Group Set Decision - Help!

I am building a Madone 5.5. I am trying to decide between two groupsets. The SRAM Force with a compact double 50/34 - 11/28 and Shimano Ultegra triple 50/39/30 - 12/27.

On my bike right now I have a 50/39/26 - 12/27.

I live in SoCal and I ride fairly hilly rides. Usually between 3-5000 feet of gain but occasionally up to 10,000 feet of gain. I ride hilly centuries 2-3 times a year.

I have (so far) been able to climb everything, but I am a pretty slow climber. I always get dropped on the hills on club rides. I would like to be a faster climber. I can hang with the group on flats and inclines up to about 4%. I do use my granny gear now, but only on pretty steep inclines and sometimes on smaller inclines (8-10%) at the end of a long ride. On my triple I ride in the middle about 85% of the time, in the little ring about 10% and the big ring only about 5% - usually on extended flats and downhill.

Any discussion on the merits of the two group sets, given the kind of rider I am and my goals, would be really appreciated.

I ran those numbers using Sheldon Brown's gear calculator. I made a couple of assumptions (700 x 23cc wheels and 170 mm cranks). Based on those assumptions, it looks like with either of the SRAM Force choices, you'll lose your two smallest granny gears on your current set up. So, if you can live without those two gears, from a climbing perspective either SRAM crank/cassette combo will work for you.

However, in my experience switching from a triple to a compact, it's not the climbing gears I miss the most. It's some cruising gears in the middle. Sometimes, I just can't find the "perfect" gear for relatively flat and/or windy conditions. With a compact--especially one paired with an 11-28 (as opposed to, say, an 11-23, you'll find that you have some big jumps in between gears. It may prove harder to find just that right gear for the conditions.

Here's what I would recommend before making a decision. On your next few rides, note the exact gear combo(s) that you use the majority of the time when you're just cruising along at your favorite pace. Then play around with Sheldon Brown's gear calculator and make sure that the crank/cassette combos you're considering offer those gears (as measured in gear inches/gear ratios). For instance, I spent most of my time in my middle ring using the 15, 16 and 17 cogs in the rear. Before choosing what to put on my bike, I made sure that the set up I was considered offered those gears. Be sure to factor in cross chaining into the equation as well.

FWIW, I switched to a compact because most triples irritate my IT band because of their relatively wide q-factor. I was otherwise quite happy using a triple. I would go back to it if I could, although I do like the ease of shifting with a compact.

ETA: After reading V's post, I wanted to note that I live in a relatively flat area. Climbing rides are not my norm.

My race bike came with Force, compact double and with 11 - 25. I did climb faster with it, but only if the ride had only one major climb. My knee joints couldn't handle it. I kept hoping it would get better, because I was riding so much faster. But when I did one ride last year that had me in tears at the top one climb and with more climbs to come (Fairfax -Bolinas Rd. for you NorCal folks) I decided to switch out the rear for an Apex RD. I now have an 11-32 (I think) and I'm much happier.

Veronica

I recently had to go through the same decision process that you are now facing. My old bike had a Shimano triple, and the new bike I wanted was available in both a Shimano triple and a SRAM compact double. Interestingly, my use of the chainrings on my old bike was about the same as what you mentioned.

You really have 3 issues here: - Shimano shift method versus SRAM shift method, triple versus compact double, and cassette cog range.

Shimano shift method versus SRAM shift method- This is an issue that you will have to test out for yourself at a bike store. Some folks love SRAM shifting (I'm a recent convert) and some folks don't.

Shimano triple versus SRAM compact double - The SRAM Force group will be lighter than the Shimano Ultegra triple (and also the Shimano Ultegra compact double). The compact double will be faster shifting than the triple.

Cassette cog range - If you choose the SRAM compact double route, I'd suggest you opt for the SRAM 12-32 cassette (12-13-14-15-17-19-22-25-28-32). It would give you the same high gear that you now have and nearly (within a half-step) the same low ratio that you are currently have.

Which one did you ultimately go with Hi Ho? And if you ended up using the 11-32 cassette, do you find yourself bothered by any of the bigger jumps between cogs, i.e, the jumps between the 19, 22, 25, 28, and 32? Veronica, do they bother you?

