Hi All,
I am primarily a commuting cyclist but my wife has given me the go ahead to try and tackle a few future rides in places away from where we live.
Now I'm from the flat'ish lands of East Anglia (well that is compartively speaking against say Wales, Yorkshire, Scotland, Lake District etc.) having been born & grown up in Suffolk before moving to Norfolk where I live now. Now the fact is I'm probably just absolute rubbish at climbing up hills but I'll try and blame some of my issues on not having grown up climbing decent sized hills.
Going back to future cycling trips I've got my eye on potential trips to places such as Wales, Scotland or the West Coast of Ireland and all of these places are going to be hillier than from where I'm from. I'm not planning on fully laden touring but it'll be more like 3-4 day trips (or a bit longer if I'm lucky) using things like youth hostels, B&B's, pubs etc. as places to stay as opposed to camping. Therefore I won't have a tonne of kit with me but I will have some stuff from spares, repair bits, food, clothes etc. and if I can get it set up right I will probably plan to carry this stuff in bike packing bags rather than in panniers on racks although I do have that option if necessary because my bike has mounting points.
Anyway when recently climbing up what Suffolk & Norfolk has to offer for climbs, some of which can be pretty steep but they're shot and shape with no lengthy sustained climbs, this has got me thinking about my climbing ability or lack thereof.
Now if I get to go on a longer multi-day trip further afield I will likely be carrying more stuff with me than I do on a day trip and so my bike will be heavier. On some recent rides I can resort to using the easiest gear that I have which is making me think that on a trip away should I get into difficulty going up much harder climbs that are both steeper and longer than what I'm used to it's not going to be great if I'm already in my easiest gear and I've got nowhere to go to change into an easier gear.
This got me thinking should I be considering changing the gearing on my bike? It's not something that I'm going to rush to make an instant decision on because the trips away are not imminent and also I don't want to make a hasty decision change things on the bike that I later regret. That's why I thought before I go too far down the road of changing components on my bike I'd ask for some thoughts and opinions on the options that I've currently thought of.
Now my bike is a 2016 Kona Roadhouse:- http://2016.konaworld.com/roadhouse.cfm
https://road.cc/content/review/182237-kona-roadhouse
And the current stock drivetrain / gearing that the bike came with is:-
Chainrings = Shimano 105 34/50t
Cassette = Shimano 105 11-32t 11spd
Therefore I wondered if fitting a sub-compact Praxis Works ( https://praxiscycles.com/road-crank-story/ ) Alba 48/32 chainset might be a good idea to make my easiest gear easier? If I did this are there many things that I would need to consider before making change and is this even a suitable change to make? I noticed that Shand include this chainset on their Stoater and so I hoped that what I'm thinking about isn't too crazy an idea?
https://road.cc/content/review/219120-praxis-works-alba-m30-4832-chainset
https://www.shandcycles.com/bikes/stoater/
If I did this I wasn't sure whether to leave the 11-32t alone or consider buying an alternative 11-34t cassette which I believe Shimano make at both Tiagra and Ultegra levels. However I guess that at that point I might run into problems with my current derailleur in terms of being able to work with a 34t cog as alluded to in this article?
https://road.cc/content/feature/213519-struggling-hills-if-you-need-lower-gears-make-climbing-easier-heres-how-get
Now despite other parts on my bike being Shimano 105 the rear derailleur is Ultegra although I'm not sure of the exact model.
As another alternative if I go down the route of changing the front Chainrings should I also consider options in respect of oval chainrings such as the Absolute Black Sub-Compact Oval Chainrings 48/32T?
https://absoluteblack.cc/oval-sub-compact-chainrings-48-32-for-110-5-bcd/
https://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/new-tech-absoluteblack-chainrings-provide-compact-sub-compact-gear-options-shimano-cranksets/
https://bikerumor.com/2018/07/03/review-absoluteblack-sub-compact-oval-chainrings-48-32-and-46-30-with-shimano-ultegra-cranks/
https://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/absoluteblack-sub-compact-and-premium-oval-chainrings
Thanks in advance for any thoughts & ideas!
John
Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
with oval chainrings you have three possible outcomes
1) love them
2) hate them
3) not notice/care
Only you can say if what it is and only then after having tried them. One thing that doesn't change is that you will have to raise the FD higher than normal (for that size ring) to fit them and the chain is more likely to unship.
Re chainsets if you have 'road' shifters and mechs life is made a lot easier if you buy a chainset with a 'road' chainline. If you want a cheap experiment (you may not want the new gearing except for touring) and you have a BSC threaded BB shell there are inexpensive options from Spa cycles for supercompact doubles.
cheers
1) love them
2) hate them
3) not notice/care
Only you can say if what it is and only then after having tried them. One thing that doesn't change is that you will have to raise the FD higher than normal (for that size ring) to fit them and the chain is more likely to unship.
