On 8/12/22 13:25, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 8:06 PM, James wrote:
>> On 7/12/22 23:10, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>
>>> I was looking for *a touring road bike with triple
>>> crankset* for my son (like the 'Dawes Super Galaxy' - IIRC
>>> with Athena groupset - my friend bought in 1995), not a
>>> triple crankset without a bike attached.
>>
>> Finding a new bike that comes with Campagnolo equipment is
>> rare these days.  Finding a new touring specific bike with
>> Campagnolo equipment, I agree, would be like finding teeth
>> from a hen.  But it's not impossible to build one, it seems.
>>
>>> Currently, the best you can get seems to be a gravel bike
>>> with 2x11 GRX with 34:38 as lowest gear.
>>
>>
>> Is that 34 front to 38 rear?  I don't know why they would do
>> that.  Very large cassettes makes it more difficult for the
>> rear derailleur.  I'd rather a smaller chain ring and
>> smaller biggest sprocket, with smaller steps between cogs.
>>
>> The GRX 2x cranks I just bought have 30/46 chain rings.
>> 32/48 is also available.  Probably others.
>
>
>> "large cassettes makes it more difficult for the
>> rear derailleur."
>
> That was true once, but modern derailleur geometry, springs and cage
> shapes have changed everything. Utterly.  The diminutive 'race length'
> Campagnolo 12 rears shift a 34t cassette with wide compact fronts
> snappily and positively.
>

34t cassettes (or clusters) were decades ago. I'm talking upward of 42t
cassette sprockets.

I know it is done these days, but I'm not keen to fit a chain ring on a
cassette.

--
JS

On 9/12/22 04:34, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:09:57 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
>> On 8/12/22 11:04, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> You point out a 5 year old "new" 11 speed Athena (actually a Centaur
>>> from a year earlier) with 170 mm arms for $370 and you can't feel the
>>> load of an 11 tooth cog? Obviously they designed the SRAM with a 9
>>> tooth cog for you.
>> WTF are you on about?
>>
>> Best you leave it there.
>
> That is NOT a newly manufactured triple. It is a rare bird with short arms (172.5 is the largest distributed crank size).

Bullshit.

My first google search hit is a wholesale outlet offering Athena triple
with 170, 172.5 and 175mm cranks.

https://www.bikesportz.com.au/a/cranksets/campagnolo/crankset-11sp-athena-triple-5-arm-p-t/70888?variant_id=515080

"Description

Part Number: FC13-ATB5092
Product Code: CAM ATTR FC-BK175-F092
Barcode: 8004995868319

CRANKSET 11SP ATHENA TRIPLE 5-ARM P/T

Show less

Brand: Campagnolo
Type: Cranksets
Colour: Black, Silver
Crank Arm Length: 170mm, 172mm, 175mm
Ratio: 30/39/52t
Discipline: Road
Rings: Triple
Item condition: New
Availability: In-store
ID: 70888"

> Using a 9 tooth rear cog means that the chain is turning 180 degrees in 5 chain links. This is acceptable since on mountain bikes they are only used for going downhill. But this tight of a turn has a lot of problems elsewhere - touring bikes which you seem to be implying are inadequate without a 50 tooth makes me wonder what sort of touring you've been doing. Routes flat enough to even allow you to use a 50 aren't that common. I cannot even imagine a touring bike with a 50/9. The drag of making a turn that tight must be phenomenal. I plainly feel the drag of an 11 tooth.

I implied nothing of the sort. I have a touring bike with a Shitmano
triple, with a 50t big ring. The cassette on that is an 11-34t. Read
about it here https://www.marinbikes.com/au/bikes/2018-four-corners

I've toured fully loaded over mountainous terrain twice now. Both times
there have been long descents and sections of tailwind where I used the
50t chain ring.

>
> Have you ridden a 50/9 on a touring bike?

No, and I'm pretty sure I said I'm unlikely to try a 9t cassette for the
foreseeable future.

Do try to keep up.

> For that matter have you ridden a 50/11 on anything other than a downhill?
>
Yes.

> There were reasons that small cogs were generally limited to 12,13 or 14 and it wasn't because they couldn't make 11's. Also there is a reason that the Touring triples you buy from Shimano aren't large rings.
>

Whatever.

