette of 12-25. 50 over 12 is faster than the old 53 over 14, which I have spun out.

The modern cycle has all the gears anyone going up a steep hill could ask for and is high enough on top that one could never spin out. The old one is a challenge on the steepest hills with 42 over 24, but it is an act of character, never to get off!

But I'd stick with the triple if it is fitted.or spend a good deal and transfer to Campy, with a double on the front.

Farmer

Debs,

Did you attempt the adjustment yourself?  I am thinking that I just go to my local bike shop (LBS to use the correct terminology!) and give him the new crankset and bottom bracket to fit. Not sure if I have the tools or patience to do it myself.

Managed to find a few 'new old stock' 105 triples on fleabay, all 50/39/30s.

SKD,

I purchased most of the tools for Shimano back in the 90s, also have a few nice Park Tools which include their hefty bike holding stand. But must admit to not liking to getting my hands dirty these days. The bike mechanics I used to know were a lot quicker than me which comes from the daily practise of them doing it everyday for a living. I have to sit down and read the instructions and scratch my head a bit.

The main two problems [if not usually servicing your own bike] are not having the correct tool for the job, and not knowing what you’re doing, so it’s not a bad idea to put the bike into the dealers for an occasional service/refit or upgrade of parts. Many dealers won’t charge a labour fee when you buy the new bits from them.

These days I live 12 miles away from the nearest bicycle shop, so I really need to look after my own bike which isn’t too difficult due to the low mileage.

What is essential to know is how to fix punctures, change inner-tubes/tyres, keep chain clean, adjust/check brake cables.

Setting the bike up for correct saddle and handlebar position for one-self is well worth the effort.

My road bike is a Trek SL1000 which still has the stock Bontanger crank set but have changed the outer ring to 47/42/30 with a 12-26 block which is great at my lowly level of fitness ; )

My outer ring is a beautifully crafted French TA [Shimano compatible] which out classes the original's engineering by far. But changing the whole bottom-bracket & crank/ring set is a far better job if you’re happy with the ring sizes it comes with.

But make sure you buy one with your correct crank length, they usually come as 170, but often 172, and a longer length of 175 [which I tried once and hated], and even longer crank lengths for Daddy Longlegs.

They say: the 172 crank length is a bit better on leverage when going up hill, but the old standard 170 is better for obtaining correct cadence. It depends how long in the leg you are, where you ride, and your riding style etc...

Debs

Thanks for the comprehensive info Debs.  I had already clocked the importance of crank length.  I will stick with 170 mm.

Still love my SL 1000; looks pretty 'bling' with the new wheels!

My bike : )

One of the reasons i purchased a SL1000 is the fantastic facility of proper mudguard eyelets : )

Unfortunately however whoever brazed on the bridge between the rear seat stays, done it so far down the stay it leaves no clearage for mudguards!

I really wanted to fit my Esge narrows on but there is not enough room between the rear brake calliper and tyre rather like a racing bike, so why did Trek bother with eyelets?? : (

But apart from this discrepancy the SL1000 was a bargain for £450 brand new (in 2008 i think)

I changed the stock wheels to Mavic Cosmos, also: saddle, stem & handlebars, and pedals... 

Debs

Debs

SKS Raceblade mudguards fit to the fork/rear seatstays, they are close fitting and whilst not giving as much protection as a full conventional mudguard (they have no element in front of the rear brake) they are really easy to fit and remove ride-by-ride. No clearance issue because they don't go under the brakes.

Crudcatcher RoadRacers are even better. they look incredibly light and flimsy but are not. They take a little more fiddle to fit but give almost as much cover as a conventional guard. I leave them on my winter bike all season (ie all year in Yorkshire). they use a couple of cable ties and some clever rubber band fittings on the stays/fork rather than the eyelets. They fit under the brakes but are very well designed and can fit even my raciest bike. Well worth a look.

Bruce

All this talk of mudguards (or fenders,as we call them here). In Vancouver we know a bit about them! Only full length fenders, plus an extension (often an old waterbottle split lengthways), do the job of protecting the eyes and teeth of the rider in the group behind you. Those short 'guards (raceblades and the like) and those horizontal patform things like on Deb's bike do nothing for anyone but the owner. I don't really care about spray up my back (I'm wet anyway). So for me it's full guards (if I'm riding in a group) or nothing.

