Double Chain Ring...yikes

[violette]

I had a OCR3 and it had triple chain ring. I bought a Roubaix, and it only had double. It never even crossed my mind that it would be harder to go up hill! and boy, is it. Did someone here go from a triple to a double?

[motochick]

What are your double rings? Compact? What is your rear cluster? My hubby and I went from a triple to a compact on our tandem and all we do is go uphill. If we now what you have on your new bike, maybe we can help you get the right combo to make the hills easier. There will be a difference but it doesn't have to be so drastic.

Brenda

[Peanut03]

I have a triple right now, but I never use the "granny" gear. I originally got the triple because I was afraid I wouldn't make it up a hill. So it was strictly for emergency purposes. I think I've used it 3x in 7 years. I use the 39x53 chain rings and it seems to be fine for me. My new bike will have a compact double and I'm curious to see how that works for me. I think the compacts are 34x50.

[Jo-n-NY]

I have a triple right now, but I never use the "granny" gear. I originally got the triple because I was afraid I wouldn't make it up a hill. So it was strictly for emergency purposes. I think I've used it 3x in 7 years. I use the 39x53 chain rings and it seems to be fine for me. My new bike will have a compact double and I'm curious to see how that works for me. I think the compacts are 34x50.

Wow! I consider you a very strong rider. I rode the Bloomin Metic a few years ago. The ride was described to me as rolling hills. Some of those hills were so steep I by all means did not consider them rolling. Yes, that was a first time for me using my granny gears. I sure you will have not problem riding those hills with your compact.

~ JoAnn

[littlegrasshopp]

I am interested in this same question! I have a compact double. I seem to be in the lowest gears all the time! We will come to a hill and half way up DH is telling me to shift to an easier gear and spin...I am out of gears!! We are considering changing to a tripple. I have campi components and DH has said we can convert easily. The current shifters will work with the conversion.

[OakLeaf]

One thing I noticed when I was running gearing charts a week or two ago, was that a stock Campy double is considerably taller than a stock Shimano double. Before you do the triple conversion, you might just try shorter gearing on your double.

[violette]

Sorry, I don't know was a compact and cluster is???

[Pedal Wench]

One thing I noticed when I was running gearing charts a week or two ago, was that a stock Campy double is considerably taller than a stock Shimano double. Before you do the triple conversion, you might just try shorter gearing on your double.

They're both typically 53/39 -- same on Campy and Shimano, but I know Campy has a 13/29 cassette -- that I use religiously!:)

[aicabsolut]

Sorry, I don't know was a compact and cluster is???

How many teeth on the chain rings? 53/39, 52/39, 52/38, 50/36, 50/34, etc.

Size (range) of cassette? 12-27, 12-25, 12-23, 11-23, etc.

[motochick]

OK, I just checked out the link you gave in another topic, and if your bike has the same set up as the one in the picture, then no wonder you are struggling on the hills! I would never want to go uphill with that gear combo. If you do have a 53/39 in front and a 12-25 in the rear, your easiest gear is 40 gear inches! To give you an idea how high that is, my hubby's easiest gear is 35 gear inches. (and he is a strong boy) My easiest gear is 32. The lower the number the easier it is to pedal uphill.

There are some things you can do to make life easier but we need to know exactly what you have so we can point you in the right direction. Look at your smallest front ring and see if it is stamped with a number. If not, count the teeth. Next, look at the BIGGEST one in the back and count the teeth. Tell me what you got and we can help you. No one (but pros) should be climbing in a 39-25. OUCH

Brenda

[Andrea]

Just to defend the 39/53 a little...

It's totally possible to do some climbing with a 39/25. You just have to train for it. If you're willing to put up with some very tough "damn this" sort of moments, Then you will eventually get stronger and not have nearly as much of a problem.

Now back to your regularly scheduled "low gear" discussion...

[sundial]

I have a double and I have found hill climbing became easier. I don't know what kind of hills you have, but I have climbed 12-18% grade short hills with my Roubaix. If I were in the Smokey Mountains or Ashville, NC, I might want a triple to visit granny.

[OakLeaf]

They're both typically 53/39 -- same on Campy and Shimano, but I know Campy has a 13/29 cassette -- that I use religiously!:)

Yeah, I see now that I look more into it, top-end racing bikes generally come with 53/39 whichever gruppo they have. But lower-end bikes and "sport-tourers" like the compact version of my Synapse seem to come with 50/34.

Anyway yeah, it's a combination of how strong you are and how steep and long your hills are. Back in the day I could power up most anything with a low gear of 42x21. Not any more :rolleyes:

There aren't a lot of 20%+ hills around here, but there are enough. I know where most of them are, and they're the ones where I use the puppy gear. If I rode more I'm sure I could get strong enough again that I wouldn't need it... but that's just not where I'm at right now. So I'm happy with my triple :)

[aicabsolut]

My easiest gear on my Roubaix is 36/27, or 35 gear inches. That is considered pretty wussy by a lot of my friends. I don't use the 27 much..mostly for stopping and starting in traffic on hills as I really suck at getting going in a "hard" (for me) gear.

That is roughly equivalent to a 34/25 gear (my 36 compact is less common these days).

Don't worry a lot about the double, unless you want to make a more expensive switch to a compact crankset. You could try changing up the rear cluster to a SRAM 12-28 or 12-26 or Shimano 12-27 if your biggest cog is a 25. Those are much cheaper (max $100) options.

[spokewench]

I have a 39 low in front and a 27 in back - I do a lot of climbing when I ride; but I also own a Giant TCR which is like 16 pounds or something insanely light so it works for me. The only time it gets troublesome is on multi day i.e. 3-5 day rides with lots of mountain climbing, then on day 3 or 4, it can seem not enough. I don't do that much of that type of riding, so the gears work fine for me. I have, however, been riding for 20 plus years so that has something to do with it too.

[chicago]

I'm soon going from a triple to a compact... :D

[mimitabby]

My easiest gear on my Roubaix is 36/27, or 35 gear inches. That is considered pretty wussy by a lot of my friends. I don't use the 27 much..mostly for stopping and starting in traffic on hills as I really suck at getting going in a "hard" (for me) gear.


I hope you don't let your friends' attitudes bother you.
You can ride all day if you want on your top chain ring, but if you NEED
that granny gear, it's there.

[alpinerabbit]

Yeah, I see now that I look more into it, top-end racing bikes generally come with 53/39 whichever gruppo they have. But lower-end bikes and "sport-tourers" like the compact version of my Synapse seem to come with 50/34.

erm. I tend to think most package deals are less of an end than any custom build. a top-end bike comes any way you want...