Re chainsets if you have 'road' shifters and mechs life is made a lot easier if you buy a chainset with a 'road' chainline. If you want a cheap experiment (you may not want the new gearing except for touring) and you have a BSC threaded BB shell there are inexpensive options from Spa cycles for supercompact doubles.
cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Round ? Oval? I'm suspicious of such talk.
Anyway your FD is presumably the 5800 model while your RD Will be the 6800-GS.
The 6800-GS is rated for an 11-32 cassette no bigger, though you'd probably be be ok with 11-34.
Meanwhile the front derailleur is for a 16 tooth gap with a big ring between 46 and 53.
It wouldn't make sense to fit a 48-32, but rather a 46-30. There is very little as advantage to the 48 over 46 but going from 34 down to 30 will be a nice easing of difficulty.
Here is a 46/30 chainset https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p33 ... cral-Rings I could not say whether an even lower double would work but perhaps
Note that your existing one is not in fact 105, but a slightly cheaper heavier model. Not that it matters particularly
In terms of the cassette if you replaced your rear derailleur with an rd-r7000-gs or rd-r8000-gs that would be designed for an 11-34 though it might be ok with your existing derailleur. R7000 is about £35. Though I'd really only consider that as an option when your current cassette is worn out, just because it's quite a small difference so doesn't seem worth the cost and trouble.
Anyway your FD is presumably the 5800 model while your RD Will be the 6800-GS.
The 6800-GS is rated for an 11-32 cassette no bigger, though you'd probably be be ok with 11-34.
Meanwhile the front derailleur is for a 16 tooth gap with a big ring between 46 and 53.
It wouldn't make sense to fit a 48-32, but rather a 46-30. There is very little as advantage to the 48 over 46 but going from 34 down to 30 will be a nice easing of difficulty.
Here is a 46/30 chainset https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p33 ... cral-Rings I could not say whether an even lower double would work but perhaps
Note that your existing one is not in fact 105, but a slightly cheaper heavier model. Not that it matters particularly
In terms of the cassette if you replaced your rear derailleur with an rd-r7000-gs or rd-r8000-gs that would be designed for an 11-34 though it might be ok with your existing derailleur. R7000 is about £35. Though I'd really only consider that as an option when your current cassette is worn out, just because it's quite a small difference so doesn't seem worth the cost and trouble.
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
I'd work out what top gear you can comfortably run, you may find you don't use your current top gear.
Then size your big chainring to that and freewheel down hill.
Then size your big chainring to that and freewheel down hill.
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Maybe before throwing a lot of time and effort into changing your bike you could pay a short visit somewhere with a bit more gradient and practice your technique? Short, sharp climbs can often have you begging for lower gears but longer climbs often allow you to work through the gears more slowly. Take the ladywife to Harrogate for a weekend, ride around the Dales, pop in and see the guys at Spa. enjoy the climbing.
Don't be afraid of the hills
Don't be afraid of the hills
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
I've cycled thousands of miles in hilly Yorkshire, Lakes and now Welsh landscapes. Despite an FTP of about 230 watts (last measured a year or so ago, mind) I feel the need for a low bottom gear on the many hills. I think you will too. 
Two of my bikes have 1:1 (34/34 and 30/30) whilst two others go down even lower, 26 front and 34 rear being the lowest. The steepest hills in the above-mentioned locales are very steep indeed; and often very long.
My advice, then, would be to get a Spa Cycles triple chainset with a small ring of 26 or even 24 to use with your existing cassette. A big ring of 46 is likely to be sufficient. so you can probably make do with the existing rear derailleur too. You would need a threaded rather than a push-fit BB shell on your frame for a Spa chainset and square taper BB to go on. You'll need a square taper BB to fit a Spa chainset. This and the chainset are not expensive.
It also needs the front derailleur to be lowered on the seat tube, which requires a band-on rather than a braze-on fitting of the front derailleur mech. Finally, you'd need to add a bar-end LH friction changer for the triple, disconnecting the front mech gear cable from the STI LH lever. Friction bar end levers are a lot easier to set up and trim than a triple STI with a triple chainset.
You'd need to ensure that the small ring will clear the chainstay and other parts in the BB vicinity. I have a Specialized Tricross frame fitted with a triple Spa chainset having a 26 small ring and it fits no problem.
The standard road double front derailleur is not ideal with smaller rings but an older model road mech for triple chainsets works well (with the LH bar end gear changer) even if it prefers 30/39/50 to 26/36/46 rings.
