Kontact 

The limit on front derailleurs is the height of the cage so it will shift over the big ring but the chain won't rub the bottom of the cage in the granny. If you have a big low cog in the back it will prevent the rubbing, but if you have the range cassette Shimano designed the RD-6603 to work with, but chain might drag even in the lowest rear cog.

So it might work if the OP is also changing the rear derailleur and cassette, If not, he is unlikely to be happy with trying to exceed the specs.

Duragrouch

+1. For that exact reason, I chose a triple front derailleur for my 1X to 2X conversion, as it's a wider range than past doubles, 50/34. The cassette is still 7 speed so I wanted use of all cogs on both chainrings for a quick shift, though I tend to favor lower cross-chained gears.

Carbonfiberboy 

That's only if one doesn't know how to use one's gears. I've been running my above suggestions for over a decade with no problems at all. It's a "fear this" thing, but there's nothing to fear. These chainring combinations are well known. Of course one could deliberately demonstrate that it's possible to rub the rear bar in the cage, but as I said above one would have to be an idiot to do that. I assume that no one here is an idiot. If one makes a shifting mistake, one would immediately hear the rubbing and correct the error. In 10s of thousands of miles, I've never done that. One simply adopts recommended shifting patterns and doesn't do extreme cross-chaining, which is totally unnecessary with a triple, just another advantage of that setup.

Steve_sr

I am assuming that you are talking about the RD-6603. Nice to know.

Carbonfiberboy 

There's a theory of trying to reduce drivetrain wear. It says that for any particular choice of gear-inches (g.i.), one should run the largest combined tooth count one can which creates said g.i., while also avoiding cross-chaining. The idea is that spreading out the chain's application of force over more teeth reduces the force on each link as well as on each tooth. For instance we can get 88 g.i. by using 39X12 or 52X16. By this theory the 52X16 would be preferred. That's an easy one. It's also easy to show that many times the highest tooth count results from cross-chaining, so some choices are involved. I think in general, low tooth counts are worse than cross chaining with modern narrow chains. So that's some vague guidance on what to do with that chain. That said, my general preferences of ring/cog combos on a triple were expressed in post 43, which sorta correlates with this theory of drivetrain wear..

Steve_sr

Right now I am leaning toward changing out the crank rings as a permanent change since I rarely use the big ring anyway. However, this all depends on being able to find the correct parts, the big ring being the hardest to find.

Finding a big ring might be easier if I had the Shimano part number to go with it. I managed to find the Shimano documentation for the standard FC-7800 and FC-7803 triple! Do you know where Shimano listed these "accessory" parts since they are not listed with the regular cranksets?

I am not familiar with the bike parts aftermarket and QBP got rid of their web access for end users. Can you give me some AM manufacturers to look at may have the rings that I am looking for?

Yes, thanks so much for your assistance! Once I got usable bikes I haven't seen much use in upgrading to the latest gizmo so my limited bike knowledge is now pretty ancient by today's standards. I used to get a lot of good information from rec.bikes.tech in USENET but gave that up when my new ISP couldn't manage a news server. Now they can barely handle email! LOL

rccardr 

As has been said above, you don’t need to use Shimano, or for that matter, any particular brand of rings as long as the bolt count (5) and BCD are correct.
It is not at all difficult to find good big rings from various manufacturers that are pinned, or excellent middle rings and grannys of the desired tooth counts.
Personally, on my triples (which are typically used for touring) I use a 48/36/24 combination as it works well for me with a 12-34 or 11-34 cassette.
Switching out the rings is not difficult and if you wind up wanting to move the inner rings around a little there are thin spacers available to tune them precisely.

cyccommute 

Derailer capacity is, like many things bicycle, conservative. The max cog is usually fairly set but the ability to wrap is far greater than Shimano says it is. I for example am using a XTR to shift a 11-36 cassette mated to a 44/34/20 crank. Shimano says that can’t work but it works just fine.

That’s also a good option and the way I went. I use a 44 outer chain ring but a 42 would also work. Honestly a 52/11 gearing that gives a 129” gear is getting up into the super human category of gearing. I read something once that Miguel Indurain won the Tour de France on a bike with a 110” high gear.