Top-end riders, of course, ride 53/39 or even more than 53 but that's out of my league. I started like that and hurt my knees.

I really fought on a hard long climb last Sunday with 34/27 as my last resort and I would hate to try anything beyond 20% or even 17.

[Chile Pepper]

No one (but pros) should be climbing in a 39-25. OUCH

I beg to differ. I'm riding a classic steel with the original 52/42 chainrings and a 13/26 cassette. My lowest gear is 43.6 inches. I tried to change out the smaller chainring to a 39, but it didn't work (it rubbed)--and I have no intention of changing out the whole gearing system (or buying a new bike any time soon). I live in Chile, so nothing is flat, and we have a lot of very steep sections. Sure, it gets tough, but I haven't fallen over yet! As my husband likes to point out, if he did the Death Ride twice on 52 / 42 gearing, then I should be able to handle my regular climbs. It works for me (although the triple I rented in California last year sure was fun).

[kfergos]

I am interested in this same question! I have a compact double. I seem to be in the lowest gears all the time! We will come to a hill and half way up DH is telling me to shift to an easier gear and spin...I am out of gears!!

Me too! This is very timely, since I've been thinking about either going for a triple ($$) or getting some smaller gears. My ratio is 46/38 in the front, 12-27 in the back. Does that make me a total wuss to want lower gearing than that, and to never really use the 46 in daily use?

[violette]

I checked this morning; on the big ring, it says 53-39 and on the small ring, it says 39. Is this bad ???

[motochick]

It is not bad, but more important to know is what is the biggest one in the rear. Count the teeth.

Brenda

[Andrea]

I checked this morning; on the big ring, it says 53-39 and on the small ring, it says 39. Is this bad ???

In my (humble) opinion, it's not necessarily bad. Before you go out & spend money on a compact or triple, check your rear cassette. For help on the hills, the cog with the most teeth should have 26 or 27 (or even more, but that can leave you missing a few gears in the middle that you'd want on the flats). Buying a cassette with that gearing will cost less than a new crankset.

Give it a chance. Yes, it's going to seem harder at times, but chances are, if you keep pushing yourself, you'll get better at using the slightly harder gearing to climb hills. To quote something that another TE-er said to me once: "No self-doubt, please!"

[OakLeaf]

I think if it's 53/39 it's already a compact? Would a standard double accommodate a 14-tooth difference?

And no, it's not "bad," there's no good or bad gearing, there's just whether it's appropriate to the rider's strength and the terrain where the bike will be ridden.

Andrea, I do hear ya, but I think we can also agree that if the strength demands are too high, then someone won't be able to progress, and will just get frustrated or even injured. It's no different from a deconditioned person trying to learn to bench press with no options but a 45-lb bar. And, not everyone here is even trying to build strength. Or has the joints to support very high strength demands. For a lot of us, increasing or just maintaining endurance is enough.

Violette, do you know what your largest cog is on the freewheel? (if you can't see where it's stamped, you can count the teeth)

I might change out the chainrings before replacing the cassette - five teeth in front will make MUCH more difference than two in back.

Does anyone know what's the maximum differential in a compact? Can she do 53/34, or would that result in poor shifting and/or a lot of cross-chaining?

[violette]

Do you mean change my small front chainring? Do you know how much that would cost. I don't think it would be a big job.

[violette]

I just checked, it says 12-25.

[Andrea]

Usually compact chainrings are 34-50 or 36-50. There are a couple of other combos out there, but those are the most common.

[VeloVT]

Originally posted by Oakleaf:
I might change out the chainrings before replacing the cassette - five teeth in front will make MUCH more difference than two in back.

Does anyone know what's the maximum differential in a compact? Can she do 53/34, or would that result in poor shifting and/or a lot of cross-chaining?


Whether or not you can go down to a super-small inner ring depends on the Bolt Circle Diameter of your crankset.

I believe standard road doubles (53/39) have 130mm BCD's -- if this is the case with your cranks, you are limited to a 38 small ring.

Most compact doubles have a 110mm BCD; if somehow you ended up with a 110 mm BCD, you can go down to like a 33.

Sheldon Brown has a little information about this on his website, and you will get more if you google some combination of "BCD" and "chainrings".

[motochick]

If I was in your shoes, I would change my rear cassette to a 12-28. That would be a good place to start...and the cheapest. If that isn't enough, then come back and tell us and we can make another suggestion.

Brenda

[rij73]

Violette, you have standard gearing. If you are hurting, first thing to try is a 12-28 cassette in the rear. If you are still hurting after riding that for a while, you can look into getting a 50/34 compact crankset. That's my 2 cents from thinking about gears a lot.

[aicabsolut]

Originally posted by Oakleaf:
I might change out the chainrings before replacing the cassette - five teeth in front will make MUCH more difference than two in back.

Does anyone know what's the maximum differential in a compact? Can she do 53/34, or would that result in poor shifting and/or a lot of cross-chaining?


Whether or not you can go down to a super-small inner ring depends on the Bolt Circle Diameter of your crankset.

I believe standard road doubles (53/39) have 130mm BCD's -- if this is the case with your cranks, you are limited to a 38 small ring.

Most compact doubles have a 110mm BCD; if somehow you ended up with a 110 mm BCD, you can go down to like a 33.

Sheldon Brown has a little information about this on his website, and you will get more if you google some combination of "BCD" and "chainrings".

Correct. She probably cannot change her rings without changing the entire crankset, which will cost mega $$. It would be much much cheaper to go with a cassette change if the rear derailleur can handle it (she needs to look at what's on there now). A good Ultegra cassette costs under $100. A new crankset can run well over $300.

Plus, even if she could change the rings, she's going to have to change both of them to get a compact inner ring, because the front derailleur won't be able to handle more than about a 16T difference.

Also, don't underestimate how big of a difference the rear cassette can make. Example: a 50/11 is a bigger gear than a 53/12. So say she's only got a 12-25 on there now. Moving to a 27 or 28 will be a big jump. She'll sacrifice some of the range towards the top end with such a large spread, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It could get a little annoying on flat roads or in groups, but I think that's a better trade off than having gears that are too hard all the time.

[ginny]

Hi guys - okay, so this is the first thread I have read here that is pretty much greek to me. Can you provide me with a web site with a good tutorial on gearing ratios? Or maybe if I provide you with the specs from my bike you can explain the math to me? Alrighty... my bike hs a sugino crankset (triple) 30.42.52 and the cassette is campy 13/26 9 spd. So, how are you arriving at inches from teeth? Somewhere on the internet it looked like you need tire ratios too to calculate gearing ratios, but aren't all road tires the same unless you are a really small framed woman with smaller tires. For what it's worth, my tires are 700x23c (does the c mean cm?)

