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.
Printable View
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.
Ok but would this make it a lot easier to go uphill?
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.
It will make it closer to what it used to be like on the triple-chainring Giant you had before. Not identical but closer.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by violette
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!
I live in Canada!! This has only been my second long ride. We had snow here until April. We hibernate like bears...:rolleyes:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by violette
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.
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.
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. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrea
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
Not to sound like a broken record, but......Quote:
Originally Posted by motochick
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
"Better" means better suited to you and your needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by violette
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.
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
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
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.
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. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Biker Jo
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.
Jo's gearing is considerably lower than violette's, and her terrain is significantly flatter. Jo should be fine with the compact.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by violette
~ JoAnn
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by aicabsolut
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by violette
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker Jo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by liza
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by indysteel
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker Jo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by violette
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dachshund
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by ttaylor508
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aicabsolut
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!!!
Here is a good article on gearing.
http://www.cyclingsite.com/lists_art...earing_101.htm
Brenda
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.
this is the exact bike I bought:
http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkM...74&language=US
So you think this is a Pro model? I am so confused...
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
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.
OK last post;;
The LBS dealer said I could change to a comp.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinerabbit
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!!
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.
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