DRIVETRAIN Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 smileys/smiley4.gifWhy is it then with these set-up's that C/Lab does..Bio something etc that U pay R400 for some cyclists are not impressed with their set-ups???? they go have it re-done somewhere else & it's all changed and they happy.....smileys/smiley19.gifjust a thought........."DTsmileys/smiley4.gif"
scotty Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Excuse my ignorance, what is a the diff between a 9spd and 10spd crank ?? Surely this is dictated to by your shifter and cassete.
Brakkies Sport Fotos Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 The only change you need to do is to go to 172.5 (they recon that if you're still young with longish legs you go for the 175). Triple? Don't need to change, but if you do, go 53/39.. Seeing that you do have a 11/25.
Brakkies Sport Fotos Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 The Bio-Racer.My problem with that is, they measure your hight, arm length, shoulder width, inseam of your leg and shoe make.That that machine pop out a "generic / on average" setup and they set you up like that.What if you st with a back problem, implanted hip etc? They don't cater for that. So, yes if you have money to spend, go to willie engelbrect, do the same bio-racer setup for R300 and get a print out.Promise you, 90% of you is going to change that setup once on the bike again.
Droster_Renoster Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Maybe I've got this wrong, but it sounds to me like the general advice is (amongst other things) to change from a triple to a double crankset. People, WHY?
linnega Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Dunno Scotty - puzzled with that myself. Unlce Al seems to think they are not compatible. Have never had an inclination to try Shimano's 10sp. As far as I know the 130mm BCD 5-bolt chainrings are common for all Shimano cranks.
scotty Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Cause it not bike PC DR smileys/smiley2.gifThanks Linnega, thats what i understand as well. All in the end i think just the change in lenghth should do it.
BikeMax Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 If you are not desperate to spend money then I would leave it all as is.The difference between riding a 170mm and 172.5mm would not be "felt" by many riders in a blind test. I am 173cm and have ridden 170mm for a long while. I did in fact change to 172.5mm a few months back but cannot really feel a difference of note.Triple chainset will suit most people more than a "pro" set up of 39/53 with 11/23 or even 12/25 and you will benefit from havong more relaxed gearing on the climbs. If anything, a compact might be nice but you will have most of these gears with your current set up (and more)If anything, the frame "might" be a little large but that is impossible to tell without someone seeing you on the bike. If you find yourself riding on the top of th bars and avoiding the top of the hoods position then this might indicate that you are ona frame that is a little long but if you feel comfortable on the hoods then you are probably ok.Hope this helps - dont throw your money away smileys/smiley5.gif
Droster_Renoster Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Cause it not bike PC DR smileys/smiley2.gifThanks Linnega' date=' thats what i understand as well. All in the end i think just the change in lenghth should do it.[/quote'] Yeah, thought so. I must admit to find that particular thing extremely irritating among many so-called "serious cyclists". Common sense and practicality is thrown out the window in favour of appearances . . .In the end, my opinion(based on nothing else but personal experience and my own version of common sense, is that the cranks may possibly be to short. Get it assessed by a profesisonal not hell-bent on stealing your money.
HomerSimpson Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Maybe I've got this wrong' date=' but it sounds to me like the general advice is (amongst other things) to change from a triple to a double crankset. People, WHY? [/quote'] Also wondered about this for some time. I have a triple crankset, and have endured, over the years, the usual comments. For long periods of time I actually did not make use of the granny gear at all, until I started with the MTB a few months ago. When I went back onto the road I found that shifting to the granny gear on the slightly steeper hills (like Suikerbossie) actually resulted in an increase in average speed up the hill (eg climbing with a 30/21 was far more efficient than a 42/25) with apparently less effort.
linnega Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 It does depend on what you get used to. I use the 34/25 whenever I get a chance on steeper climbs. When riding on your own you will probably find using an easier gear is best provided you can spin 120+ rpm. However, when you need to follow accelerations in a racing bunch it is a different story. When racing fit, I very seldom (in South Africa) used anything easier than 34/21.
slowpoke Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 i would definately keep the triple. if you really want to change then i'll happily figure out a way to buy that triple off of you! smileys/smiley2.gifbikemax is correct in saying the biggest difference you'll feel would be frame size... i rode a 51cm for 2 years and "felt comfortable" enough. when i treated myself to my new baby which is the correct size (XS) i did feel the difference and when i see pics of myself on the old bike i wonder how i survived. my cranks are still (theoretically) too long (they are 170) but i'm not yet convinced enough to cough up the dosh to replace them - i'm saving for the right width of handlebars first...get the fit of the actual bike and your reach to the hoods right first before changing "minor" issues that cost a lot.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now