Thanks!

[Chile Pepper]

Can you provide me with a web site with a good tutorial on gearing ratios?

Sheldon Brown is always good: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_g.html#gearinch

use his online gear calculator to figure out your gear inches.

[violette]

Well, I went on a 60km practice run on the weekend. I had such a hard time with my bike, that when I got home, I threw-up. I know I pushed myself too hard, but I've done this ride all last year with absolutly no problem, the hills were almost impossible to climb ( or I should say inclines) I was soo discouraged, I had tears in my eyes, and my legs were burning so bad, I had to stop at every km. I called my LBS and they told me I could change the rings and would make a difference. I'm just wondering if it's worth it?? Will it make a BIG difference or will it be just barely noticeable? I went from a $1200 bike to an almost $3000; you'd think it would be better.

[violette]

Now is the casette the one on the back? I would have thought that the crank would be a lot cheaper to just add 1 chainring that taking the casette appart and adding just one chainring.

[Andrea]

The chainrings are on the front and the cassette is on the back. Just in case youre getting a little confused- here's a quick rundown...

What you have now is a "standard" chainring/crankset. It's got a 39 tooth small ring and a 53 tooth big ring. The diameter of the circle of bolts (AKA bolt circle diameter or BCD) that hold the rings together with the crank arm is 130mm.

A "compact" is a set of rings that is smaller. Usually the small ring will be 34 or 36 teeth (sometimes less, but 34 or 36 are most common). The big ring is almost always 50 teeth. The reason why you can't just change the rings from standard size to compact is the BCD- on a compact set of cranks, it's 110mm instead of 130mm. This is why it will be expensive for you to change to a compact- you have to get a whole new set of cranks with a 110mm BCD.

The cassette, on the other hand, is that group of gears in the back. Though they look complicated, they are relatively easy to remove and replace. Usually, you replace the whole cassette at once rather than just replacing the individual gears. It's a much cheaper endeavor than replacing your crankset.

[OakLeaf]

The first question is what was your gearing on your old bike? If you want a low gear that's nearly as low as your old one, you need to know what it was.

Sheldon Brown's gearing chart is pretty limited, but it's easy enough to do your own spreadsheet, or someone probably has a more detailed one online. Figure out what your old gearing was. Ask your LBS what range of chainrings and cassettes you can put on without changing your cranks or derailleur(s). Figure out what gear ranges you'd get from different combinations of chainrings and cassettes.

(Nowadays you don't normally swap single cogs in the rear, that's why it's called a "cassette.")

[violette]

I checked the specs of the OCR3; 30/42/52, 12-26.

[alpinerabbit]

Now is the casette the one on the back? I would have thought that the crank would be a lot cheaper to just add 1 chainring that taking the casette appart and adding just one chainring.

What Andrea said, and of course you can't add a chainring to a double crank. You can exchange, but the minimum small chain ring in the front can be 38 teeth.

How much will this cost...
A cassette sets you back maybe 60$.
A Compact crank will be around 150$?
I assume you have Shimano 105 for that pricing.

Do change to a compact - you are obviously overtaxed by the regular. You can almost do your tour but it's too much for you. You'll do much better on the compact, talk to your LBS what they can do for you (do they need to replace the front derailleur?) and pricing instead of torturing yourself.

Wrong gearing has little to do with the price of the bike... do treat yourself, stop being frustrated and then enjoy your ride.

[OakLeaf]

If her low gear now is a 39x25, but the gear she found comfortable was a 30x26, then she's going to need to swap crank and cassette to even get close. A 34x28 is almost as short as her old low. But anything over 27T rear would probably require an alpine RD, yes?

OTOH, a 30x25 is even slightly lower.

So it doesn't look like there are any cheap solutions unfortunately. It might be just as simple to get the triple and keep the cassette and RD? Especially if her lever is triple-compatible?

[alpinerabbit]

The shimano rear derailler *could* handle a tad more than 34x27 (official capacity) - 28 for sure, say the sources. This or going to triple is all a matter of what the LBS quotes for the remodel.

[violette]

Ok but would this make it a lot easier to go uphill?

[Andrea]

It depends on your definition of "easier"- with lower gears, you will feel less resistance on the pedals, but you'll either have to turn them faster to maintain the same speed, or just slow down, meaning that you will be going uphill for a longer time. It's a trade-off, and you just have to decide which one you'd rather have. Most women opt for the lower/slower route.

[alpinerabbit]

It will make it closer to what it used to be like on the triple-chainring Giant you had before. Not identical but closer.

[sundial]

Ok but would this make it a lot easier to go uphill?

Yes and no. You will be spinning like the dickens while traveling a shorter distance with a granny gear. Your heart rate will go up because you are spinning faster because of less resistance. However, because of less resistance, your legs won't poop out as fast in the long run and you may finish your ride feeling strong.

I'm curious, have you had any time off the bike to recuperate? Sometimes overtraining will sneak up on you and zap you when it's least convenient. :mad:

By the way, I keep reading Double Chin Ring, lol!

[violette]

I live in Canada!! This has only been my second long ride. We had snow here until April. We hibernate like bears...:rolleyes:

[aicabsolut]

Here are my thoughts.

You can get a SRAM cassette that goes up to a 28T cog without compromising the rear derailleur capacity for, max, $100, depending on where you buy it from.

My compact crankset retails for $350, though it's now available on closeout at some places for $200, and that's about the cheapest of any crankset at Ultegra level or higher (including FSA like mine, SRAM, Ritchey, etc.) that I've seen ON SALE anywhere so far.

A 28t cog in back would be roughly the same as having a 26 on the 53/39. That may not be enough. So then you have to decide if the extra investment in a crankset is worth it. The point everyone is making is that you cannot just swap out your rings. You will need a different crankset, because the spider will not be compatible. That means new rings, spider, and crankarms.

If you have a 25 in back now, I think that'll be plenty easy with a 50/34. My lowest gear is a 36/27, which is roughly the same as a 34/23. I think a 34/25 is a good steep climbing gear.

Now if you want to go back to a triple, that will be the most expensive, because you'd have to buy almost a total new group (new derailleurs, new crankset, new shifters).

New cassette is cheapest change, within your derailleur's capacity. Moving to a new crankset is the next best move (excelsports.com has some good sales if your shop wants to charge you a lot).

Have you looked to see what your cassette is on your new bike?

[sundial]

I live in Canada!! This has only been my second long ride. We had snow here until April. We hibernate like bears...:rolleyes:

Ahhhh, me thinks you did too much too soon. You didn't give your body time to work up to the nasty hills. Just my 2 cents and it won't even buy you a cup of coffee.

[Andrea]

I agree w/sundial- if you've just made a switch to some harder gears then go for a long ride after winter hibernation, you're bound to feel pretty lousy afterwards!

Chances are, if you start slower/shorter and work your way up, you'll be fine with just changing cassettes to something like a 12-27 or 12-28.

[violette]

You're probably right. I sometimes push myself and suffer after. I'm 5'6" and weight 120lbs, my husband says I have chicken legs (which is true), so my leg strenght isn't the greatest. But I will go to my LBS and see what he suggests.

[sundial]

Chances are, if you start slower/shorter and work your way up, you'll be fine with just changing cassettes to something like a 12-27 or 12-28.

Last summer when I was starting to ride hills, it took me about a month to get acclimated going from a triple to double (for 1200 ft of climbing). I noticed yesterday when I was on some pretty steep hills that I don't have my road legs quite yet and may need to break out the triple bike again until I'm in shape. :p

[Tuckervill]

That will change the more you ride.

I sucked at hills all last year, but this weekend I went on two 20 milers with the local team/club, with the racers. They were going slower for my benefit, and they usually beat me up the hills, but I was climbing so much better this year after a winter of boot camp. Sometimes if I could anticipate and get a downhill first, I could get out ahead of them and beat them to the top (I outweigh all those skinny racer boys by about 40 lbs, so I coast fast).

A couple of times, I was SOOOOO happy to have my triple chainrings, so I know what you're going through. On a normal ride, I probably wouldn't use the granny much, because I wouldn't be in a hurry to get up to catch up.

After all I've read in this thread, I think you could use smaller gears, but you wouldn't need them for long. So go with the cheapest option (cassette, I think), and ride lots more, working up to better fitness.

Karen

[motochick]

If I was in your shoes, I would change my rear cassette to a 12-28. That would be a good place to start...and the cheapest. If that isn't enough, then come back and tell us and we can make another suggestion.

Brenda

Not to sound like a broken record, but......
If the new cassette isn't easy enough, go to ebay and yourself a new sram rival compact set for $140 shipped. I use a 50/34 in the front and a 12-28 in the rear. I do not climb hills, I climb mountains. And I am NOT a very strong or powerful rider, but I like to go uphill without suffering. Just my $.02
Brenda

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Well, I went on a 60km practice run on the weekend. I had such a hard time with my bike, that when I got home, I threw-up. I know I pushed myself too hard, but I've done this ride all last year with absolutly no problem, the hills were almost impossible to climb ( or I should say inclines) I was soo discouraged, I had tears in my eyes, and my legs were burning so bad, I had to stop at every km. I called my LBS and they told me I could change the rings and would make a difference. I'm just wondering if it's worth it?? Will it make a BIG difference or will it be just barely noticeable? I went from a $1200 bike to an almost $3000; you'd think it would be better.

"Better" means better suited to you and your needs.
People who live in hilly areas need very different gearing than people who live in flat places. More expensive is not necessarily 'better' for how YOU ride.

[Jo-n-NY]

I went from a triple to a compact double last year.

I found that with the compact I was waiting too long to shift to the smaller crank. I think because of the wide range of gears when in the large crank it seemed easy and I could muscle it up the hill until it got to steep and by then it as a little too late to bring it down to the smaller crank. With the triple I thought nothing about going into the middle crank and then the granny if need be.

That be said, I climbed a nice amount of hills this past weekend and made sure to keep my eye on the road ahead and switched to the lower crank at the beginning and shifted the rear as needed as I was headed up. This made such a difference. I can't tell by all the posts whether you have a compact double or not, but by timing your shifting correctly, the compact works beautifully.

~ JoAnn

[Biker Jo]

I've been reading this thread with great interest.

I currently have a Trek WSD 2000 road bike that I bought in 1999, which I think was the first year for the WSD's from Trek. It has a Shimano RSX 30/42/52 crankset and an 8-speed, 13-26 cassette.

I'm in the market for a new road bike, and because my budget is $1500, my LBS recommended a Cannondale Six13 Feminine 6. I haven't ridden one yet because he has to order one in my size (I'm 5'-1-1/2 with an inseam of 27.5). The Cannondale has a compact 34/50 crank and a 9-speed 12-26 cassette.

Keeping in mind I live in Chicago, which is as flat as a pancake, and I'm not a racer, just a recreational rider, am I giving up much by going from a triple to a compact double? I do encounter some hills on a weekend ride I do in Northern Indiana/Southern Michigan, but they're of the rolling variety, not the mountains that you ladies have in other parts of the country (although some of them look like mountains to us Chicagoans!)

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks.

Jo

[SadieKate]

Please read up on gear inches on www.sheldonbrown.com. First choice of gearing should be based on the range of gears and the number of usable gears. You then choose the cranks, double or triple, and the cassette based on the gears YOU need to ride where YOU ride.

[aicabsolut]

I've been reading this thread with great interest.

I currently have a Trek WSD 2000 road bike that I bought in 1999, which I think was the first year for the WSD's from Trek. It has a Shimano RSX 30/42/52 crankset and an 8-speed, 13-26 cassette.

I'm in the market for a new road bike, and because my budget is $1500, my LBS recommended a Cannondale Six13 Feminine 6. I haven't ridden one yet because he has to order one in my size (I'm 5'-1-1/2 with an inseam of 27.5). The Cannondale has a compact 34/50 crank and a 9-speed 12-26 cassette.

Keeping in mind I live in Chicago, which is as flat as a pancake, and I'm not a racer, just a recreational rider, am I giving up much by going from a triple to a compact double? I do encounter some hills on a weekend ride I do in Northern Indiana/Southern Michigan, but they're of the rolling variety, not the mountains that you ladies have in other parts of the country (although some of them look like mountains to us Chicagoans!)

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks.

Jo

IMO, a 34/26 is a pretty light climbing gear and should be plenty for rollers. Did you use your easiest gears on the triple? I would assume you didn't if you weren't climbing anything really substantial, but if you were, then the compact may seem a bit harder. I think for going DOWN hills, you'll really like the 50/12 over the 52/13. :p

[violette]

Take it from me; if you're not a strong racer, just recreational, get a triple. After my few rides with my double on little inclines, I'm starting to get really turned off with biking.

[OakLeaf]

Jo's gearing is considerably lower than violette's, and her terrain is significantly flatter. Jo should be fine with the compact.

[Jo-n-NY]

Take it from me; if you're not a strong racer, just recreational, get a triple. After my few rides with my double on little inclines, I'm starting to get really turned off with biking.

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between a regular double and a compact double. Although I have a 10 speed 12/27 in the rear, I am not sure what gear (high or low) the 9 speed is missing compared to the 10.

~ JoAnn

[Biker Jo]

IMO, a 34/26 is a pretty light climbing gear and should be plenty for rollers. Did you use your easiest gears on the triple? I would assume you didn't if you weren't climbing anything really substantial, but if you were, then the compact may seem a bit harder. I think for going DOWN hills, you'll really like the 50/12 over the 52/13. :p

About the only time I've used my easiest gears was when I was riding those hills in Indiana. Most of the time, especially when riding in the Chicago area, I'm riding in my big chainring.

I did check Sheldon Brown's website, and while I'm not sure I completely understand gear inches, I can tell you that the lowest on my Trek is 28.1, while it looks like the lowest on the Cannondale is 31.8. Is that a significant difference?

One thing I'm betting on, though, is that the Cannondale is probably lighter than the Trek, so I know that'll make a difference too.

[VeloVT]

Take it from me; if you're not a strong racer, just recreational, get a triple. After my few rides with my double on little inclines, I'm starting to get really turned off with biking.

I would soften this statement a little bit. I understand you have had a very frustrating experience, violette, and that's really unfortunate. You definitely should take advantage of all of the options available to you to help you enjoy riding. Frankly I think your bike shop was remiss in not asking you to think seriously about whether you would be well served to make such a big change in gearing, it sounds like you ended up with a very nice bike, but gearing is a big factor in buying a new bike and it's one that shops really ought to bring up, especially with newish riders.

However, I'm no racer, just an ordinary recreational rider, and I just switched from a bike with 52/42/30 & 12/23 to a bike with 53/39 and 12/25. I live in Vermont, so it's not as hilly as where some of the women here live, but it's definitely not flat either. My biggest problem so far is really not that the low gears are not low enough, it's that 39 is different from 42, and on flat to somewhat rolling terrain, I find myself wanting to ride in 39/12 a whole lot. Even with the Ultegra half-shift though, I can't ride in 39/12 because I get significant derailleur rub. The shift from 39/13 up to a higher gear is still pretty awkward for me. I actually checked out my gear spread on a gear-inch calculator, and it makes sense that I"m having issues, because 39/12 falls right between 53/16 and 53/17 -- in the first place, the chain angle (on my bike, at least) at 53/17 is starting to look like cross chaining, so I tend not to like the looks of riding in that combination, but more than that, it's a big shift -- up one in front and down 4 in back, and I'm still having trouble doing it smoothly, so I neither spin up to 140 for 30 seconds nor lose momentum because I've suddenly drastically increased my gear.

So the issue i'm having with my new standard double is not that the gearing is way too hard, but that I'm finding the transition from the low end of the medium gearing to the high end of the medium gearing (and vice versa) a bit awkward. I'm sure I will improve at this with practice though, it's just a matter of getting used to something different...

I know this doesn't address violette's original question, I just felt compelled to defend standard gearing as an option which may be at least possibly legitimate for some "regular", recreational riders.




I did check Sheldon Brown's website, and while I'm not sure I completely understand gear inches, I can tell you that the lowest on my Trek is 28.1, while it looks like the lowest on the Cannondale is 31.8. Is that a significant difference?


I was a little surprised that violette was advised to check out the gear calculator earlier in the thread. Not that gear calculators aren't useful -- it's just that gear inches don't mean much abstractly. I think you have to have a fair amount of experience with your own gears and know with a reasonable degree of specificity what combinations you use and what works for you on given terrain before gear inches can provide any sort of useful comparison. Just my .02.

Sorry, guess I'm the grouch this morning... hope you'll let it slide this time :o.

[indysteel]

I would soften this statement a little bit. I understand you have had a very frustrating experience, violette, and that's really unfortunate. Frankly I think your bike shop was remiss in not asking you to think seriously about whether you would be well served to make such a big change in gearing, it sounds like you ended up with a very nice bike, but gearing is a big factor in buying a new bike and it's one that shops really ought to bring up, especially with newish riders.

However, I'm no racer, just an ordinary recreational rider, and I just switched from a bike with 52/42/30 & 12/23 to a bike with 53/39 and 12/25. I live in Vermont, so it's not as hilly as where some of the women here live, but it's definitely not flat either. My biggest problem so far is really not that the low gears are not low enough, it's that 39 is different from 42, and on flat to somewhat rolling terrain, I find myself wanting to ride in 39/12 a whole lot. Even with the Ultegra half-shift though, I can't ride in 39/12 because I get significant derailleur rub. The shift from 39/13 up to a higher gear is still pretty awkward for me. I actually checked out my gear spread on a gear-inch calculator, and it makes sense that I"m having issues, because 39/12 falls right between 53/16 and 53/17 -- in the first place, the chain angle (on my bike, at least) at 53/17 is starting to look like cross chaining, so I tend not to like the looks of riding in that combination, but more than that, it's a big shift -- up one in front and down 4 in back, and I'm still having trouble doing it smoothly, so I neither spin up to 140 for 30 seconds nor lose momentum because I've suddenly drastically increased my gear.

So the issue i'm having with my new standard double is not that the gearing is way too hard, but that I'm finding the transition from the low end of the medium gearing to the high end of the medium gearing (and vice versa) a bit awkward. I'm sure I will improve at this with practice though, it's just a matter of getting used to something different...

I know this doesn't address violette's original question, I just felt compelled to defend standard gearing as an option which may be at least possibly legitimate for some "regular", recreational riders.




I was a little surprised that violette was advised to check out the gear calculator earlier in the thread. Not that gear calculators aren't useful -- it's just that gear inches don't mean much abstractly. I think you have to have a fair amount of experience with your own gears and know with a reasonable degree of specificity what combinations you use and what works for you on given terrain before gear inches can provide any sort of useful comparison. Just my .02.

Sorry, guess I'm the grouch this morning... hope you'll let it slide this time :o.

I'd refer everyone back to OakLeaf's post--and a sage one at that--about there being no good gearing or bad gearing; only what gearing is appropriate for a given individual and the terrain they ride. No one set up is right for anyone. No one set up is wrong for everyone either. If you want to use a crank that will challenge you a bit, then fine. If you'd prefer to use a crank that fits with your current fitness level, that's fine too.

As for the SK's gear calculator suggestion, I suppose she can speak for herself, but I read that to be in response to Jo's question about whether she'd notice a big difference between her triple and a compact. While the gear calculator doesn't tell exactly her how much she may miss her lowest gear(s), it does help indentify which gears she'll lose. My best advice for her is to go ride some of the steeper hills she encounters in Indiana and limit herself to the gears (or their nearest approximation) that will be available to her with the compact.

[dachshund]

While the gear calculator doesn't tell exactly her how much she may miss her lowest gear(s), it does help indentify which gears she'll lose. My best advice for her is to go ride some of the steeper hills she encounters in Indiana and limit herself to the gears (or their nearest approximation) that will be available to her with the compact.

It seems that some people prefer the small increments between gears, and others don't care about that. I like having the smaller increments, so I'm sticking with a triple.

I've noticed that the people working the LBS's around here promote the compact double. I imagine it's the simplest solution for them, and then of course we're looking to them for recommendations.

[aicabsolut]

About the only time I've used my easiest gears was when I was riding those hills in Indiana. Most of the time, especially when riding in the Chicago area, I'm riding in my big chainring.

I did check Sheldon Brown's website, and while I'm not sure I completely understand gear inches, I can tell you that the lowest on my Trek is 28.1, while it looks like the lowest on the Cannondale is 31.8. Is that a significant difference?

One thing I'm betting on, though, is that the Cannondale is probably lighter than the Trek, so I know that'll make a difference too.

I don't think you'd notice that much. That's roughly 4 gear inches different, which is about the same difference between my 24 and 27 cog that I use with a 36T ring. MOST of the time, when I sit and spin in the 27 (35.0 gear inches for me), I can also make it up the hill in the 24 (39.4). There are only a few hills where I kind of wish I had a 28 when my legs aren't fresh :p. If you rarely used the low gear on the Trek and if the C'dale is a lighter bike, I don't think you'll have any problems at all. With your terrain and history, I wouldn't worry about it. I really like the 50 for cruising on the flats, so if you spent a lot of time in the 53 before, you'll probably like the 50 with the new cassette range.

[ttaylor508]

I had a OCR3 and it had triple chain ring. I bought a Roubaix, and it only had double. It never even crossed my mind that it would be harder to go up hill! and boy, is it. Did someone here go from a triple to a double?

Hi Violette - have you asked your LBS if they would simply take the bike back and exchange it for the Roubaix Expert triple (http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=34081). If you have not put many miles on the bike and it is still in showroom shape, they may exchange it for the triple and you would probably be much happier. I know our LBS has done this for us without even blinking an eye. $3,000 is a lot to pay for a bike you are not happy with.

[aicabsolut]

It seems that some people prefer the small increments between gears, and others don't care about that. I like having the smaller increments, so I'm sticking with a triple.

I've noticed that the people working the LBS's around here promote the compact double. I imagine it's the simplest solution for them, and then of course we're looking to them for recommendations.

That's not necessarily true. There are lots of reasons to get a compact double. For one, I've seen lots of people having the cross chaining problem Liza is experiencing only in reverse--they ride almost exclusively in the middle ring of a triple, and use the entire cassette in back. Considering that you get to use less of the cassette without cross-chaining per ring in a triple, I think you wind up with more useable gears with a compact or standard double. In addition, the rings have little to do with tighter gearing ("smaller increments"). Most of that is solved by the spread of the rear cassette. With a higher spread, you miss some gears at the easy end, and you may also be missing a 16t cog. Plus, you get a lot of overlap in gear inches between each ring. The only gears you gain in a triple are at the easy end (unless you have a 53-11), and not much (if any) in between.

Second, a lot of people want a double for weight reasons and "coolness" points, but they may not be able to handle standard gearing for their strength, riding style, and terrain. They may prefer cruising in a 39 (or 36 or 34) for easy training or in traffic over a 42. Maybe they like to spin up from a stop instead of powering out a few revolutions to get up to speed.

Third, triples are harder to come by on more expensive bikes that aren't WSD bikes for whatever reason. So, for those who need some easier gears, it makes much more sense for the manufacturer and LBS to build up fancy bikes with a compact option rather than having only standard doubles and forcing people to either buy a compact crankset separately or not getting sales because the entire grouppo would have to change to accommodate a triple. Finally, you can eliminate the hard shifting and cross chaining associated with a triple without sacrificing too much. Sure, there are Dura-Ace components for triples, but some people still feel limited by the triple.

It has also become more fashionable for people to spin fast, because of the Lance philosophy. So some racers really like compacts for that reason (and because they may be able to do an entire race in the big ring easier that way). Unless you've got a power sprinter or descender who needs a 53-11, a 50-11 is a plenty hard gear.

Going back to what someone said earlier, your $3k bike is not worse than your old bike. I'm sure the frame is lighter, stiffer, and more responsive. I'm sure the level of components you have on the new bike is much improved. What made it the wrong bike choice for you was the gearing relative to what you needed. Maybe you should've noticed that on your test rides. Maybe the shop should've asked you about gearing when they looked at your old bike (but maybe not...because lots of people have a granny ring and don't use it). Still, all is not lost. You can get some relief by changing your cassette to a wider spread. A 27 or 28 cog in back will make a big difference. If that is not enough, you can change your crankset. Maybe the shop will help you out with cost, because you've been so unhappy so far.

[aicabsolut]

Hi Violette - have you asked your LBS if they would simply take the bike back and exchange it for the Roubaix Expert triple (http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=34081). If you have not put many miles on the bike and it is still in showroom shape, they may exchange it for the triple and you would probably be much happier. I know our LBS has done this for us without even blinking an eye. $3,000 is a lot to pay for a bike you are not happy with.

Which model year Expert did you get? I looked up specs (I have a 2006 Comp and a 2008 S-works frame with the Comp's components). Like my Comp, it looks like all recent model Experts came with either a triple or a compact (Ultegra or SRAM Rival).

Get the LBS to look up a spec sheet for your bike. It could be that they built it wrong. Also, (just in case) look for a number printed on your crank arms (usually the underside), and see what they say (170, 172.5, or 175). My bike came built with the correct-ish crankset but the wrong size crankarms. If yours has both, well then the mistake is even more apparent. My shop swapped out the crankarms for free because of the mistake, before they even dealt with Specialized about a warranty replacement for that. If your bike has been built up wrong, then they've got to fix that for you.