****
An alternative is to fit an MTB cassette that goes up to 36 teeth. You may need also to fit a 9-speed MTB rear derailleur too but some later 105 and Ultegra 10-speed road mechs will work with a 36 sprocket if you fiddle with the b-screw; or get a wolfs tooth adapter to hang the rear mech from.
Cugel
Two of my bikes have 1:1 (34/34 and 30/30) whilst two others go down even lower, 26 front and 34 rear being the lowest. The steepest hills in the above-mentioned locales are very steep indeed; and often very long.
My advice, then, would be to get a Spa Cycles triple chainset with a small ring of 26 or even 24 to use with your existing cassette. A big ring of 46 is likely to be sufficient. so you can probably make do with the existing rear derailleur too. You would need a threaded rather than a push-fit BB shell on your frame for a Spa chainset and square taper BB to go on. You'll need a square taper BB to fit a Spa chainset. This and the chainset are not expensive.
It also needs the front derailleur to be lowered on the seat tube, which requires a band-on rather than a braze-on fitting of the front derailleur mech. Finally, you'd need to add a bar-end LH friction changer for the triple, disconnecting the front mech gear cable from the STI LH lever. Friction bar end levers are a lot easier to set up and trim than a triple STI with a triple chainset.
You'd need to ensure that the small ring will clear the chainstay and other parts in the BB vicinity. I have a Specialized Tricross frame fitted with a triple Spa chainset having a 26 small ring and it fits no problem.
The standard road double front derailleur is not ideal with smaller rings but an older model road mech for triple chainsets works well (with the LH bar end gear changer) even if it prefers 30/39/50 to 26/36/46 rings.
****
An alternative is to fit an MTB cassette that goes up to 36 teeth. You may need also to fit a 9-speed MTB rear derailleur too but some later 105 and Ultegra 10-speed road mechs will work with a 36 sprocket if you fiddle with the b-screw; or get a wolfs tooth adapter to hang the rear mech from.
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
If you want to try an oval chainring i recall some advice suggesting that you keep your big round rings and fit a small oval only. That way your normal front mech works. The small oval suits some people better for climbing.
Peugeot 531 pro, Dawes Discovery Tandem, Dawes Kingpin X2, Raleigh 20 stowaway X2, 1965 Moulton deluxe, Falcon K2 MTB dropped bar tourer, Rudge Bi frame folder, Longstaff trike conversion on a Giant XTC 840, Giant Bowery, Apollo transition. 
-
LittleGreyCat
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: 7 Aug 2013, 8:31pm
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
My Spa tourer has 28/38/48 on the front.
Standard is 11/32 on the back but I opted for 11/34.
So I would be tempted to aim for around 28/34 or equivalent as your lowest ratio.
Or lower if you like, but if you want to keep your double front then you may compromise your top gear.
In my inexpert opinion East Anglian legs and high bottom gears don't mix.
High top gears are nice though on the flat with the wind behind you.
Standard is 11/32 on the back but I opted for 11/34.
So I would be tempted to aim for around 28/34 or equivalent as your lowest ratio.
Or lower if you like, but if you want to keep your double front then you may compromise your top gear.
In my inexpert opinion East Anglian legs and high bottom gears don't mix.
High top gears are nice though on the flat with the wind behind you.
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Hi All,
Many thanks for the replies and advice above which is much appreciated!
Re: the question about oval versus round I'm not definitely sure that I want to try oval chainrings. It's more that I'm considering a smaller chainset/ chainrings to make my gear ratios easier should I travel to hillier parts of this country or abroad. It's just then that when I was doing internet searches for smaller chainsets that oval chainrings came up as an option. If I were sticking with my existing gear ratio then there is no way that I'd be considering going to the trouble of swapping from round to oval rings but given that I'm considering changing the chainrings anyway I though that I may as well consider all of the options.
Also I think that whilst I want to make a change to my gear ratio I don't want to go an extreme of too many changes which add up when thinking about the costs and complication when it comes to changing all of the shifters etc.
Hi Brucey,
Thanks for your message and I think that my bike has a threaded BB so that's a start and hopefully a good thing from the perspective of options. I don't know exactly which specific model BB it has because the manufacturers website just said "Shimano Tiagra". This website link mentions that the bike has a threaded bottom bracket https://cycletowork.wiggle.co.uk/kona-roadhouse-2016-road-bike/reviews/ . Also that's a good tip re: looking at Spa Cycles for options.
Hi thelawnet,
Many thanks for the details plus options/ideas that you've provided including the link. At the moment I wouldn't say that my rear cassette is worn out which perhaps means it's not worth changing yet but perhaps something for the future when the cassette is actually worn out and needs changing.