--
JS

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 10:01:35 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
> On 9/12/22 04:34, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:09:57 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
> >> On 8/12/22 11:04, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >>> You point out a 5 year old "new" 11 speed Athena (actually a Centaur
> >>> from a year earlier) with 170 mm arms for $370 and you can't feel the
> >>> load of an 11 tooth cog? Obviously they designed the SRAM with a 9
> >>> tooth cog for you.
> >> WTF are you on about?
> >>
> >> Best you leave it there.
> >
> > That is NOT a newly manufactured triple. It is a rare bird with short arms (172.5 is the largest distributed crank size).
> Bullshit.
>
> My first google search hit is a wholesale outlet offering Athena triple
> with 170, 172.5 and 175mm cranks.
>
> https://www.bikesportz.com.au/a/cranksets/campagnolo/crankset-11sp-athena-triple-5-arm-p-t/70888?variant_id=515080
>
> "Description
>
> Part Number: FC13-ATB5092
> Product Code: CAM ATTR FC-BK175-F092
> Barcode: 8004995868319
>
> CRANKSET 11SP ATHENA TRIPLE 5-ARM P/T
>
> Show less
>
> Brand: Campagnolo
> Type: Cranksets
> Colour: Black, Silver
> Crank Arm Length: 170mm, 172mm, 175mm
> Ratio: 30/39/52t
> Discipline: Road
> Rings: Triple
> Item condition: New
> Availability: In-store
> ID: 70888"
> > Using a 9 tooth rear cog means that the chain is turning 180 degrees in 5 chain links. This is acceptable since on mountain bikes they are only used for going downhill. But this tight of a turn has a lot of problems elsewhere - touring bikes which you seem to be implying are inadequate without a 50 tooth makes me wonder what sort of touring you've been doing. Routes flat enough to even allow you to use a 50 aren't that common. I cannot even imagine a touring bike with a 50/9. The drag of making a turn that tight must be phenomenal. I plainly feel the drag of an 11 tooth.
> I implied nothing of the sort. I have a touring bike with a Shitmano
> triple, with a 50t big ring. The cassette on that is an 11-34t. Read
> about it here https://www.marinbikes.com/au/bikes/2018-four-corners
>
> I've toured fully loaded over mountainous terrain twice now. Both times
> there have been long descents and sections of tailwind where I used the
> 50t chain ring.
> >
> > Have you ridden a 50/9 on a touring bike?
> No, and I'm pretty sure I said I'm unlikely to try a 9t cassette for the
> foreseeable future.
>
> Do try to keep up.
> > For that matter have you ridden a 50/11 on anything other than a downhill?
> >
> Yes.
> > There were reasons that small cogs were generally limited to 12,13 or 14 and it wasn't because they couldn't make 11's. Also there is a reason that the Touring triples you buy from Shimano aren't large rings.
> >
> Whatever.
>
> --
> JS

You'll have to forgive me James but there is NO WAY that you could turn the cranks on a touring bike with a 50/11. Just don't say things to prove your point that anyone knows isn't true. I have no problem of you riding over any mountain in low gears, but when you suggest you can climb in a 50 perhaps you can explain why the remaining manufacturer of triples - Shimano has small rings? I know people that have toured around the world in virtually every country and not one of them would say that they had ridden a 50/11 on flat ground on a touring bike let alone climb.

On 12/11/2022 12:49 AM, James wrote:
>
>
> 34t cassettes (or clusters) were decades ago.  I'm talking upward of 42t
> cassette sprockets.
>
> I know it is done these days, but I'm not keen to fit a chain ring on a
> cassette.

I think I've described here before, the day a young guy at a century
ride mocked the 32 or 34 tooth cog on my freewheel.

Fashion changes! It's weird and powerful!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/11/2022 1:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> You'll have to forgive me James but there is NO WAY that you could turn the cranks on a touring bike with a 50/11. Just don't say things to prove your point that anyone knows isn't true. I have no problem of you riding over any mountain in low gears, but when you suggest you can climb in a 50 perhaps you can explain why the remaining manufacturer of triples - Shimano has small rings? I know people that have toured around the world in virtually every country and not one of them would say that they had ridden a 50/11 on flat ground on a touring bike let alone climb.