I also haven't seen any Specialized Roubaix built with only a 25 in the cassette for years. Something's fishy.

I assume you mean Specialized, like taylor said, because a Fuji Roubaix runs well under $3k.

[violette]

Which model year Expert did you get? I looked up specs (I have a 2006 Comp and a 2008 S-works frame with the Comp's components). Like my Comp, it looks like all recent model Experts came with either a triple or a compact (Ultegra or SRAM Rival).

Get the LBS to look up a spec sheet for your bike. It could be that they built it wrong. Also, (just in case) look for a number printed on your crank arms (usually the underside), and see what they say (170, 172.5, or 175). My bike came built with the correct-ish crankset but the wrong size crankarms. If yours has both, well then the mistake is even more apparent. My shop swapped out the crankarms for free because of the mistake, before they even dealt with Specialized about a warranty replacement for that. If your bike has been built up wrong, then they've got to fix that for you.

I also haven't seen any Specialized Roubaix built with only a 25 in the cassette for years. Something's fishy.

I assume you mean Specialized, like taylor said, because a Fuji Roubaix runs well under $3k.


It was a leftover 2005 Roubaix. It was $2,699.00 and I got it for $1,899.00.

Now, I think I know why I got such a good price!!!

[motochick]

Here is a good article on gearing.
http://www.cyclingsite.com/lists_articles/gearing_101.htm

Brenda

[aicabsolut]

Ok, so if you have 2005, then you probably have a Pro frame, because there wasn't anything between Comp and Pro back then. That came with Dura-Ace 53/39 and 12-25. There is absolutely nothing of lesser quality about that, though the Pro frame now is better carbon than it was in 2005 (and costs well over $3k). You got it for a good price because it's really old stock. That has nothing to do with the components or gearing. Specialized has started putting compacts on a LOT of bikes these days, but for many, that's a deterrent. It all depends on what's the best for you. You still got a great deal on a great bike. It just doesn't have the right gearing for you. That's fixable. You can even buy a new crankset and eBay the old one.

[violette]

this is the exact bike I bought:

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?a=b&minisite=10020&arc=2005&spid=21474&language=US

So you think this is a Pro model? I am so confused...

[smilingcat]

your link pointed to Roubaix elite. A very nice bike. Good components. 105 front deraillure and ultegra rear. 53/39 chainring and 12 x 25 cassette, 9 speed cassette.

You could swap out the 12 x 25 cassette with something easier. Only ones I could find were 11 x 32 or was it 34. If you do this though, you may have to change your rear deraillure. The ultegra rear deraillure may not be able to handle the wide gearing combination. That will add to the cost.

Another route is to swap out your front chainring and spider to a compact one. like Aicabsolut says, check the crank arm length.

You would have to price out the difference.

Another thing you need to do, you probably don't want to hear it, is you need to condition yourself. The bike is set up for someone in pretty good condition. My suggestion with your training ride is:

1. do easy ditance rides. 20 miles then 25 miles thn 30 miles. you want to keep your heart rate below 80%. preferably around 70% or so or unil you can do this at 70% rate.

2. intermix training days with shorter training of hill reps. 2- 5 minutes of climb come back down, rest by easy pedalling till your heart rate is back down. then climb again. do this 2 to 10 times depending on your condition.

3. DO TAKE A REST DAY from cycling.

4. get plenty of sleep and make sure your diet is healthy and balanced.

5. don't combine long distance with lots of hills until your body is in better shape.

Lastly, remember that the bike is only as fas as what you can do. It's not a car, it's not a motorcycle. Your body is the engine. I think I've said it before here, Lance could be riding on a old beach cruiser, and he can ride circles around on my racing bike as if I'm standing still. There is no way I could keep up with such athletes.

If the gearing is too much for you, then you may have to change the cassette + rear deraillure or go to a compact double with possibly a shorter crank arm. 170mm or ven 165mm if you are short.

smilingcat

[alpinerabbit]

I think it would be time for violette to go and talk to her LBS and see what THEY say. This has been mulled over plenty on this board. oops I almost misspelled that last word.

[violette]

OK last post;;

The LBS dealer said I could change to a comp.

[ttaylor508]

I think it would be time for violette to go and talk to her LBS and see what THEY say. This has been mulled over plenty on this board. oops I almost misspelled that last word.

Violette- alpinerabbit is right, go talk with your LBS. I had a similar gear problem (except just the opposite as yours) when I sold my Giant OCR 1 which had a 52,42,30 and bought a Specialized Ruby Expert which had a 50,39,30. After several rides I realized I really missed my 52 chainring as I was gearing out and couldn't stay on DH's wheel...BIG PROBLEM. I spend most of my time in the big chainring (but appreciate my granny gears when I need them) so I really noticed the difference. We called the LBS and tried to simply change out the 50 for a 52. Unfortunately the chainring set was specifically designed for the Ruby and the 52 would not shift properly with the 39, 30 chainrings. My LBS solved the problem by contacting his Specialized rep who took the whole front chainring set back and replaced it with a new Ultegra front 52,39,30. Cost to me...nothing but a huge plate of fresh chocolate cookies. Good customer service is everything and it payed off to the LBS as we have since purchased a total of 6 bikes from him and sent him many new customers. Give your LBS a chance and let them suggest some solutions or simply see if they might trade the bike back in for something else. Even if you need to spend a few hundred dollars more on a different bike, you might be glad you did in the long run. Gearing is just as important as bike fit and if the gear set up doesn't work for you, you won't be happy. Just my 2 cents...

[violette]

Well about my LBS;

I've been talking/fighting with them all morning; this is what they said, among other things...

"We will change your crank to a compact crank for you, which includes labor for $220.00 + tax. You got a bargain on that bike with very good components."

I went to a few dealers and they coulnd't believe someone would sell me a bike with that size gears. Anyway, that's it for that LBS, they'll never have my business again. They could have at least given me a break on the labour, but they wouldn't hear of it!!

[ttaylor508]

I am sorry your LBS isn't willing to work with you on this one! Finding a good LBS is so important when making a big bike purchase. Before letting them put that compact on your bike, I would go test ride the compact on another bike first and make sure you will be happy with the feel of those gears. There is nothing worse than spending more $$$$ and still not being happy. There are some LBS that will take trade-in bikes. You might try calling a few shops and seeing what stock is left on the 2005 Specialized Roubaix triple's in your size. You never know, you might just find someone willing to take it as a trade-in.

