It's my way of maximizing my potential. Ask MP how she achieved that 28 inner chain ring. I may not be able to keep up with her on the road but I can do better maths.:D
Printable View
It's my way of maximizing my potential. Ask MP how she achieved that 28 inner chain ring. I may not be able to keep up with her on the road but I can do better maths.:D
Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veronica
As for the 100 miles part, if I kept training for it instead of training for short road races and crits, I would still keep my compact for the rolling terrain. I can hit a hill at mile 50 and feel better than I used to on a hill at mile 20. With the right training and enough calories, that shouldn't be the big factor. For me, climbing 1000 feet at a time, as opposed to a couple hundred, would be the deciding element.
Exactly! The ride on Saturday was roller after roller after roller. I used my granny for two short sections that were longer because the granny was there but I probably could have made it fine without it (a low of 40x28), but change that to a climb up Mt. Tam? Oh no, I love that little ring. Gives me lots of options for changing up my cadence.
Wow.
Has this poor thread fallen into a phallic display of "My hill is bigger than your hill"!
Yipe-ers.
I seem to recall the original discussion being about "compact" or "triple" on a bike that already came with a compact.
Buy that bike, and end of discussion.
So, I think the better question is: is it worth it to convert that bike to a triple? What would be gained?
The discussion here is all about low-end gearing - a fair discussion when you're talking about a new rider who lives in an area where there are hills. Or mountains. The top end is almost irrelevant.
So....that's why I said. Look at the charts. Look at what your low end is for THAT bike (it was a Giant, yes?). How is that bike geared? Has anyone even discussed it?? Is it more cost effective for a purchaser - who really loves THAT bike - to swap out a crankset (and f. derailleur and shifter) and go with a triple. Or, is it better to put a bigger cassette on the back, say a 12-27? From the look of the chart I posted, a 32-25 combination of a triple would be nearly spot-on with a 34-27 on a compact. So you've lost nothing.
If you want a 32-27 on a triple, or gearing even lower than that, well, maybe it's not worth it to buy THAT bike, and RHG should be looking at another bike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina
No, not at all. Those are the climbs the original poster will ride. The hill profile was an attempt to show why those of us who ride those hills regularly gave her the advice of get the triple.
RGH if you'd like any more info from me, feel free to shoot me a PM.
V.
All you billy goats wit da pit-churs... be so kind as to copy them into the newly created Elevation thread.
purty pleez wit "name-that-guilty-pleasure" on top :o
spazz-tic
That has been working well, BTW. (Don't want to jinx it before the 400k, but it passed the 300k with flying colors). For those who care, my Colnago/brevet bike was only 9 speed with a 26 tooth cog, and I really wanted something cushier, because in the 600k I did last year (on my Merckx with a 10 speed 28 tooth cog) I found myself in the small ring on the FLATS. (I know, I know, but seriously, ride 375 miles in 30 hours and then see how wimpy it really was.) Anyway, SK suggested throwing on a 28 tooth inner ring and a 12-28 cassette. I was worried about the 28/42/52 combo, but it is working great.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieKate
Again, no jinxing here before the 400 people!!
Cool. You be the bungee cord and I'll do the gear inches anytime.
Whew. Sometimes I have flashes of math brilliance, but not often.
I think perhapd a dry French rose is in order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veronica
My rides are not centuries, that is true... though I have completed hilly centuries on my double. My training rides do mostly tend to be 20-50km long, my road racing about 30km, my time trial races 20-25km.
Sea level to my house is about 6km, with two 5-700metre climbs of about 10-11% gradient.
I guess I am not trying to give advice, but rather my opinion. I know if I had knee trouble I would probably shift to a triple if it had better gearing than my EMC (50/34 front and 27-12 on back)... and i tend to agree with Regina re whether a triple will be a real adavntage over what a well set-up double can give. I sometimes wonder if a triple is a mental adavntage to conquering hills, and I will be the first to admit any mental adavntage is never to be under-estimated.
I am also the first to admit that I have no desire to do regular centuries - metric or imperial, let alone doubles that climb mountains. I cannot advise or give my opinion on the best way to get to the finish line. I remain continually in awe of the women here who not only complete such rides, but then choose to do them again!
However, I do also look at what the cyclists in the races I love to watch use, and although I will never be elite, I figure that if they can climb, or TT, or do crits on whatever the gearing is they have - then in all likelihood I can too - only much much more slowly :p
I apologise if my opinion caused offence, however, I do think a new rider should go into a bike shop or into a race with a variety of ideas to think about and choose from. That was all I was trying to provide. A different viewpoint.
eek: That elevation :eek:
Crazy-will stick with the oh nowhere near comparable Perth hills-Canuck[/SIZE]
I bow down to you California ladies. I didn't know California was so moutainous!
C
Im still re-living the fact that I actually passed some people on those two short sections and yes I was in my granny.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieKate
Trekhawk who wouldn't be without her triple here in Northern California.:)
I'm fairly new, compared to the amazing women I bow to here, but there are hills all around us in Boise, and while I don't exactly head for them yet, my immediate response to the IDEA of a bicycle last spring was "better have plenty of granny gearing for the hills" and when we looked at road bikes for me this year, I flat out refused to consider the one that didn't have a triple, even though it rode beautifully! DH frowned a bit cuz it was going to cost more, but he rides with me, and knows -- I'll use all those gears! (so far, I've just played to make sure they work! we haven't been to "my" hill yet with the new bike -- he hasn't been at all yet this year)
Karen in Boise, who wishes the wind would go away!