I doubt Tom really knows anyone who has toured in virtually every
country. I think that's his normal bullshit, but he can prove me wrong
by listing those people's names.

I've toured only in about ten or twelve countries. I've toured fully
loaded in many, many U.S. states plus Canada. I'm not a fan of high
gearing, but:

It's certainly possible to pedal a gear as big as James describes on
flat ground with a suitable tailwind. I've ridden long ways in the U.S.
Great Plains with a 30 mph tailwind. I could have used a 122 inch gear
then, if I'd had one.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/12/22 05:02, Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> You'll have to forgive me James but there is NO WAY that you could
> turn the cranks on a touring bike with a 50/11. Just don't say things
> to prove your point that anyone knows isn't true. I have no problem
> of you riding over any mountain in low gears, but when you suggest
> you can climb in a 50 perhaps you can explain why the remaining
> manufacturer of triples - Shimano has small rings? I know people that
> have toured around the world in virtually every country and not one
> of them would say that they had ridden a 50/11 on flat ground on a
> touring bike let alone climb.

I never once suggested that I rode up hill (* for any reasonable
distance) on a fully loaded touring bike using a 50t chain ring
regardless of the cassette sprocket used.

You're attributing your imaginations to me. Doing so makes you look stupid.

(It is common to have been in a big gear at the bottom of a descent and
start to go up the next hill using momentum before having to change gears.)

--
JS

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
> On 12/12/22 05:02, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >
> > You'll have to forgive me James but there is NO WAY that you could
> > turn the cranks on a touring bike with a 50/11. Just don't say things
> > to prove your point that anyone knows isn't true. I have no problem
> > of you riding over any mountain in low gears, but when you suggest
> > you can climb in a 50 perhaps you can explain why the remaining
> > manufacturer of triples - Shimano has small rings? I know people that
> > have toured around the world in virtually every country and not one
> > of them would say that they had ridden a 50/11 on flat ground on a
> > touring bike let alone climb.
> I never once suggested that I rode up hill (* for any reasonable
> distance) on a fully loaded touring bike using a 50t chain ring
> regardless of the cassette sprocket used.
>
> You're attributing your imaginations to me. Doing so makes you look stupid.
>
> (It is common to have been in a big gear at the bottom of a descent and
> start to go up the next hill using momentum before having to change gears..)

You said that you could ride on flat ground in a 50/11. That would translate to riding up a hill in a 50/28. I do that on a sport bike and not an unloaded touring bike. It is difficult at best. The steepest I've been able to do in a 50-28 is 5%. Touring bikes are so much heavier that I doubt even a superfit young man could improve on that. I'm not one for worrying about light weight but a proper touring bike in my 62 size weighs almost 40 lbs with the tools you normally carry on a tour, the flat kit and the two water bottles.

I really don't know why you're arguing about this Tim, a 50/11 is a killer gear for 99% of the people on this planet unless you have a downhill or a very strong tailwind. I will admit to doing 32 mph on a flat straight road with a 45 mph tailwind and if you're using that as an example just say so. If I had a larger gear I probably could have turned it as well. But in calm conditions and a bike as heavy as a good touring bike with the normal handlebar bag and water bottles. There's no way anyone on this group could turn a 50/11 except as a joke. Ride a 50/23 up to speed and then put it into the 11 and pretend that you're riding normally.

On 12/11/2022 9:33 PM, James wrote:
> On 12/12/22 05:02, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>
>> You'll have to forgive me James but there is NO WAY that you could
>> turn the cranks on a touring bike with a 50/11. Just don't say things
>> to prove your point that anyone knows isn't true. I have no problem
>> of you riding over any mountain in low gears, but when you suggest
>> you can climb in a 50 perhaps you can explain why the remaining
>> manufacturer of triples - Shimano has small rings? I know people that
>> have toured around the world in virtually every country and not one
>> of them would say that they had ridden a 50/11 on flat ground on a
>> touring bike let alone climb.
>
> I never once suggested that I rode up hill (* for any reasonable
> distance) on a fully loaded touring bike using a 50t chain ring
> regardless of the cassette sprocket used.
>
> You're attributing your imaginations to me.  Doing so makes you look
> stupid.

Tom does have those tendencies. We've seen those a lot.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 1:01:35 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
> On 9/12/22 04:34, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:09:57 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
> >> On 8/12/22 11:04, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >>> You point out a 5 year old "new" 11 speed Athena (actually a Centaur
> >>> from a year earlier) with 170 mm arms for $370 and you can't feel the
> >>> load of an 11 tooth cog? Obviously they designed the SRAM with a 9
> >>> tooth cog for you.
> >> WTF are you on about?
> >>
> >> Best you leave it there.
> >
> > That is NOT a newly manufactured triple. It is a rare bird with short arms (172.5 is the largest distributed crank size).
> Bullshit.
>
> My first google search hit is a wholesale outlet offering Athena triple
> with 170, 172.5 and 175mm cranks.
>
> https://www.bikesportz.com.au/a/cranksets/campagnolo/crankset-11sp-athena-triple-5-arm-p-t/70888?variant_id=515080
>
> "Description
>
> Part Number: FC13-ATB5092
> Product Code: CAM ATTR FC-BK175-F092
> Barcode: 8004995868319
>
> CRANKSET 11SP ATHENA TRIPLE 5-ARM P/T
>
> Show less
>
> Brand: Campagnolo
> Type: Cranksets
> Colour: Black, Silver
> Crank Arm Length: 170mm, 172mm, 175mm
> Ratio: 30/39/52t
> Discipline: Road
> Rings: Triple
> Item condition: New
> Availability: In-store
> ID: 70888"
> > Using a 9 tooth rear cog means that the chain is turning 180 degrees in 5 chain links. This is acceptable since on mountain bikes they are only used for going downhill. But this tight of a turn has a lot of problems elsewhere - touring bikes which you seem to be implying are inadequate without a 50 tooth makes me wonder what sort of touring you've been doing. Routes flat enough to even allow you to use a 50 aren't that common. I cannot even imagine a touring bike with a 50/9. The drag of making a turn that tight must be phenomenal. I plainly feel the drag of an 11 tooth.
> I implied nothing of the sort. I have a touring bike with a Shitmano
> triple, with a 50t big ring. The cassette on that is an 11-34t. Read
> about it here https://www.marinbikes.com/au/bikes/2018-four-corners
>
> I've toured fully loaded over mountainous terrain twice now. Both times
> there have been long descents and sections of tailwind where I used the
> 50t chain ring.
> >
> > Have you ridden a 50/9 on a touring bike?
> No, and I'm pretty sure I said I'm unlikely to try a 9t cassette for the
> foreseeable future.
>
> Do try to keep up.
> > For that matter have you ridden a 50/11 on anything other than a downhill?
> >
> Yes.
> > There were reasons that small cogs were generally limited to 12,13 or 14 and it wasn't because they couldn't make 11's. Also there is a reason that the Touring triples you buy from Shimano aren't large rings.
> >
> Whatever.
>
> --
> JS

Uh oh James, now you've done it - introduced actual facts into a 'discussion' with tommy. It's only a matter of time now before he calls you a google-using liberal scumbag.

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
> On 12/12/22 05:02, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >
> > You'll have to forgive me James but there is NO WAY that you could
> > turn the cranks on a touring bike with a 50/11. Just don't say things
> > to prove your point that anyone knows isn't true. I have no problem
> > of you riding over any mountain in low gears, but when you suggest
> > you can climb in a 50 perhaps you can explain why the remaining
> > manufacturer of triples - Shimano has small rings? I know people that
> > have toured around the world in virtually every country and not one
> > of them would say that they had ridden a 50/11 on flat ground on a
> > touring bike let alone climb.
> I never once suggested that I rode up hill (* for any reasonable
> distance) on a fully loaded touring bike using a 50t chain ring
> regardless of the cassette sprocket used.
>
> You're attributing your imaginations to me. Doing so makes you look stupid.
>
> (It is common to have been in a big gear at the bottom of a descent and
> start to go up the next hill using momentum before having to change gears..)

I did a 32 mile 2850 foot climbing ride today. Although two of us started early in the frost another 8 caught up at the coffee stop. Everyone rides top end sports bikes with compact gearing. I put it to them: can you ride a 50/11 on flat ground. The only one that said he could was an ex-racer. I asked him if he could do it on a touring bike and he asked me why I would ever want to do that except down hill. So I really don't understand what you're trying to say.