When I switched between my triple and compact (both Campy) I honestly didn't notice any difference in weight betwen the two. Shifting ease, yes, but not to the point that it was a deal maker or breaker. I'm sure others might disagree. I had a lot more shifting issues up front with an older Sugino triple crank. The Campy triple shifted much better. I, personally, still miss my triple. My knees don't, but I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

Which one did you ultimately go with Hi Ho? And if you ended up using the 11-32 cassette, do you find yourself bothered by any of the bigger jumps between cogs, i.e, the jumps between the 19, 22, 25, 28, and 32? Veronica, do they bother you?

When I switched between my triple and compact (both Campy) I honestly didn't notice any difference in weight betwen the two. Shifting ease, yes, but not to the point that it was a deal maker or breaker. I'm sure others might disagree. I had a lot more shifting issues up front with an older Sugino triple crank. The Campy triple shifted much better. I, personally, still miss my triple. My knees don't, but I do.

---

I went with the SRAM compact double coupled with a 12-32 cassette. (I didn't like the large gap between the 13 and 15 tooth cogs, on the more common 11-32 cassette, and I have absolutely no need for the 11 tooth cog. The 12-32 has a more even progression of high gears, yet still gives me an adequate highest gear.)

I'm not bothered by the gaps at the low end of the cogset. Percentage-wise, the biggest jump is from the 19 to the 22 (which are 48 and 41 gear-inches respectively when on the 34 ring). By the time I shift to that end of the range, I'm getting pretty desperate anyway and I appreciate the larger-than-average gap.

My current setup provides for a lowest gear of 28.4 GI versus 27.8 GI for my previous triple setup (46-36-26, 12-25). So I basically have the same low end provided by the triple. The compact double is very doable for me (60+ years old with a really bad knee) here in the Texas "hill country".

ivorygorgon

There is very little reason to use a triple any more with wider range cassettes and a mid cage length rear derailleur (to handle the extra chain needed for the larger rear cogs). Triples have so many overlapping gears that shifting can be a pain, and lugging the extra weight makes no sense.

I setup my commuter with a mid cage Ultregra SL rear derailleur but I'm still using an 11-28 with it. As the WiFli is compatible with RED and FORCE, it should also be compatible with Shimano, as RED and FORCE cassettes are. So it can be done with Shimano. It's really nothing new, mountain bikes have been using long cage derailleurs to provide the extra chain needed to wrap those larger cogs for decades. SRAM just put the pieces together as a road package first.

The chainline will also be improved over a triple (angle that chain deflects from rear cogs to front) so shifting will be smoother with less chance of the chain dropping off the chainrings. Q-factor was already mentioned here. Yes the gear jumps are greater at the lower end but I prefer living with that over shifting a triple any day.

Thank you for all of the food for thought. This is exactly what I need.

I want to build up my bike, but I an frozen with indecision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tzvia

ivorygorgon

There is very little reason to use a triple any more with wider range cassettes and a mid cage length rear derailleur (to handle the extra chain needed for the larger rear cogs).

---

Except for the reason Indysteel pointed out.

It's not the range from high gear to low so much (you'll always lose a little with a compact vs. a triple, but only a little), it's the jumps from gear to gear. You can get from point A to point B in big steps with a compact, or in smaller steps with a triple.

HiHoSilver outlined it pretty well. The jumps in number of teeth may be large at the very low end of the cassette, but for one thing it's not necessarily that big of a jump from gear to gear when you're up there, and for another, when you're in your lowest gears you probably aren't spinning all that fast anyway. :rolleyes:

I can't imagine going from 13 to 15. :eek: I can't even go from 15 to 17. I have to give up the 11 in order to get a 16 on either SRAM or Shimano cassettes with a low of 25 or greater. I don't race or hardly ever even join in sign sprints, so it's not like I need the 11, but I do miss it on descents. But not as much as I miss that 16 on every single ride, if I don't have it.

Yes, I did mention the jumps Oakleaf- It's a matter of making note of what gears you need, and seeing if it is doable with a double up front. And remember, the bike will weigh less and the gears will feel different because of the better chainline. There is less compromise from not having to make the triple shift well at the two ends. And all those double shifts because the intermediate gears are a shift in back and front. Pita. IMO good riddance triple.

Interesting thread, which I'll need to keep in mind when I can afford to get my new road bike. My current one has a triple and it looks like when I can get a new one it will have the compact double.

Am I the only one who doesn't think a triple is a pain in the azz?
I've had 3 road bikes. The first one was a pain to shift, but only because of the crappy components.
Once I got a bike with Ultegra, it just isn't an issue. I don't drop my chain, unless it's user error, the shifting is smooth as butter, and I use all of those low gears. I do use the big ring a bit (I didn't until a couple of years ago), but generally, my knees will be aching the next day, if I'm in it for awhile. I am not a racer, who cares if the group set weighs a few grams more? My bike is extremely light to begin and even for me, a serious, but non-racing rider, this just doesn't matter.
I am beginning a build on a bike with couplers. I'm getting a compact with XTR on the back, but even this is worrying me. Not that I won't have enough low gears, but the difference in the "feeling" of shifting, what gears I will use, and those jumps. It was enough to convince the LBS I don't want SRAM, because I do not do well with change and I am not that coordinated. I almost guarantee that I will be in the small ring 75% of the time. Not because I can't push a big gear, but because my body reacts unkindly toward the bigger gears.

I disagree that weight savings is a big selling point for a compact. We're talking grams not pounds here. The average recreational rider is not going to notice the difference, especially since it's not rotational weight. While my compact shifts easier, I often have to shift front and rear to find the gear I want. I just find it annoying on a long ride. I used to be able to just park it in my middle (42) ring for my average riding conditions. Now I'm constantly searching for the right gear on the flats.

If a compact works for ya, fine, but I disagree that triples don't offer their own selling points. The fact of the matter is that compacts are becoming more prevalent because bike manufacturers are specing more and more bikes with them. I get it; they're a decent compromise between a standard double and a triple, but I don't think they're a perfect solution for some of us.

Thank you.
You said what I was trying to say. I guess my fingers will be busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crankin

Thank you.
You said what I was trying to say. I guess my fingers will be busy.

---

No problem! And, no, you're not the only one who didn't find using a triple to be a PITA. My Campy triple shifted very well. A lot of the bikes still speced with triples are Shimano Sora or Tiagra. Well, none of that stiff works great over time so it's no wonder they aggravate people. Frankly, I'm half tempted to put my triple back on my Bianchi just to see if it still bothers my IT band. I miss using it, as I've just never warmed to my compact. We're getting ready to do our Katy Trail tour, and my touring bike has a triple. I'm looking forward to using it.

LOL we all should use whatever works best for US. I've had triples for ages in the past and always hated them. So I gritted my teeth and made due with a standard double in the days before compact- but I am a spinner, not a masher, and those big gears were rarely used. When I went looking for a modern bike (my road bike was an old Scapin SLX cromo bike from the 80s with Dura Ace 9 speed from the 90s on it) I was surprised to see the smaller gears up front and the wider gear options in back. It was like I died and went to heaven, and i knew I would not ever need a triple again. Back in the 70s and 80s, triples were waaaayy heavier than standard doubles. Even now, it may only be 1/2 lb or so, but it IS rotating weight so it will feel like 3x it's weight. (Even though I am not a weight weenie, I watch the weight as I am not a power rider by any stretch, I am a middle aged woman with less than stellar knees that have seen the knife in the past).

So a compact double up front, and the typical 12ish~27ish (currently using 25) works on the road bike. My commuter is another matter, that one will be going to 32 soon I think. It's sooo heavy with the racks and panniers, and I planned for it with a medium cage derailleur so it should be a quick swap.

Someone else may want all those gears but when I weighed the gear steps I am loosing to the weight+the chain angle+the better shifting+simpler use, I chose the simpler double. But this formula I created and applied to me, and it works. And I enjoy reading other opinions and other peoples rational for what they chose; that is how I came to buy that mid cage derailleur and compact double for the commuter over the touring triple I was about to by. I read about on a forum (maybe here?) last year.

My triple shifts just fine and my 105 FD never even needs trimming (it will rub slightly if I'm cross-chaining, but if I haven't figured it out by the chain noise, that's its version of an idiot light :rolleyes:).

