22, 32, 42 - 22, 32, 44, or 22, 34, 44...???

[Carbon_Kiwi]

just wondering what peoples opinions where. i currently ride 24, 36, 46, but have to downsize for my ti bb to work with my oZ, and to improve the chainline.
i ride xc mainly - single track, fire roads etc.
12-28 in the back, don't often get into the small cogs while in the big chainring...

[khuon]

just wondering what peoples opinions where. i currently ride 24, 36, 46, but have to downsize for my ti bb to work with my oZ, and to improve the chainline.
i ride xc mainly - single track, fire roads etc.
12-28 in the back, don't often get into the small cogs while in the big chainring...

I would suggest you go hit a gear calculator and pick the combination with the least amount or most amount of redundant gears as your tastes may be.

Here's one:

http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~fritter/bike-gearcalc.html

I personally would rather have less redundant gears but I know some people who prefer more redundancy/overlap as they'd rather shift the rear than the front under load.

[kiwi]

carbon kiwi....I run a 22 32 42 combo but i think i have a 11 28.I think a very slightly lower ratio would help maybe a 12 30 on the rear.Having saaid that when you have a tailwind at the rainbow you can nearly max out on an 11 42.If you are happy with your gearing on the 957 see if you can match the ratios with your new compact drive....Actually i might have a 20 granny .I am not sure on that

[Thunderchild]

I run a 20-30-44 up front and a 11-32 in the back.  I am still running 8-speed.   [smiley=yawn.gif]  Lower gears work great in Moab and they are a bit less stress on the knees.  

[GaryF52]

I recently changed from a 22 34 44 to a 22 32 42, on my 5000.  The difference was not very dramatic.  Don't sweat this one too much.  You can always change cassettes to alter your ratios.  One possible plus for the smaller chainrings is that you can shorten your chain.  

[Carbon_Kiwi]

thanks for the input everyone - 22, 32, 42 it is  
those gear calculators are interesting...