Reduced Gearing

[Joe Riel]

I'm looking to reduce the gearing somewhat on my road bike, which
currently has a 53/39 and 23-12 cassette. It's 9-speed Super Record,
about 15 years old. Am wondering if I can even find replacement
cassettes. Would a Veloce or Chorus casette work? From the pictures
I've seen their cassette splines are symmetric, whereas mine has some
asymmetry (one of the splines is wider, one is smaller), so that seems
doubtful. I could also look at going to a compact front-end.
Any thoughts? Am mainly trying to figure out what is feasible.

--
Joe Riel

[Duane]

Mid compact (52/36) is a good compromise IMO.

--
duane

[AMuzi]

Campagnolo CS-9 are of the current spline style, same for
9-10-11:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/CACS890.JPG

(Eights were overly clever with a symmetric spline to allow
various gear combinations which required a chart to align
the index ramps on the sprockets. The change to the better
big-bearing hub also incorporated the asymmetric cassette
spline format)

Since nine cassettes are less available and about the same
price as Tens, you might use a Ten cassette and rearrange
sprockets.

Some notes about that:
Lockrings are different OD to match high gear size. Too
large a lockring will hit the chain plates.
Only the basic model crmo sprocket models can be swapped
around. Aluminum carriers can't. Re use your nine spacers.
Lowest gear on a Ten is shaped and so unsuitable to a nine.
Look to the second-largest sprocket in the set.
Nine cassettes seem to be only available in 23 and in 28 low
gear now. If you have the short cage rear changer, 26 max is
the spec.

Oh, one more thing; compact crank is another path to lower
gearing.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

So, to be clear, he can buy Veloce 9 speed? Those seem to be available from a number of sources. Speaking as one on the downward spiral towards utter decrepitude, a compact is nice.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Yes, he could. We have them, as do others.
That would be a better choice if there were nine cassettes
besides the 23 he has now and the 28 which Campagnolo says
is too big for a short cage changer.

[Joe Riel]

Any suggestions for a good compact crank? I'm a lightweight (less than
130 lbs), so durability is rarely an issue, though I value reliability
and longevity.

--
Joe Riel

[AMuzi]

Campagnolo's current offerings are both much lighter than
yours and rings are enhanced to shift better. Compatible in
your nine system despite the 'eleven' graphic. (p.s. your
bike may be super, and it may be Record, but in 1998 there
was no Super Record).

We also like the classic design Sugino XD compact 34-48 or
34-50 all crank lengths. It costs less than carbon
Campagnolo models.

Your 1998 front changer unless worn or damaged will shift a
compact nicely, just lower it. A brazed mount may introduce
a problem there.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/8/2015 11:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> Speaking as one on the downward spiral towards utter decrepitude, a compact is nice.

And for those of us further along that spiral, a triple is really nice!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joe Riel]

Whoops. My mistake. Is the 11 speed stuff narrower, hence faster
wearing? How do carbon cranks handle the occasional dropped chain?
Do they get terribly gouged?

> We also like the classic design Sugino XD compact 34-48 or 34-50 all
> crank lengths. It costs less than carbon Campagnolo models.

I imagine.

> Your 1998 front changer unless worn or damaged will shift a compact
> nicely, just lower it. A brazed mount may introduce a problem there.

It's a clamp-on, so repositioning it is not a problem.

--
Joe Riel

[jbeattie]

What type of BB do you have?

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joe Riel]

The frame is a TiCycle, which is from your neck of the wooks. I assume
the shell has ISO threads, but don't know. I bought the bike used,
around 2000, it came with Sweet Wings. Replaced those a year or so ago
with no-name cranks (with tapers) and internal bearing cups that were
included with the bike.

--
Joe Riel

[jbeattie]

In that case, I discovered this little company called Shimano that makes nice compact cranks -- I think the model was El Tigre.

-- Jay Beattie.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

I have 1998 Campagnolo Chorus 9 speed on a bike. The short cage rear derailleur shifts a 28 cog on the cassette perfectly. Do not believe the nonsense in this thread about Campagnolo short cage rear derailleurs only handling a 26 large cog. Nonsense. Buy the Veloce 9 speed cassette with a 28 large cog.

[AMuzi]

You can run your nine chain on an 'eleven' crank. The chain
is the crucial bit for wear, everything else only succumbs
after the chain rivets are too far apart

[AMuzi]

Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation,
whichever current model crank he buys will need the current
matching bearing assembly.

[Joe Riel]

If I go with a compact crank with external bearings, should I first
ensure that the bottom bracket shell is suitable? That is, do I need to
have the threads checked for alignment (coaxial) and the faces parallel?
Is it even possible (reasonable, with bike shop tools) to check for
coaxial threads? A facing tool really only ensures a face perpendicular
to the coaxial center of the threads on the side being faced; it doesn't
ensure parallel faces on both sides, which requires that the threads are
coaxial. Presumably that has to be ensured by the frame builder. Given
that this is for an unpainted titanium frame, should I even be worrying
about it? Since the bike originally had SweetWings (an early type of
external bearing crank) it seems likely that it is suitable.

--
Joe Riel

[AMuzi]

The tap handle set is heavy with a large pilot through both
so the threads are cut or cleaned on one axis. Then
precision pilots are screwed in and the facing mill run from
that same axis.

http://www.velobase.com/ViewTool.aspx?ID=305af378-869a-493d-9ec4-2bd941882f26&AbsPos=314

Note: user comment on that page (I paraphrase) that these
are too expensive to actually use is BS. Shops like ours
send cutters out for precision sharpening and TiN vapor
deposition regularly.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/tin.html

Short answer: If you can't install a crank bearing and you
suspect a thread issue, see your local pro shop. It's not
all that likely to be a problem but readily rectified if it is.

[Joe Riel]

Thanks Andrew.

Given my, shall we say thrifty, nature, I'm more likely to choose
Shimano than Campy. However, I always like to think about the Italian
option. Have you seen many issues with the Ultra-Torque? How common
is the knocking/clicking due to lateral movement?

--
Joe Riel

[avag...@gmail.com]

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

THIS GIVES ME A MIGRAIN

[AMuzi]

That's the result of not reading the directions, a common
problem. Done The Campagnolo Way, they're bulletproof.

[retrog...@gmail.com]

cheapie compact crankset thread for old-fashioned bottom bracket(crankset works OK!):

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/compact$20crank/rec.bicycles.tech/WnFGn-pcBrQ/za0HfJoMDMQJ

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:40:54 PM UTC-4, retrog...@gmail.com wrote:
> cheapie compact crankset thread for old-fashioned bottom bracket(crankset works OK!):
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/compact$20crank/rec.bicycles.tech/WnFGn-pcBrQ/za0HfJoMDMQJ

/_____________________________

[James]

On 09/08/15 08:54, Joe Riel wrote:

>
> Whoops. My mistake. Is the 11 speed stuff narrower, hence faster
> wearing? How do carbon cranks handle the occasional dropped chain?
> Do they get terribly gouged?
>

I have had a set of Chorus Ultra Torque carbon cranks since 2008. Yes I
have chipped the clear coat in a few places. No they have not broken or
appear to have any cracks. Yes I have had the chain overshoot the big
ring a couple of times. No I am not concerned.

--
JS

[James]

For an older square taper BB, I just bought a pair of these for the
wife. They work fine. Steel rings are a bonus. Longer lasting. About
as cheap as I could find, even with postage!

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/alloy-compact-double-square-taper-chainset-50-34t-170mm-prod13441/

--
JS

[Duane]

A little clear nail polish was suggested to me for nicks in the clear coat.


--
duane

[John B.]

Andrew, out of curiosity, in your long history in a bicycle shop have
you noticed any measurable difference in service life of bottom
brackets? Is any one specific type actually better?
--
cheers,

John B.

[James]

I wish to add a data point. I started with the old cup and cone BB with
adjustment made with a big special C spanner (wrench, whatever). No
seals on most, but there were attempts to reduce water and grit ingress
with rubber bits on the cups and a plastic shroud insert to divert water
that comes down the seat tube, etc.

Royal pain in the arse to keep running well.

Square tapered cartridge BBs from Shimano were better, as the bearings
had dust covers and kept most moisture out, but... They start making
noises before too long, and the bearings are fairly small compared to
the loads being transmitted - thus premature failure.

Same to be said for Campag square taper cartridge BBs.

Joy came in 2008 when I bought a Campag Chorus UT crankset, that has
external bearings and a nice construction method. These bearings have
lasted about 4 years without so much as a look see inspection. Ok, they
are a little fiddly to pull the bearing off the BB axle at home, and you
can only use Campag bearings because they're non-standard size, but not
expensive. The killer is I get a 400% improvement in longevity!

YMMV, and Andrew's probably will too.