I have been staying out of this because I think the locals give the best advice. BUT I will say as a triple rider the confidence factor is a biggie. In Texas we have a lot of just nasty steep hills. Nothing like these mountains, but I will find that I am in my smallest gear. Even when I was very strong last year I still needed the granny on occasion, but I haven't met a hill in Texas I couldn't climb. When I shopped for my new bike I just didn't have the confidence for a new shifting system AND a compact double. Some of it is physical, some of it is mental. But my bike makes me happy and that is that.
Aggie_Very Proud FRED with a Triple on Carbon_Ama:D
Hi Regina,
I am about to inherit 2 great used 2006 bikes (long story with very happy ending, obviously!) in impeccable condition, one of which is a full Dura Ace carbon bike with 53/39 and the other an aluminum bike (w/carbon forks and stays) with Ultegra cassette, Dura Ace triple cranks, D.A. shifters and derailleurs (front is even a "D.A. triple derailleur"). On my old (old) bike I have an FSA Gossamer Mega-Exo 50-34 compact, which I love, love, love. I am in a really hilly area and to get into condition with the 53/39 was super tough. Now that I'm riding well, the 50-34 suits me just fine. I see no shame in triples at all (take care of your knees and enjoy your rides more my dears!!), I just don't want to deal with all the extra clicking around. A compact with a bigger spread in back has worked just fine for me and I enjoy the challenge.
Anyway, I wonder if you or someone else can advise me on this question: I want to replace the D.A. 53/39 on the carbon bike with a compact. Though I have this FSA compact on the old bike that I could use, I've heard that it is better to stick with Shimano when everything else is Shimano (and it is, even wheels and seatpost!), and have heard great things about the Shimano compact (and can even get it with 165mm cranks!). Question: if I get a Shimano compact, would it require just changing out the 53/39 and cranks or do I need to change shifters, derailleurs, or anything else (BB?)? I believe it is all compatible but since I want to do the work myself, I want to be really sure... (yes, my secret dream is to be a wench wrench). I am also not sure what, if anything, needs to happen re: bottom bracket. The 53/39 crankset is Shimano D.A. w/Integrated spindle, with Shimano Exterior Bearing System (and D.A. everything else). Another option would be to move the FSA over to the carbon D.A. bike - cheaper! - but I like the idea of sticking to all Shimano.
Which leads me to the second question...I would like to move the FSA compact from my old bike to the new aluminum-carbon bike with the D.A. triple. Here we go again -- what needs to change in shifters/brakes, etc. in order for everything to work smoothly?
Thanks so much for any advice you can offer! I really appreciate it.
- O :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina
[QUOTE=Ogresse;189226]Hi Regina,
Question: if I get a Shimano compact, would it require just changing out the 53/39 and cranks or do I need to change shifters, derailleurs, or anything else (BB?)? I believe it is all compatible but since I want to do the work myself, I want to be really sure... (yes, my secret dream is to be a wench wrench). I am also not sure what, if anything, needs to happen re: bottom bracket. The 53/39 crankset is Shimano D.A. w/Integrated spindle, with Shimano Exterior Bearing System (and D.A. everything else). Another option would be to move the FSA over to the carbon D.A. bike - cheaper! - but I like the idea of sticking to all Shimano.
Which leads me to the second question...I would like to move the FSA compact from my old bike to the new aluminum-carbon bike with the D.A. triple. Here we go again -- what needs to change in shifters/brakes, etc. in order for everything to work smoothly?
QUOTE]
Hi there.
My bike (a '99 Seven Axiom Ti) had full Ultegra 9-spd triple on it.
I rebuilt it with D.A. everything - EXCEPT the crankset which is an FSA SLK MegaExo compact (50-34). Going from a triple to a double required a new f.d. and shifter to handle it. It is generally required to get a compact-specific f.d. - one that can handle the big jump from 34 (or 36) to 50 teeth.
Since I also went from a 9-spd to a 10-spd, I got a new r.d. and shifter for the rear. The Shimano compact wasn't out yet when I rebuilt the Seven (October '05) - but was due at any moment. I just didn't want to wait! I have had no problems with compatibility. I did have the LBS put an "anti-chain-suck-thang" - or whatever they're called - on the downtube. No problems with chain suck, although if I'm not careful, I can throw the chain off the outter ring onto the crankarms with shift-ups. That's a user error and I need to watch where I am on the cassette when I make my shift.
Since I went to a MegaExo crankset, the BB came with it, so it was not an option to replace the Shimano BB (which was dead, anyway, and needed to be replaced).
So...in summary: I have a mix of FSA and Shimano parts and I've had no compatibility issues. Everything on the bike works fine. It's the rider who has the difficulty! :p
All I can say is I have a 53/39 on my TT bike and it is great. I can climb hills on it, I can wind up into a big gear on the flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogresse
On my road race bike I have a 50/34 compact... I climb hills more quickly on that because I spin and not grind so much (I'm a slow climber still). My only issue with it is trying to find the right gear when I am in the middle at the front and back...
They are both fab gearing. The compact would not be a good TT set-up for me, but it is ideal for road racing.
Dunno if that helps any, but thats my experience.
Ogresse, go to the manufacturers' websites and download all the tech support manuals for each and every component. This is the surest way to determine compatibility between bottom brackets, cranksets and front derailleurs.
A mechanic friend of mine told me just last week that he thinks both Shimano and Campy chainrings shift more cleanly, but since you own the FSA you may want to stick with it, especially if it is compatible with your current bottom bracket.
I don't know specifics, but you may want to do a little research on front derailleurs for compacts. Both the smaller curve of the chain ring and the larger jump are a challenge for many double front derailleurs so you may want to do some careful research.
Basically the best info is the manufacturers' websites that give the technical nitty-gritty.
What? This is bogus marketing @#$%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogresse
;) I have just never seen a bike with every single part Shimano...but what do I know? I guess I am easily impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieKate