Barrettscv 

I love riding a fleet of vintage steel bikes, and I appreciate quality materials, design and workmanship. I don't appreciate suffering on the hills. From this point forward, all bikes will have triples or compact cranksets. One bike is getting electric assist.

Most modern bikes, even top race models, have gear ranges almost unknown prior to 1990. Sure, a few C&V touring models had triples, but no self respecting elite cyclist would ever be caught dead using a triple. This is especially true among aspiring elite cyclist. Personally, I have always liked triples, but shifting triple chainrings can be a bit fussy compared the using a double.

How many C&V owners who regularly ride their steel bikes still using standard cranks (130bcd or larger) and corn-cob clusters?

base2 

I brazed on a derailleur hanger on both my 1974 Schwinn Varsity & to my wifes 1972. This made room for a modern 11 speed drivetrain. My wifes was set up with all Ultegra 6800 with an 11-32 cassette, mine had Ultegra 6800 shifters with XTR M9000 derailleur mated to an XT 11-40 by way of a Jtek Shiftmate 8.

Both have 34-50 cranksets & 11-28 cassettes now. She got strong enough to drop the 32 cog, & I didn't care for the huge jumps in the shifting.

"Correct" is for museums & grumpy old curmudgeons.

gearbasher

I've updated all my steel to Campy 9 & 10 speed. 135 BCD with 50/39 chainrings and 12-23 or 14-23 cassettes. I will use a 13-26 for hillier rides. So, I guess I'm kinda still old school when it comes to gear ratios.

Spaghetti Legs 

Plenty of standard cranks, but no corncob clusters on my hills. More of my bikes are starting to feature compact cranks.

T-Mar

I used to be able to ride all the local hills with a 46T - 18T low gear combination. Those days are long behind me. Now, my low gear is 39T - 23T but I'm beginning to struggle even with that. I'm not quite to triple territory but I can see it on the horizon.

clubman 

Ah, those were the days...

SurferRosa

My five are all Sugino/Campagnolo, 144bcd, 52/42t ... but with new, ramped, 14-28t (5/6/7sp) freewheels.

I.B.Roots

..it's ok, we forgive you..

jk I'm rocking doubles, triples and I still might walk some.

thinktubes 

Gave up on 53T about 5 years ago.

A 48/39 with a 12-23 works well in flat Illinois.

I use all the gears, rather than just the 5 lowest.

3speedslow

Last time I rode hills, I could swing 42-52 and a 12-24 with ease. But, I was in the 112-115 lb range. I used to love playing on the mountains.

Currently i think 42-50 and a 12-26 could get me over with no difficulty. 130 lbs now.

squirtdad

I have one bike (84 team miyata) setup for eroica/cino....if I ever actually register....set up 53/39 and 13/28 it is fun to ride ...so I do friday good weather commutes on it

but my daily rider (85 team miyata) is fully modern 105 5800 53/34 11/32 I really really like the compact set up

noobinsf 

I'm not a super strong rider, and the topography in Oakland is all over the map (see what I did there?). I ride triples with wide range freewheels and cassettes, and I use 'em all.

capnjonny 

On my Nishiki International I have a 24-36-48 tripple in front and a 14-28 hyperglide freewheel in the rear with friction thumbies on 2" riser bars. absolutely perfect for any thing uphill, flat, or down hill. Be advised I have no desire to go more than about 25 mph downhill so the 48 tooth big ring is plenty. I once installed a 12- 24 tooth 6 speed cassette and found it to be equally good. With such close ratios upshifting is just a nudge on the thumbie and it slips into the next gear.

TenGrainBread 

To me, the premise that you're labeling "correct," that serious cyclists should use tiny freewheels and huge chainrings, is the problem. We shouldn't feel like we are compromising by using reasonable gearing. The whole dichotomy of "touring" and "racing" that has defined the bicycle industry in the US for the last 50 years is entirely ridiculous anyway, as if you can only be doing one at a time, and your bike has to be either a ultra-stiff, corn-cobbed lightweight, or a heavy-duty touring bike capable of a full camping load. The new movement toward "gravel" or "all-road" bikes, especially the development of wide yet lightweight supple tires with low rolling resistance, and road bike gearing that is actually reasonable, is working to change that, which is good. Plus, the whole concept of a randonneur bike has been around for the better part of the 1900s. so the idea of a fast bike that is also comfortable and geared for mountains has been around for a while.

verktyg 

@Barrettscv The questions require reading several times to figure them out...

Back in 1975 I did some "gear freaking" with graph paper and a calculator to come up with usable gearing to meet my needs.

The results were 49/45 with a custom 13-26 5 speed FW. That gave me half step gearing with predictable 5% or 10% jumps and a range of 46" to 101".

For time trials I'd put on a 53 large chain ring and a 13-23 5 speed FW. I switched to a 14-34 FW with the 49/45 for loaded touring.

I didn't ride my road bikes much from 1977 until 2006. When I started going on some CR rides, I noticed that most of the olde folks were riding 28T FWs.

I switched my Stronglight and Shimano cranks to 48 or 49 - 38 or 39 chain rings and 13-28 6 or 7 speed FWs. That gets me around most of the Bay Area rides except for doing the big hills.

