View Single Post
Old 03-04-19, 11:37 AM
  #16  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18376 Post(s)
Liked 4,511 Times in 3,353 Posts
Originally Posted by davester
I'm 65, in excellent shape, ride hills and think that riding a 53-39 is dumb for this application. That chainring setup was designed for one thing...racing, by young people. (although it can be useful for flatlanders too).
...
I stuck with 52-42 through my late 50s, which was a mistake waiting so long.
I can't say. I'm still in the early 50's, and ride a variety of configurations. I can still stand and pull up hills.

Over the last 5 years, I think I've been evolving to a higher cadence and lower gears.

But, changes in cassettes have also made a big impact.

Say the old bike was:

54/42 X 13/23

Newer cassettes give more sprockets on both ends.

11/30? 11/32?

The higher gearing in the cassettes makes the 53/39 or 54/42 less relevant.

The lower gearing? Heck if I know, I haven't gone down that path yet, except with cargo.

Still, I'd look at a 50/34, or even 48/30 crankset.

Actually, I've gone to a custom wide crankset (53/34) on my road bike, and like the gearing options.
CliffordK is offline