Hi Greystoke,
Thanks for your message and yes that's a good idea to work out what gears I can run. To be honest I'd say that my existing 50 / 11 gear is pretty redundant! There's absolutely no way that I'd use that gear on the flat and whilst I will have at times used it when going downhill I could just as happily freewheel at that point because I'm not racing or trying to break any speed records. The easiest gear is probably more important especially in the context of this consideration so I'm pretty happy that I could lose the 50/11 and not miss it at all.
Hi foxyrider,
Thanks for your message and that's a good point about visiting hillier places to try out my existing bike/ gear ratios before making any changes to the bike. Re: practicing or changing my technique I'm sure that I could learn a few things and improve my technique however I might be a bit long in the tooth for making radical changes. I've been riding regularly for well over 30 years now and so probably long enough for any lack of technique or bad habits to have sunk in. I would like to get away for the weekend and take my wife but I also have young kids of 4 and 6 and so any time doing long cycle rides whether close to home or away are somewhat selfish solo pursuits away from family time and so they're very few and far between because the priority is doing things with my kids as a family whilst I’m young. However that’s not to say that once a year or so I can’t try to get away to do something just for me. But a trip away from Norfolk to visit hillier places is likely to be at best a twice a year opportunity or more likely a once a year chance. Therefore although practicing before making bike changes would be ideal I was trying to think about it before going away as well because I don't want to get somewhere on a once a year opportunity and then end up struggling and not enjoying myself as I struggle up hills and end up walking perhaps.
Hi Cugel,
Thanks for all of the time spent on all the detail in your message which is much appreciated and I'll review all of this! I'm not adverse to the idea of a triple and I already have a triple on my 1990s Raleigh Apex MTB so I'm used to using one. However whilst I'll definitely consider a triple potentially I'm a bit reluctant to make too many changes to the bike which then have knock on effects such as needing new shifting options etc. I'm not worried about different types of shifting because I've used down tube shifters, friction shifting before the days of indexing and I also have a Jtek bar end shifter for my Shimano Alfine hub on my 2014 Genesis Day One Alfine 8 daily commuting bike so I'm fine with different ways of shifting. But on this bike ideally if I can avoid it at all I don't want to have to make too many changes which end up adding to the complication and cost of this project. So whilst I wouldn’t rule out fitting a triple I’d have to look at it on the cost versus cheaper options if there are viable alternatives. For example my front derailleur is fitted via a braze on and so for starters I’d need to get a new front derailleur. Maybe if I were buying a touring bike from scratch I’d be considering something like the Spa Cycles Aubisque which comes with a triple but in my case if I can get an easier gear ratio with less changes required to my current bike that would be preferable.
Hi rjb,
Thanks for the info that I could change just the inner chainring.
Hi LittleGreyCat,
Thanks or the advice and idea of aiming for a lowest gear combination of 28/34 as my lowest gear. I think that whilst that does sound like a good aim from a gear ratio perspective perhaps I might need to undertake a lot of changes to get to there. Also potentially, and this is just a guess and not coming from an exert position, but a well thought out touring bike would be designed to allow the bike to cope with fully laden touring and the weight that fully laden touring with lots of gear brings. Certainly at this stage in my life of only getting a couple of very infrequent days away from a young family to do some small cycle trips I’d be planning on hoping between say youth hostels, B&B’s or pubs so I wouldn’t be carrying any camping gear and it would just be clothes, food and spares so hopefully my bike won’t weigh loads which perhaps means that I can compromise on the lowest gear and not focus on having to match a thoroughbred touring bikes lowest gear.
Following on from this I’ve also been thinking about the wheelset on my bike should I end up doing some short tours away from home. The reason that I say that is because on my everyday commuting bike I have a Shimano dynamo hub and dynamo lights and I absolutely love having lights that are always on without having to worry about batteries. This leads me onto also thinking about it also being a nice to have thing to have a dynamo wheelset for this bike as well so that I could run lights (with the main annoyance on this bike being the lack of a bolt hole at the crown of the fork to mount a light so I'm guessing I'd have to mount a light on the handlebars) and perhaps have the option of charging items as well whether that be direct or by way of charging battery packs from a dynamo hub and using those to charge devices. The current wheelset is a Novatec 30 wheelset ( https://road.cc/content/review/172395-novatec-30-alu-clincher-wheelset ) and they have a fairly low spoke count of 20 spokes front, 24 spokes rear. Having said that touch wood so far I’ve not had a single problem with the wheels and so to date I have absolutely no complaints at all about them. I weigh about 70kg/11 stone and so perhaps the low spoke count hasn’t caused me any problems to date. But if I want a dynamo I’m presented with fairly limited options because this bike has 15mm thru axles with Shimano centre lock disc brake rotors. So far I think that that only option I’ve seen for a dynamo is the Shutter Precision PL-8X ( http://www.sp-dynamo.com/8Xseriesdynamo%20hub.html ) ( https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s133p3775/SP-DYNAMO-PL-8X-Thru-Axle-Centre-Lock ).