Quote:

---

Even now, it may only be 1/2 lb or so

---

I can't find weight specs for Shimano componentry. And I'm not sure which Campy groupset is most comparable to their triple, but the highest level (lightest) aluminum compact crank they have is Centaur. Everything above that is carbon, so not a fair comparison, and a Centaur compact crankset weighs a whopping 46 grams more than a Campy Triple crank. (Did I mention my bra holds 80 grams of sweat? :p) Even if you go all the way to the full carbon $uper Record compact, the difference is 163 grams, which is still a good deal less than half a pound (227 g).

http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/com...m_guarCeCT.jsp
http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/com...m_guarSRCT.jsp

FWIW, I don't think the triple is a pain. It doesn't bother me to shift at all. As a matter of fact, I am 90% sure I want the triple. I ride most of the time in the middle, which right now is a 39, I can't imagine using a 50 for most flats. Right now, I just use the 50 for some small downhill. I am really the most concerned about losing my granny. I am not a good climber (and we climb a lot), and I need all the help I can get. I am not too concerned about weight. If I could lose some weight off my body that would make a bigger difference than moving to a compact and saving a few grams there.

My dithering is mostly because I think, as I become a better and faster rider, I will probably want the compact, and I am intrigued by the SRAM. But where I am now, I think I need the triple. Maybe in a few years I can change to the SRAM.

I don't know why, but there does seem to be some kind of prejudice against using a triple. It befuddles me a bit. I have a actually been made fun of for having a triple. I can't figure out why it would matter to someone else what I have on my bike, but there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

No problem! And, no, you're not the only one who didn't find using a triple to be a PITA. My Campy triple shifted very well. A lot of the bikes still speced with triples are Shimano Sora or Tiagra. Well, none of that stiff works great over time so it's no wonder they aggravate people. Frankly, I'm half tempted to put my triple back on my Bianchi just to see if it still bothers my IT band. I miss using it, as I've just never warmed to my compact. We're getting ready to do our Katy Trail tour, and my touring bike has a triple. I'm looking forward to using it.

---

I like having a triple, especially since I live in a hilly town. Since the shifters aren't even Sora, the shifting is terrible, but I like the fact that I have a tiny ring to give me a hand. I'd like a triple on my next bike, but finding an Ultegra triple is next to impossible!

My Trek 2100 WSD (my backup bike) is a 105 triple and I actually think it shifts better and easier than my Cannondale Synapse with Ultegra 6700. I have MUCH LESS mis-shifts with the Trek than I do on my Cannondale. The 105 triple just shifts flawlessly - and I admit, I haven't really taken good care of this bike. I don't think I've replaced a thing since I bought it (back in 2008)...yet it just keeps truckin' along beautifully. I'm almost afraid to touch anything on it, for fear that my good luck "streak" will forever be broken. If it were not for the fact that the frame is a bit too big for me, I'd likely ride it more than my Synapse...simply because the shifting is smoother and easier on my problematic hands.

Linda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ivorygorgon

FWIW, I don't think the triple is a pain. It doesn't bother me to shift at all. As a matter of fact, I am 90% sure I want the triple. I ride most of the time in the middle, which right now is a 39, I can't imagine using a 50 for most flats. Right now, I just use the 50 for some small downhill. I am really the most concerned about losing my granny. I am not a good climber (and we climb a lot), and I need all the help I can get. I am not too concerned about weight. If I could lose some weight off my body that would make a bigger difference than moving to a compact and saving a few grams there.

My dithering is mostly because I think, as I become a better and faster rider, I will probably want the compact, and I am intrigued by the SRAM. But where I am now, I think I need the triple. Maybe in a few years I can change to the SRAM.

I don't know why, but there does seem to be some kind of prejudice against using a triple. It befuddles me a bit. I have a actually been made fun of for having a triple. I can't figure out why it would matter to someone else what I have on my bike, but there you go.

---

There is absolutely nothing wrong about going with a triple. Two of the three bikes I own have a triple and I managed to get along just fine for over 20 years with them. I think people look down on them because they view them as "normal gearing plus a granny" ...and using a "granny" gear when the hills get tough just doesn't quite fit the macho/macha image that those people try to project.

Get what you feel comfortable with. Get what you are confident will give you the gearing you need for the type of riding conditions you are likely to encounter. And if you choose a triple, I'm sure the compact double design will be around in the future if you ever decide you would like to try it out.