--
JS

[jbeattie]

I've gotten good service out of the Shimano external bearing BBs -- perhaps more importantly, they're cheap. Back in the old days, ignoring regular BB maintenance could mean new cups, bearings and axle. Not cheap and labor intensive -- particularly removing the fixed cup. Phil BBs were not cheap. Now you can get a really good $30 outboard bearing set, and it takes 20 minutes to remove and install a new set.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joe Riel]

I assume you haven't experienced the creaking/clicking that I've seen
reported on the web. The stiffness of the wavy washer is what resists
lateral movement of the shaft.

--
Joe Riel

[James]

I don't recall any creaking or clicking coming from my Campy UT BB.
Note that this is the one with the two half shafts joined by a hirth
joint in the middle.

I have had 1 cup come loose, and that was a clunk that was easily
detected and fixed before any damage had occurred. I obviously didn't
tighten it enough after rebuilding my bike when the frame came back from
the repairer.

I have had the chain ring bolts come loose and cause ticking sounds.
They are a bad design in aluminium, and cannot be adequately tightened
to stay tight, and rely on thread lock instead. I have actually
modified some old steel CR bolts to fit, and they stay tight without
thread lock.

--
JS

[AMuzi]

Not categorically.
There are good and bad examples of every system and
prep/setup is a huge variable too

[Mark J.]

On 8/8/2015 1:31 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>
>> On 8/8/2015 10:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:05:27 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2015 10:48 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
>>>>> I'm looking to reduce the gearing somewhat on my road bike, which
>>>>> currently has a 53/39 and 23-12 cassette. It's 9-speed Super Record,
>>>>> about 15 years old. Am wondering if I can even find replacement
>>>>> cassettes. Would a Veloce or Chorus casette work? From the pictures
>>>>> I've seen their cassette splines are symmetric, whereas mine has some
>>>>> asymmetry (one of the splines is wider, one is smaller), so that seems
>>>>> doubtful. I could also look at going to a compact front-end.
>>>>> Any thoughts? Am mainly trying to figure out what is feasible.
>>>>>

[big snip]

> Any suggestions for a good compact crank? I'm a lightweight (less than
> 130 lbs), so durability is rarely an issue, though I value reliability
> and longevity.

Compact versus triple is a very personal decision, or so I've gathered
from lurking here. Just in case you are even possibly interested,
here's the argument for a triple:

You get a very wide range of gearing, while maintaining the short steps
you currently enjoy. The chainring "shift points" are the same, except
you now have an additional option. I tried compact briefly, and found I
needed to do a front shift far too often for my taste, with many
commonly-used gears needing a lot of "cross-chaining."

You can ignore the granny ring until you need it, all for a very small
weight penalty. And all Campy brifters of the ~2000 era support a
triple front w/o modification of the brifter.

You can still get new old-stock Campy triples (typically Centaur or
Veloce) on Ebay, which easily allow switching the 30-T small ring down
to a 26 or even 24. Some Record/Chorus NOS can be found, but not so often.

I've had great success with Campy using 50-40-26 (26 is a non-Campy
ring) and a 12-25 rear (recently converted from 9S to 10S); my latest
carbon wonderbike is 26-39-53 by 12-25 (a FSA crank, since the only
Campy cranks available for my new BB form factor do not allow the 30T
ring to be swapped out).

Having the super-low bailout gear is nice on the insufficiently rare
10-14% pitches on the backroads around here, especially after 100 miles.

The downsides are: Need new BB (also available on Ebay), long-cage rear
derailleur. Front shifting isn't perfect, but it's quite good with fine
tuning. Few shops or even people have any idea for parts/support for
triples in this context (Muzi being an important exception.)

Mark J.

[sms]

On 8/8/2015 3:51 AM, Duane wrote:

> Joe Riel <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> I'm looking to reduce the gearing somewhat on my road bike, which
>> currently has a 53/39 and 23-12 cassette. It's 9-speed Super Record,
>> about 15 years old. Am wondering if I can even find replacement
>> cassettes. Would a Veloce or Chorus casette work? From the pictures
>> I've seen their cassette splines are symmetric, whereas mine has some
>> asymmetry (one of the splines is wider, one is smaller), so that seems
>> doubtful. I could also look at going to a compact front-end.
>> Any thoughts? Am mainly trying to figure out what is feasible.
>
>

> Mid compact (52/36) is a good compromise IMO.

That's getting to be a large difference in chain ring sizes.

If a a 13-26 Veloce cassette would work then it might be a better, and
cheaper option to achieve lower gearing. From what I have read, the
Veloce cassettes are compatible with SR.

What is the cage length on the SR? 13-26 & 53/39 works with the short
cage, but there were longer cage versions available for cassettes up to
29 teeth. Of course not being able to use the smallest cog with the
smallest chain ring might not be an issue since it would not be a
commonly used combination.