There’s a couple of ways to go. Perhaps the cheapest is to go with a Wolftooth RoadLink and a cassette with a 32 or 34 low gear. I’m running a RoadLink with an XTR rear derailer and a 36 tooth low. The XTR wasn’t quite up to the 36 but it is a very old XTR.

I’m going to assume that your crank is an external bearing but this would work with other bearing configurations. You can easily put on a mountain bike crank with smaller rings. A 44/34/22 crank does provide a nice high and a nice low. If the 44 tooth is too small and your derailer has chainstay interference problems, you can go to a 46 or 48 tooth outer and still keep the 22 inner. You’ll need to move spacers on an external bottom bracket for the road front derailer to work properly…move all the spacers to the nondrive side…but that is minor. If you have a different bottom bracket configuration, you may need to shorten the spindle.

Here’s a couple of examples. The black Cannondale has a 44/34/22 Deore crank and an 11-34 cassette. It’s shifted by Ultegra 9 speed shifters but your 10s will work on that configuration.



This is my touring bike with a 44/34/20 (yes, 20 tooth inner) and an 11-36 cassette. That gives me this gear combination with a 15” low and a 110” high. Below is a close up of the gearing where you can see the road link. By the way, a 20 tooth chainwheel can be used but some file work is required on the inner chain ring mounts to make it work.

70sSanO

You can generally get whatever chainring you want from TA Specialties.

Non Shimano/non-matched rings work. You just need to be able to shift the chainrings correctly; not under load. Heck, I’ve used flat rings with STI’s.

If you really want to swap out a crankset with a mtb crank, you need to be able to dial in the road chainline. It can be done easier with some BB’s than others.

My top gear is 48-14, I tracked down some 14t 1st position cogs, and there are times I miss another cog or two. But as I age it bothers me less. I am not suggesting that you do this.

If your middle ring is your all purpose riding ring, then set your bike up for that one, you might be able to hit all 10 cogs while in the middle. Then the low chainring for climbing, and finally the outer ring for those long stretches of open road.

John

bocobiking

Oops! I forgot to attach the rear derailleur I was talking about. Here it is: RD-M591 Rear Derailleur – Mike's Bikes (mikesbikes.com)

Steve_sr

Well, I found TA Specialties website, Unfortunately, it is in French and I don't speak french and Google is not offering to translate it!

After some more searching I found the Bike24 (located in France) website that is in English and I think that I found the rings that I need. The outer big ring 46T in TA Alize and the inner 24T Zelito. Now the only issue is to find a source for these in the States or a EU source that ships here for a reasonable cost. Any suggestions?

This is what i have now on the middle ring. I can hit all 10 cogs. If I can find these rings it seems like that should work. I also like that it keeps the gap between steps rather small on the rear by keeping the 12-30. I guess that you could call this setup a "Compact Triple For Old Folks"! lol

Thanks,
Steve

Crankycrank

Try here for a USA seller. peterwhitecycles.com/tach.php#zephyr A mind boggling variety of rings but narrow it down to Shimano 10 speed and correct bolt size 110, 130 etc. and it narrows it down considerably. Usually 2 or 3 different levels of durability for each size and price determines which is best.

ShannonM

If you're going for a 46Tx130mm, with shift aids, I'd say go for the Sugino. Really well made, quite a bit cheaper than the TAs, albeit not as pretty. (Nothing is... TA parts are gorgeous, but you'll pay for it.) Where TA rings really come into the conversation is if you want a weird tooth count, like an odd number that isn't 53, 45, or 39, or if you want the absolute smallest chainring for your BCD. (41x144, 38x130, 33x110)

--Shannon

Kontact 

Yeah, you got it to work by combining it with a totally different cassette and rear derailleur. But you are ignoring that the OP is not going to put 40t cog on his road bike, or replace his rear derailleur. If he sticks with a 28T low in back, that front derailleur is going to rub if you go to a smaller granny.

I get your suggestion and experience, but it doesn't work in a vacuum.

I'm not sure why you are concerned with what kind of chainrings Shimano stopped making 15 years ago. If you want to find out, see if you can find images of old catalogs.