This made me think that with thelawnet having said that although the rear derailleur, being the Shimano 6800-GS, is only rated to a maximum of 32t but it would work with a 34t cassette perhaps I could speak to a shop like Spa to get them to suggest their wheel build options for a front wheel with an SP dynamo hub and a rear wheel with a cassette fitted that goes up to a 34t cog. So if I do go down the road of a new wheelset maybe firstly I’m best getting a rear wheel with a cassette including a 34t cog. That way hopefully I can keep everything else on the bike the same, shifters etc., but still have an easier lowest gear. Then in the future when I get away and actually get to ride in hillier places if I still feel that I need an easier gear then I could consider the options for changing the chainrings then?
Thanks again, John
Many thanks for the replies and advice above which is much appreciated!
Re: the question about oval versus round I'm not definitely sure that I want to try oval chainrings. It's more that I'm considering a smaller chainset/ chainrings to make my gear ratios easier should I travel to hillier parts of this country or abroad. It's just then that when I was doing internet searches for smaller chainsets that oval chainrings came up as an option. If I were sticking with my existing gear ratio then there is no way that I'd be considering going to the trouble of swapping from round to oval rings but given that I'm considering changing the chainrings anyway I though that I may as well consider all of the options.
Also I think that whilst I want to make a change to my gear ratio I don't want to go an extreme of too many changes which add up when thinking about the costs and complication when it comes to changing all of the shifters etc.
Hi Brucey,
Thanks for your message and I think that my bike has a threaded BB so that's a start and hopefully a good thing from the perspective of options. I don't know exactly which specific model BB it has because the manufacturers website just said "Shimano Tiagra". This website link mentions that the bike has a threaded bottom bracket https://cycletowork.wiggle.co.uk/kona-roadhouse-2016-road-bike/reviews/ . Also that's a good tip re: looking at Spa Cycles for options.
Hi thelawnet,
Many thanks for the details plus options/ideas that you've provided including the link. At the moment I wouldn't say that my rear cassette is worn out which perhaps means it's not worth changing yet but perhaps something for the future when the cassette is actually worn out and needs changing.
Hi Greystoke,
Thanks for your message and yes that's a good idea to work out what gears I can run. To be honest I'd say that my existing 50 / 11 gear is pretty redundant! There's absolutely no way that I'd use that gear on the flat and whilst I will have at times used it when going downhill I could just as happily freewheel at that point because I'm not racing or trying to break any speed records. The easiest gear is probably more important especially in the context of this consideration so I'm pretty happy that I could lose the 50/11 and not miss it at all.
Hi foxyrider,
Thanks for your message and that's a good point about visiting hillier places to try out my existing bike/ gear ratios before making any changes to the bike. Re: practicing or changing my technique I'm sure that I could learn a few things and improve my technique however I might be a bit long in the tooth for making radical changes. I've been riding regularly for well over 30 years now and so probably long enough for any lack of technique or bad habits to have sunk in. I would like to get away for the weekend and take my wife but I also have young kids of 4 and 6 and so any time doing long cycle rides whether close to home or away are somewhat selfish solo pursuits away from family time and so they're very few and far between because the priority is doing things with my kids as a family whilst I’m young. However that’s not to say that once a year or so I can’t try to get away to do something just for me. But a trip away from Norfolk to visit hillier places is likely to be at best a twice a year opportunity or more likely a once a year chance. Therefore although practicing before making bike changes would be ideal I was trying to think about it before going away as well because I don't want to get somewhere on a once a year opportunity and then end up struggling and not enjoying myself as I struggle up hills and end up walking perhaps.
Hi Cugel,
Thanks for all of the time spent on all the detail in your message which is much appreciated and I'll review all of this! I'm not adverse to the idea of a triple and I already have a triple on my 1990s Raleigh Apex MTB so I'm used to using one. However whilst I'll definitely consider a triple potentially I'm a bit reluctant to make too many changes to the bike which then have knock on effects such as needing new shifting options etc. I'm not worried about different types of shifting because I've used down tube shifters, friction shifting before the days of indexing and I also have a Jtek bar end shifter for my Shimano Alfine hub on my 2014 Genesis Day One Alfine 8 daily commuting bike so I'm fine with different ways of shifting. But on this bike ideally if I can avoid it at all I don't want to have to make too many changes which end up adding to the complication and cost of this project. So whilst I wouldn’t rule out fitting a triple I’d have to look at it on the cost versus cheaper options if there are viable alternatives. For example my front derailleur is fitted via a braze on and so for starters I’d need to get a new front derailleur. Maybe if I were buying a touring bike from scratch I’d be considering something like the Spa Cycles Aubisque which comes with a triple but in my case if I can get an easier gear ratio with less changes required to my current bike that would be preferable.
Hi rjb,
Thanks for the info that I could change just the inner chainring.
Hi LittleGreyCat,
Thanks or the advice and idea of aiming for a lowest gear combination of 28/34 as my lowest gear. I think that whilst that does sound like a good aim from a gear ratio perspective perhaps I might need to undertake a lot of changes to get to there. Also potentially, and this is just a guess and not coming from an exert position, but a well thought out touring bike would be designed to allow the bike to cope with fully laden touring and the weight that fully laden touring with lots of gear brings. Certainly at this stage in my life of only getting a couple of very infrequent days away from a young family to do some small cycle trips I’d be planning on hoping between say youth hostels, B&B’s or pubs so I wouldn’t be carrying any camping gear and it would just be clothes, food and spares so hopefully my bike won’t weigh loads which perhaps means that I can compromise on the lowest gear and not focus on having to match a thoroughbred touring bikes lowest gear.
Following on from this I’ve also been thinking about the wheelset on my bike should I end up doing some short tours away from home. The reason that I say that is because on my everyday commuting bike I have a Shimano dynamo hub and dynamo lights and I absolutely love having lights that are always on without having to worry about batteries. This leads me onto also thinking about it also being a nice to have thing to have a dynamo wheelset for this bike as well so that I could run lights (with the main annoyance on this bike being the lack of a bolt hole at the crown of the fork to mount a light so I'm guessing I'd have to mount a light on the handlebars) and perhaps have the option of charging items as well whether that be direct or by way of charging battery packs from a dynamo hub and using those to charge devices. The current wheelset is a Novatec 30 wheelset ( https://road.cc/content/review/172395-novatec-30-alu-clincher-wheelset ) and they have a fairly low spoke count of 20 spokes front, 24 spokes rear. Having said that touch wood so far I’ve not had a single problem with the wheels and so to date I have absolutely no complaints at all about them. I weigh about 70kg/11 stone and so perhaps the low spoke count hasn’t caused me any problems to date. But if I want a dynamo I’m presented with fairly limited options because this bike has 15mm thru axles with Shimano centre lock disc brake rotors. So far I think that that only option I’ve seen for a dynamo is the Shutter Precision PL-8X ( http://www.sp-dynamo.com/8Xseriesdynamo%20hub.html ) ( https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s133p3775/SP-DYNAMO-PL-8X-Thru-Axle-Centre-Lock ).
This made me think that with thelawnet having said that although the rear derailleur, being the Shimano 6800-GS, is only rated to a maximum of 32t but it would work with a 34t cassette perhaps I could speak to a shop like Spa to get them to suggest their wheel build options for a front wheel with an SP dynamo hub and a rear wheel with a cassette fitted that goes up to a 34t cog. So if I do go down the road of a new wheelset maybe firstly I’m best getting a rear wheel with a cassette including a 34t cog. That way hopefully I can keep everything else on the bike the same, shifters etc., but still have an easier lowest gear. Then in the future when I get away and actually get to ride in hillier places if I still feel that I need an easier gear then I could consider the options for changing the chainrings then?
Thanks again, John
Last edited by John_S on 5 Mar 2019, 11:07am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
John_S wrote:Following on from this I’ve also been thinking about the wheelset on my bike should I end up doing some short tours away from home. The reason that I say that is because on my everyday commuting bike I have a Shimano dynamo hub and dynamo lights and I absolutely love having lights that are always on without having to worry about batteries. This leads me onto also thinking about it also being a nice to have thing to have a dynamo wheelset for this bike as well so that I could run lights (with the main annoyance being the lack of a bolt hole at the crown of the fork to mount a light) and perhaps have the option of charging items as well whether that be direct or by way of charging battery packs from a dynamo hub and using those to charge devices. The current wheelset is a Novatec 30 wheelset ( https://road.cc/content/review/172395-novatec-30-alu-clincher-wheelset ) and they have a fairly low spoke count of 20 spokes front, 24 spokes rear. Having said that touch wood so far I’ve not had a single problem with the wheels and so to date I have absolutely no complaints at all about them. I weigh about 70kg/11 stone and so perhaps the low spoke count hasn’t caused me any problems to date. But if I want a dynamo I’m presented with fairly limited options because this bike has 15mm thru axles with Shimano centre lock disc brake rotors. So far I think that that only option I’ve seen for a dynamo is the Shutter Precision PL-8X ( http://www.sp-dynamo.com/8Xseriesdynamo%20hub.html ).
This made me think that with thelawnet having said that although the rear derailleur, being the Shimano 6800-GS, is only rated to a maximum of 32t but it would work with a 34t cassette perhaps I could speak to a shop like Spa to get them to suggest their wheel build options for a front wheel with an SP dynamo hub and a rear wheel with a cassette fitted that goes up to a 34t cog. So if I do go down the road of a new wheelset maybe firstly I’m best getting a rear wheel with a cassette including a 34t cog. That way hopefully I can keep everything else on the bike the same, shifters etc., but still have an easier lowest gear. Then in the future when I get away and actually get to ride in hillier places if I still feel that I need an easier gear then I could consider the options for changing the chainrings then?
The centerlock discs aren't a big deal really. Those discs look pretty generic to me. If you used a six-bolt hub just replace the disc.
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/dynamos/32- ... -anodized/
Nice but expensive.
A new rear wheel, hmm, you could but a 34t vs 32t isn't going to be that much easier but if you want a new wheel anyway then I suppose you might as well get 34t rather than 32t.
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Hi thelawnet,
Thanks for your message and yes the SON dynamo hub is lovely. I'd have to consider it carefully though in the context of the total costs of any other changes though because whereas the SON 28 15 6 bolt disc hub costs £250 the SP Dynamo PL-8X Thru Axle Centre Lock disc hub costs £122
I'm not worried about going from a centre lock disc hub/rotor set up to a 6 bolt one though if that's what is necessary and in fact I did the opposite on my Genesis Day One which had a non dynamo 6 bolt hub/rotor on it and I got a LBS to rebuild the wheel with a Shimano Dynamo hub which had a centre lock disc.
Re: changing the rear cassette from one where the largest cog is 32t to one where the largest is a 34t thanks for your message advising that this won't make much of a difference. I guess if I do get a new rear wheel though it's not going to do any harm fitting a 34t if my existing rear derailleur is going to be able to accept the 34t cog.
But when I do get to try cycling in some places with decent sized hills if I do still end up struggling I'll be back to considering what options to pursue with changing the chainset. I I can make a big enough difference without having to go down the road of changing all of my shifters etc. that would be my preference and so that maybe back to considering what double chainring sub-compact chainsets would work on my bike with the minimum of changes. But the fact that my front derailleur is attached to a braze on and it's not a band on fitting could potentially cause problems if I've understood things correctly.
When washing the bike I did take note of some of the existing part numbers and you were absolutely spot on with what you've said because I could see these part numbers:-
Front Derailleur = Shimano 105 FD-5800
Bottom Bracket = Shimano Tiagra BB-RS500 Bottom Bracket
I couldn't see a code on the rear derailleur and could only see Shimano Ultegra written on it but you got every other component bang on so I'll trust that it's the Shimano Ultegra RD-6800 GS Rear Derailleur 11-speed which when I look online is listed as being a medium cage.
Thanks again for your help & advice!
John
Thanks for your message and yes the SON dynamo hub is lovely. I'd have to consider it carefully though in the context of the total costs of any other changes though because whereas the SON 28 15 6 bolt disc hub costs £250 the SP Dynamo PL-8X Thru Axle Centre Lock disc hub costs £122
I'm not worried about going from a centre lock disc hub/rotor set up to a 6 bolt one though if that's what is necessary and in fact I did the opposite on my Genesis Day One which had a non dynamo 6 bolt hub/rotor on it and I got a LBS to rebuild the wheel with a Shimano Dynamo hub which had a centre lock disc.
Re: changing the rear cassette from one where the largest cog is 32t to one where the largest is a 34t thanks for your message advising that this won't make much of a difference. I guess if I do get a new rear wheel though it's not going to do any harm fitting a 34t if my existing rear derailleur is going to be able to accept the 34t cog.
But when I do get to try cycling in some places with decent sized hills if I do still end up struggling I'll be back to considering what options to pursue with changing the chainset. I I can make a big enough difference without having to go down the road of changing all of my shifters etc. that would be my preference and so that maybe back to considering what double chainring sub-compact chainsets would work on my bike with the minimum of changes. But the fact that my front derailleur is attached to a braze on and it's not a band on fitting could potentially cause problems if I've understood things correctly.