Any 'guards can be adapted for tight clearances. You cut the bit out that goes under the brakes and replace it with an artfully bent strip of metal (like a Meccano piece}. The metal strip ends up looking like an upside down, flattened T with a hole in the bit sticking up for the brake bolt. You need a rivet gun (or small bolts and nyloc nuts) to attach each end of the cross-piece to each piece of the 'guard.

If anyone's interested, managed to get hold of a new (old stock) Dura Ace 53/39/30 7703 crank for the same price as a similar aged new 105. Got a new 105 bottom bracket on the way also.

Just need to speak to my local bike repairer to fit em for me and we will see how it goes.  That 53 chain ring will be a man-test...

Thanks all for the advice...

The 53 front cog depends somewhat on what is the smallest at the back.

53 over 13 is a man test, which Obree used to use for training as a fixed gear!

53 over 14 is quite relaxed, and is what I now have as top ration on the Carlton. As the Carlton is a fast [but not inherently very fast cycle] with a lovely relaxed feel to it, this is suitable

My Ambsosio is tougher than either! 50 over 12 is a seriously tall top ratio, which I honestly have only found for fun. I am faster on the 50 over 13 ratio! In the old days the Carlton used to have 53 over 13 and it was not impossible to get thirty mph out of it, though that before my crash and broken leg! So far my best  on the Ambrosio is 28 ...

Happy cycling and keep safe!

ATB from George

Late to this thread I know but can't help thinking that the minimal change in gearing relative to the cost/hassle involved makes the change imprudent....

If you're prepared to look at ebay, a second hand pair of 9 or 10 spd shifters and a front mech would facilitate a change to 9 or 10 spd (rear derailleur would cope) cassette with 10 spd compact 50/34 chainrings (or lower if you use 'cross rings...)

The test will be with your knee joints!

Using very tall gears is not particularly efficient or effective for good riding style and cadence.

Okay for professional racers!

Or the very occasional going downhill with the wind behind you and in the mood for breaking the land speed record, but this scenario will happen a lot less than you imagine.

Better [and far more fun] to use a 52 if you are young and fit, or even a 51 for better ease of cadence, the benefits include being able to stay on the high cog longer for more sensible riding time.

Debs

The difference between 50,51,52 and 53 tooth chain rings is pretty trivial (6% at most, between 50 and 53, less than 2% between a 52 and 53), as doesn't matter in the slightest unless one is in their highest gear. Anyone for whom the difference between a 52x12 and 53x12 top gear (for example) is regularly an issue (i.e. not only when riding down hills or with 30 knot tailwinds) should consider turning professional or at least racing at a top amateur level.

We all (even pros) spend most of our time in intermediate gears. An even spread is all what matters so we can choose a gear as close to ideal as in possible. The ranges covered by the large and small chain ring overlap significantly (even ignoring the extreme crossed-chain gears that you shouldn't be using anyway). There is no merit in "keeping it in the big ring as much as possible". Pick the gear that matches your speed. Big ring, small ring, whatever.

Knee joints already knackered from years of running.  Not young but pretty fit...!

It’s very trivial to quote percentages but during an actual ride a 51 tooth big ring is far more sensible and practical than a 53.

It used to be standard 52/42 for ages which was fair enough, but these days you often see 53/39, which is pretty daft when the 53 is too big in too many circumstances for most [especially head wind on the flat] and dropping down to the 39 suddenly becomes far too low. If it’s hilly terrain where you ride a 39 maybe a handy ring to have but you'll want to stay using the bigger ring for more time, and it’s far more practical to sustain a nice spin speed cadence using a 51 on the flat, and also less labouring on those knee joints.

If you don’t do steep hills would be better to have 51/42 [or 51/42/32].

Since lighter weight aluminium tubed bikes came on the market it's common to see a standard 53 big ring, which imo is the wrong way to go, would suit most people far better if they marketed new bikes with a standard 51, or at least gave people a choice.

Although I suppose it maybe just another marketing bonnet-bulge performance gimmick, be pround of your manly bigger ring up front, it may help some to overcompensate for the smaller lunch box in the shorts?

Debs