[Ciao]

Violette, you've created a really great discussion. I'm really sorry that you're experiencing my very worst fears :( with my coming move from a mountain bike to a road bike! I'd move on as well to a shop that is going to treat you like an appreciated customer with the intent of keeping you long term.

I don't want to hijack your thread - but I do want to get similar input... would you mind if I tack on my own question?

-------------------------------
Here it is... (Folks, if what I'm doing is a thread no-no, give me a quick heads up and I'll move this elsewhere.)
--------------------------------
Thanks to everyone for the great information and links/resources. I'm going from a mountain bike 42/32/23 & 12/28 -- to a road bike. And I do use that granny gear frequently with no shame.

Here's what the bike shop says (I haven't sent him my current gearing yet):

About the gears. With a triple your top gear would be 117.0 gear inches, for your high gear and 32.4 inches for your lowest gear. This with a normal triple front 52/39/30, rear 12/25. With a compact front 50/34, 12/27 in production at this time, your high gear would be 112.5 gear inches, and the low would be 34 gear inches.

Shimano plans a 11/28 cassette for 09 that would give you a high of 122.7 gear inches, and a low of 32.8 gear inches. So in the end, the compact with a 12/27 now or soon a 11/28 casette would be the way to go.

I'm worried about the change - and can't seem to wrap my head around the numbers. Thanks for the link to Sheldon's calculator. I'm trying to figure out what the "granny" level on the compact would equate to with my current set up.

Am I doing this right?!:confused: If so to H*(( with the compact. :D All advice is appreciated.

http://ziamoda.com/assets/images/temp-CC/gearing.jpg

[alpinerabbit]

Sure to he!! with the compact if you plan for a new bike purchase and have the choice, and plan to ride lots of hills. I decided on a compact for shifting precision, but whatever.

You do not have to wait for the 2009 cassette. Shimano goes up to 27. There are also SRAM and Marzocchi cassettes out there that go to 28 and are compatible with Shimano.

[indysteel]

How much does the compact crank that they're willing to install for you cost and what else, if anything, might they have to replace to make the compact work? Depending on the answers to that, $220 might be a pretty good deal--assuming the compact will give you the gears you need. I certainly wouldn't expect them to do it for free.

I know you're frustrated, but I have to say that I disagree somewhat with laying the blame for this situation solely at the feet of your shop. Ideally, they should have talked to you about gearing, but as certain responses to this thread have indicated, there are women out there who ride with a standard double just fine so your shop may have had no reason to question you on it. I'm sorry to sound unsupportive or unkind, but given that you're not a new rider, I think you should take at least some responsibility for having bought a bike that doesn't meet your needs and, as such, bear at least some of the cost for fixing the problem.

Now maybe your relationship with this shop is already beyond repair, but I would suggest taking a few steps back from the situation and a few deep breaths before you do anything more. First and foremost, really figure out what gearing you need. If you still have your old bike, take it for ride on the hills you frequent and see what gears you're using. Make the ride long enough that you climb some of those hills while fatigued. From there, get a firm understanding of what choices you have in order to meet your needs and how much it will cost to make the required changes. Negotiate from there and do what you can, i.e., by selling whatever parts you no longer need, to lower the cost.

I hope the situation resolves itself to your satisfaction soon.

[Ciao]

Sure to he!! with the compact if you plan for a new bike purchase and have the choice, and plan to ride lots of hills. I decided on a compact for shifting precision, but whatever.

You do not have to wait for the 2009 cassette. Shimano goes up to 27. There are also SRAM and Marzocchi cassettes out there that go to 28 and are compatible with Shimano.

Thanks - I honestly don't see that the '09 gains anything noticeable if I'm doing the charts right. I'll go look at your recommendations - the cassette with a 28 sounds like a good compromise. Just FYI I'm looking at getting the Scott Contessa CR1 (http://www.scottusa.com/us_en/category/72/contessa_road) - hmmm, which says it comes with a 12/25?! :confused: Going to have to check on that.

I hate to derail this thread any more, but have one last question: Will I gain that much with the change in bike weight that I can lose the lower gears? If the compact gave me down to around 26, then I'd say it's a non issue to lose the last one.

(sorry and thanks!)

[alpinerabbit]

but you're losing on the front when you choose a double.

the weight - 8 kg versus 12 for a MTB - is rather noticeable but the gearing will hurt more. Ok, 4-5 kg do hurt.

You live in Italy. You don't have to take a package deal. A store can swap out stuff for you.

[Ciao]

but you're losing on the front when you choose a double.

the weight - 8 kg versus 12 for a MTB - is rather noticeable but the gearing will hurt more. Ok, 4-5 kg do hurt.

You live in Italy. You don't have to take a package deal. A store can swap out stuff for you.

I'm thinking the 28 cassette gets me down to a 32.8.... oops, yeah, you're right.

My brother is coming to visit - so I'm trying to do this all remotely and have him bring it with him - which adds to the fear factor. (Have you seen that exchange rate?!:eek:)

[motochick]

It might not make much difference but you can also get (in addition to the 28 rear) a 33 front sprocket to replace the 34. They are about $45 tho.

Brenda

[Biker Jo]

Thanks to everyone for your advice/suggestions. I guess I'm just going to have to wait until the compact Cannondale comes in so I can try it.

[aicabsolut]

your link pointed to Roubaix elite. A very nice bike. Good components. 105 front deraillure and ultegra rear. 53/39 chainring and 12 x 25 cassette, 9 speed cassette.

You could swap out the 12 x 25 cassette with something easier. Only ones I could find were 11 x 32 or was it 34. If you do this though, you may have to change your rear deraillure. The ultegra rear deraillure may not be able to handle the wide gearing combination. That will add to the cost.



The Elite in 2005 was roughly equivalent to the 2006 (and later) Comp level. So it is still a good bike. The Pro had Dura-Ace. The Elite did come in a triple, but since it's old stock, it is probably hard to find.

As for the cassette, the Ultegra rear derailleur will not accommodate a cassette that large. Campy can go higher than Shimano, but then you'd have the change most of the group.

Ciao, you are correct in that the compact's easiest gear with a 27 cog will be roughly the same as that 18 cog on your current little ring.

I know that Shimano will soon trickle down the 11-27 and 11-28 to lower levels than the 09 DA that's already out. However, it's hard to tell if that will be backwards compatible with the current double derailleurs, because that cassette in DA requires the new derailleur, due to chain wrap. BUT you can get a SRAM 10sp cassette with a 28 cog right now that will work with shimano double derailleurs. No need to wait there really.