When washing the bike I did take note of some of the existing part numbers and you were absolutely spot on with what you've said because I could see these part numbers:-
Front Derailleur = Shimano 105 FD-5800
Bottom Bracket = Shimano Tiagra BB-RS500 Bottom Bracket
I couldn't see a code on the rear derailleur and could only see Shimano Ultegra written on it but you got every other component bang on so I'll trust that it's the Shimano Ultegra RD-6800 GS Rear Derailleur 11-speed which when I look online is listed as being a medium cage.
Thanks again for your help & advice!
John
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Now that's what I call a reply. Well done.
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
I've been using two chainring setups for touring for about 40 years. 40 years ago I did that using TA Cyclotouriste cranks with a 42t outer ring, 28t inner ring, and a 14-32 five-speed freewheel, which gave me gears low enough even for long days in the mountains fully loaded. There are still at least a couple of companies - SunXCD and Velo-Orange - making cranks with the Cyclotouriste 50 BCD bolt circle, but the Cyclotouriste rings have no shifting pins or ramps, and unless you alter the thickness of the spacing washers between the chainrings, the two rings are spaced slightly too far apart for narrower modern 10/11 speed chains - when you change down from the big chainring with a narrow chain, the chain tends to skate between the rings rather than dropping onto the teeth of the small ring.
Nowadays, at the age of 66, I prefer even lower gearing, and have been using Sugino OX cranks. These use 110 BCD for the outer chainring and 74 BCD for the inner, and so can be setup with a wide range of rings - Sugino sell them with anything from 52-36 down to 44-30. I have them setup even lower - here's one using 39-26 chainrings, and with an 11-40 rear cassette that gives gears from about 95" down to 17":
You can also use two chainring MTB cranks, which come with similar size or even smaller chainrings, but the problem there is that the chainline is wider than optimal for use on a road or touring bike.
As for round vs non-round chainrings, the only time I ever used non-round rings was about 30 years ago when I purchased a racing bike that came with a Shimano groupset including their biopace chainrings. The first time I raced on it I had to drop out with leg cramps at about the half way point of the race, and the same thing happened a couple of races later. As I had never previously suffered from cramps, I thought this was a bit unusual, so I took off the biopace rings and fitted round ones instead, with the result that I had no further problem with cramps in races. Non-round chainrings have been a thing now and again for at least the past century. If there was anything to them they'd be in universal use by now...
Nowadays, at the age of 66, I prefer even lower gearing, and have been using Sugino OX cranks. These use 110 BCD for the outer chainring and 74 BCD for the inner, and so can be setup with a wide range of rings - Sugino sell them with anything from 52-36 down to 44-30. I have them setup even lower - here's one using 39-26 chainrings, and with an 11-40 rear cassette that gives gears from about 95" down to 17":
You can also use two chainring MTB cranks, which come with similar size or even smaller chainrings, but the problem there is that the chainline is wider than optimal for use on a road or touring bike.
As for round vs non-round chainrings, the only time I ever used non-round rings was about 30 years ago when I purchased a racing bike that came with a Shimano groupset including their biopace chainrings. The first time I raced on it I had to drop out with leg cramps at about the half way point of the race, and the same thing happened a couple of races later. As I had never previously suffered from cramps, I thought this was a bit unusual, so I took off the biopace rings and fitted round ones instead, with the result that I had no further problem with cramps in races. Non-round chainrings have been a thing now and again for at least the past century. If there was anything to them they'd be in universal use by now...
Re: Is considering a sub-compact chainset a good idea? And if so is round or oval best?
Sugino OX is slightly better than a triple chainset with no outer chainring (which it otherwise closely resembles), because the tread of the cranks (Q value) is lower than for a triple; you can see in the photo below that the gap between the crank and the large chainring probably isn't quite large enough for a third chainring and a FD
however if Q value doesn't worry you then you can have a 110/74 supercompact double (at considerably lower cost) by converting a triple chainset; indeed Spa cycles offer this as an option.
For myself I am not wed to stupid STIs (which only support doubles) or minded to begrudge the odd 100g on a touring bike either, so I am most likely to have the third chainring. I use it too; 50/19 is a much better gear than 42/16 for example.
In fact weight-wise it is almost a straight choice; STIs weigh about one chainring's worth more than separate levers do, and on a touring bike I think a chainring is a more useful thing to have.....
cheers
however if Q value doesn't worry you then you can have a 110/74 supercompact double (at considerably lower cost) by converting a triple chainset; indeed Spa cycles offer this as an option.
For myself I am not wed to stupid STIs (which only support doubles) or minded to begrudge the odd 100g on a touring bike either, so I am most likely to have the third chainring. I use it too; 50/19 is a much better gear than 42/16 for example.
In fact weight-wise it is almost a straight choice; STIs weigh about one chainring's worth more than separate levers do, and on a touring bike I think a chainring is a more useful thing to have.....
cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~