I have 5 bikes with triples for any serious hills. Also several doubles with 34, 35 or 36 small chain rings. Haven't done that for a while.

verktyg

Wildwood 

Other???
I'm happy not to be 100% period correct on some......but it's more fun to have many...
Bikes for many types of road + light gravel rides.
Various gearing paired with tire size for the anticipated terrain.

52/42/30 Triple on Batavus Competition for the mountains - with a 29 cog.
46/30 cranks+chainrings (VO on sale) for the off-pavement stuff + better brakes for gravel descents
48/34 cranks+chainrings (VO on sale) on the Merckx CE, for long rides with some hills.
Try for the others to be original, or period correct.with crankssets
Campy derailleurs for EU marquees, less the Zeus, Sachs/Huret on a couple, 1 Suntour.rd+barends.


I'm even less fussy over finding original style rims. Many BBs are not purist. Or chains, saddles, or tires.

How deep does it go??
And none have original grease!

crank_addict

Completely ridiculous but me HaPpy.

A circa 1974 bike, made of Russian tubing, total bike weighing only 18 pounds and then add this to the fun. Thank you Sugino XD triple cranko-manic.

USAZorro

40 years (and 55 pounds) can change things. I used to get irritated when I had to shift down to 52 - 16 or 52 - 18 because the hill got too steep for "tenth gear". Any bike that I plan to ride where there are hills needs a low that's under 40 gear-inches... preferable closer to 30 than 40.


...and then there's this one...

qcpmsame 

Agree with what Chas said above, to clarify my choice from your poll. Both of my current "Correct" C&V rides are equipped with NR 130 BCD spiders, and 52/42 rings, and largest cog my short cage NR rear derailleurs can safely handle. I live in Florida, fairly flat here, but the rollers can challenge me at times. NO plans to change things on either one, I love riding them, "as is"

I'm in the process of gathering the bits for a 72 Schwinn Super Sport, the stock, correct rear cluster has a 32 large cog, and I scored one last December with the as specified complete wheel set. The rear derailleur will be "Uncorrect" Suntour, of some ilk and time frame, with a long cage. I just don't want to fight with the original Huret made and Schwinn approved dinosaur.The front is where I'll be "Uncorrect", going to use an adapter for BSA bottom bracket, and probably a period correct triple with the spider that is correct for the mfgr and its period. Finding a front derailleur wii be the challenge with that odd diameter does tube, but I can always modify the clamp to fit with my files and Dremel tool if push comes to shove, and it most likely will.

The Botttecchia Cromor frame and fork, are to be built up per my lovely wife's specifications, with a modern triple crank in Italian threading for the bottom bracket, and a matching indexed front derailleur. the rear will be a modern 10 speed, indexed derailleur. Wheel will be faux correct, low flange hubs in silver, and a 10-speed free hub hub on back. Momma knows what she wants in her ride, and she gets it without questions.

If I am violating any of the constitutionally mandated C&V requirements, I'll take the hit, and sentence without contesting the ruling.

Bill

John E

That's right in line with my own ratios, with 38/23 or 42/26 for the bottom gear. I like the 50/14 top (also 46/13, which is amounts to the same thing).

Mountain bike gets a full 4:1 range from 28/28 up to 48/12, but it has a long cage rear derailleur that can easily handle a 32, so that's a different story.

Drillium Dude 

53/42 or 52/42 up front and plenty of corncobs to go with them - however, in the past couple years I've been expanding the cogs out back to 26 and am currently looking for something up to 28 or 30. Instead of changing over every bike, I'm going to experiment with different gearing combinations on the Casati (which has taken up the role of "change bike").

Until I get better fitness, my biggest problem is fatigue when climbing with bigger gears. I can push them, just not for as long as I once could; therefore, I'm looking for bigger bail-out cogs.

DD

John E

So you're running a 3x9 on a Sturmey AW? I love the 6% ratiometric progression.

When I ran 40/14-16-18-20 on a Sturmey AW, I always wished for a 38, to give me a 24-speed half-step.

qcpmsame 

[QUOTE=Drillium Dude;21297160] snip..... I'm going to experiment with different gearing combinations on the Casati (which has taken up the role of "change bike"). DD[/QUOT

A Cassati, what a sweet test mule for the harurm DD.

Bill

botty kayer

In my view it's not correct to be walking up a hill pushing a bike when you could cycle up it, so sod what others think and gear up appropriately. Being seen pushing a bike up a hill is way more embarrassing than being seen with a triple and riding up it.

I've got 5 C&V steel frames but running modern 10 speed. 4 have 53/39 rings with cassettes of 11/23, 12/25 x2 and a 12/26

I got one bike with a semi compact 52/36 and a 12/25 that I take to Wales when visiting friends and family as the place is littered with gradients of over 20%.

I'm 47 and nearly 200lbs and while I can manage fine on my 53/39 where I live in London, I will happily switch to a triple when I can no longer manage.

jackbombay

I'm on the younger end of the spectrum here, but I love low gears! The love of low gears is not dependant on age! My road bike's low gear is 34ring/36cog, very rare I use it, but I like to seek out long steep (%10 for miles) climbs and this is so low I can recover somewhat while on steep hills if I so desire.

I'm also in the process of tripilizing my 1972 Raleigh Super Course, 40/28 for a low gear does not work well for my preferred terrain.