The solution to your chainring quest is to search for "130 BCD chainring" + whatever. (Your inner granny ring is 74 BCD). That will give you a selection of middle and outer chainrings compatible with your crank from all manufacturers. The only this to be aware of is some rings are made for cranks with one of the chainring bolts hidden under the crankarm. Some aftermarket rings are built to be mounted either way, and most are just like yours.

You will see rings from many makers, including old stock Shimano. For current aftermarket, Praxis makes nice stuff. You might value those rings with special teeth and lifters for better shifting, but if you are making a change to a smaller outer ring, you will find that even unramped rings shift very well when they have less difference from the middle ring.

Duragrouch

I think if you're replacing all three chainrings, a whole new crank may be the same price, might even come with external BB bearings. Big thing to watch out for is Q-factor, I prefer a narrower Q to some mountain cranks. Then again, that lovely 5 bolt retro crank, not sure you can find a new one that nice looking. Possibly SRAM. For example, only a double, but look at this deal, 5x130 hollowtech II style with BB bearings, 53/39, $55 complete:

https://www.amazon.com/BOLANY-Cranks...dp/B0BDFG11JJ/

But I'm not turning up any road triples with lower than 30T inner.

If you want something special, sometimes ya gotta create it yourself.

rccardr 

Question: Seems to me that Shimano made some later road triples where the granny ring was attached to the middle ring, not directly to the crank arm.
If so, that means the OP is wedded to a 39 tooth middle ring.

Please correct me if my memory has failed.

Duragrouch

Not certain, but you may be right. However, if the middle ring sits on "ledges" to center the ring, then tabs to hold the inner would have to be in between the bolts for the middle, which would be more laterally flexy. Unless, the middle ring was thicker at the bolt holes and machined to engage both the middle ledges, and have tabs for the inner.

Kontact 

This image was easy to find:

Kontact 

Steve_sr, here''s a packaged 6603 that shows some of the chainring combos on the top of the packaging:

Duragrouch

Like the martians say on sesame street, "Nope-nope-nope-nope-nope-nope..." I see cast-in raised bosses for the inner ring bolts, as well as bolts for the middle ring. If the inner were bolted to the middle, you wouldn't have those cast bolting points for the inner.

Not saying that the example doesn't exist, just that pic isn't it.

Kontact 

Well, yeah. I posted that photo to refute the idea that the granny is connected to the middle ring.

Carbonfiberboy 

This isn't complicated at all. Touring in possibly steep terrain? How steep? Ask the tour leader. The OP is not carrying anything more that we carry on a normal day ride. IOW, what he will experience on tour, he can easily duplicate on an ordinary day ride here, assuming he has access to similar terrain. So if he hasn't already ordered a 26, why not? Slap it on, go ride terrain. See what happens. Then fool around with other options if necessary. For sure, the OP will want to ride with the rest of the group, and not penalize himself with a drivetrain which ensures that he won't be able to.

Back when I was 67, my wife an I did a solo tandem tour in the Czech Republic, fully loaded, camping, with the same gearing we use here for ordinary day rides, and my wife is not a strong rider. Only change was that I built a rear wheel with a drum brake. Back then we had a 11-36 cassette. We spent more time in lower gears, but we also used the big ring a lot. The route I plotted was on side roads and bike trails, just up and down all day long, 450 miles of that, no support, no problems, we had a blast. We did get noticeably stronger, fun when we got back.

rccardr 

My bad. It’s apparently the 6703 crankset that has the granny bolted to the middle ring.
Again, please correct me if inaccurate.

WGB 

Re: using a Wolf Tooth adapter

I had thought of using one to allow for larger cogs but I have never owned a bike with over 8 speeds. I checked the Wolf Tooth website and they show adapters for 10/11 speed. In this thread there's talk of using the adapters with a 9 speed.

Does anyone know if a Wolf Link will work with an 8 speed???

Steve_sr

I am not but I thought that it would be good place to start looking. Sometimes if you plug in a specific OEM part number Google will find AM equivalents.

Well, I just spent an hour or so surfing Sugino's website and it appears that either they have gotten out of or never had 10-speed rings with 130PCD. All of their stuff is 110PCD. The only 130PCD were 7-8 speed rings.

Praxis is next on my list but probably not tonight. Tomorrow is supposed to be a rain day so no riding.