Home

I use 2 near identical bikes most often. Both were flat bar road bikes, hub gear horizontal dropout and a 3*9 vertical dropout derraileur. Basically same tube measurements.

I converted the 3*9 to dropbar 2*9.
52/39 pulling a 23/12.
I love the combination but I miss out on climbs.
I don't want to change the higher combinations because I have 3+ years worth of spare cogs; chainwheels and cassettes and the gears usually shift between 52 pulling 12-16 on my work ride.

Would 52/39/30 work on a front derraileur to your best opinion?
I'm hoping one of the wrecks has an STI *3 left shifter. A bit of a rat bike but it's efficient.
No sure regarding the mechanical throw of the chain stepping up/down sizes. Can't remember what the initial big chain wheel tooth count was but I didn't move the derraileur to utilize it as a 2 speed.

I'm thinking yes.

11 comments

Avatar
SilverBugle [9 posts] 3 weeks ago
0 likes

I can't think why it shouldn't.  My current road bike is a 9 speed 50/39/26.  This was adapted by replacing the 30 with a 26.  Depending on the cage length of your rear mech you may need to change it for a longer one, as you will have a lot more spare chain to wrap away reducing from 39 to 30.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 [2728 posts] 3 weeks ago
1 like

I have a Deore 48/36/26 Standard, but Icthink I could squeeze a 50 ring on it

Avatar
zero_trooper [370 posts] 3 weeks ago
0 likes

What was your original groupset?

Shimano used to do a 52-42-30 in 2300, so perfectly possible. Do you still have the original front derailleur fitted?

Avatar
Boatsie [464 posts] 3 weeks ago
1 like

Thanks guys. Yes original front derraileur.
I'm glad to read 50/39/26..
All good then. I'm in habit of shifting to suit front chain wheel. Ie at moment although all combinations are useable I shift 39 through 23/15 and 52 through 17/12 but a longer hanger is cheap enough to replace if needed.

26 would be lovely when small ring wears out.
Many thanks

Avatar
Boatsie [464 posts] 3 weeks ago
1 like

Life's too short and it ain't broken so no need to fix it.
Thanks anyway.
I figured the skinny tyre bike is lighter and I doubt wanting to climb in the cold hence the ratios are fine if I boundary my rides between the beach and the steeps of the range.

Smiling. Thanks much

Avatar
Boatsie [464 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

I've just read and can't article regarding Shimanos new group set gravel bike..

Maybe they can find this?
When home to lengthen chain nine holes I can verify is short cage will take compression 30-12.
If so, shorten 5 hole on 52-23 to verify cage stretching.

Hence to me it is probable of a sequential shifting top end with bog cogs to long climb after energy spent but MORE IMPORTANTLY via a heavy duty 9speed chain and a minimal maintenance minimal fuss non composite built system which is relatively light on weight on the arse end but sturdy and strong.
It doesn't have brakes (it does, they work ok, they were cheap at <$40Aus a set (mini Vs)) but I can't find HYDRAULIC 9 SPEED alloy STI levers and I'd think you'd find a market with them.
1. Heavy duty chains suit mud.
2. Easy to adjust systems.
3. Brakes that would work well and keep the children safe.
4. Materials that would keep the childrens children safe.
5. I'm probably a dumb dude that had a look and couldn't find any..
Thanks fellows. Hoping to keep the short cage, chains old as now but still loose on tight fulcrums.

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode [38 posts] 1 week ago
1 like

53/39/30 is actually one of Mr. Shimano's standard triple set ups, it came at least on the Dura Ace 7703 (I had this many moons ago) and a couplemof others, there's normally two trim shifts on the left lever, one for the outer and one for the middle. Campag also used to do 53/39/30.

Avatar
Boatsie [464 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

Just an odd ball thought.
I understand a lot of you guys/girls are more knowledged than I regarding useage of bikes yet I'm enjoying a close ratio cassette because it's easy to clean, rarely cleaned and nice and light weight. The triple into a small shallow sloop cassette might be heavier yet the triple weight is on the step and balance should be easier.

I did alright with university study of physics; I walked out of a 3hour physics exam after 1/2 hour due to blindness from alcohol poisoning and achieved a distinction grade.

53 is a primal number. With an understanding of first principles, primal numbers naturally balance crank shaft applications due to natural oscillations of such systems hence using primal numbers to crank a shaft means more power from less effort.
Hence the oddball thought, 53-41-31
51-37-29 would work extremely well.

Avatar
Boatsie [464 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

Watt is it like? Two feel alive?
How many tries on our lies.
Heave on is our skies.

We learn different forms of translating languages but they're all derived from a simplicity of natural self.
Physics is know different yet no different from such simplicity.
51 isn't a primal number but it is a 3-17 spread hence fairly decent a use of efficiency whereas 52,50,49 all contain squares, 48 boosts a quad power and 47 might be short per many man's preference.

Like much of modern fantasy, our systems seem to be bias towards rubbish making. Plastic notes, royalties towards bullying tribes, a neglect to maintain a heave on our earth.
Thus if you teams that manufacture bicycle equipment want to assist a simple man, some pros are listed below.
1. Better tyre wear.
2. Efficiency of transmission thus faster if racing, durability if commuting.
3. Ease of manufacturing using existing factories.

Note.. Just one of those less than 1% ers

Avatar
Boatsie [464 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

Hey Shimano.. Your Sora R3000 looks very nice.
Hidden cables.. Such a bonus. Winners.
I don't like the left brake though. Last time I rode a left brake I squeezed it having crossed 6 lanes of motorway thinking left was skid. Threw me over but on V brakes or mech. discs I believe right brake left skid possible.
I ain't buying because want isn't as high as need. Yet if a manufacture was to alloy part the system, the slight gain in weight isn't much and I know it'd open up to a larger market of people like me whom could find a want/need balance and use such a system.
Eg if such was with alloy levers I'd buy a set, if similar was with alloy levers and hydraulic master cylinders I'd be thinking of a wider stay bike upgrade.
I only look.

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode [38 posts] 1 week ago
1 like
Boatsie wrote:

Just an odd ball thought. I understand a lot of you guys/girls are more knowledged than I regarding useage of bikes yet I'm enjoying a close ratio cassette because it's easy to clean, rarely cleaned and nice and light weight. The triple into a small shallow sloop cassette might be heavier yet the triple weight is on the step and balance should be easier. I did alright with university study of physics; I walked out of a 3hour physics exam after 1/2 hour due to blindness from alcohol poisoning and achieved a distinction grade. 53 is a primal number. With an understanding of first principles, primal numbers naturally balance crank shaft applications due to natural oscillations of such systems hence using primal numbers to crank a shaft means more power from less effort. Hence the oddball thought, 53-41-31 51-37-29 would work extremely well.

Bigger chainrings means less lost power so a 52/53 isn't a bad idea and some people like cruising at low revs, 37T ring, well there used to be one or two companies that made a 37T 130mm BCD but if you can find them now you'd be doing well, 29 inner isn't small enough if you're using a close ratio cassette, certainly not for most people who wish to tour/go up steep hills.

Back in the old days you would see a 'half step plus granny' this was the outer and middle ring having not much of a difference, sometimes a 46/40 or a 48/42 and then anything from 30 down to a 24 on the inner. Some of the older front derailleurs weren't triple specific like some of the Sachs Huret models, also the Shimano 6207 could just about cope with a HS+G triple though was mostly for doubles.