The ugly crossover is why I ditched the 50/34 on my commuter, and went back to a 46/36/24 triple. I have no use for the 24 on my flat commute, but the shifting pattern is nicer. When I bought a brand-new Campy group for my go-fast I went with 53/39 x 13-29 instead of 50/34 x 12-26 - similar gearing, but a nicer shift pattern. The club riders with compacts always seem to be riding cross-chained.
IMO a workable wide-range double uses the small ring only as a bail- out for the biggest climbs, and the big ring for everything else. Something like 44/24 x 12-xx would work pretty well for me. Bill On Mar 6, 5:30 am, Steve Palincsar <palin...@his.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 05:25 -0800, MichaelH wrote: > > I don't think the biggest issue is how it will shift. After all > > triple fronts are designed for a 22 tooth difference. Rather the > > shifting pattern gets very awkward when you go from 14 to 16. At 14 > > the next gear is typically two cogs away. At 16 your in no mans land, > > and at 18 and above the next gear is at the other end of the > > cassette. I really like a 48/34 and could probably get along with a > > 44/30, but I think for rings below that I would prefer to have the > > triple to widen the range without having to work so hard finding the > > next gear. > > Yes, the cross-over is the Achilles Heel of wide range doubles. For > many recreational riders, the cross-over on common "compact doubles" > spec'd for racers falls right in the middle of the cruising range. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
