compact double v triple? (my new bike!)

[Veronica]

Have fun shopping, RHG

Here are my specs too if you are interested.

On my road bike I have a compact... 50/34 in front and 27-12 (10 speeds) in back. I climb with relative ease on this bike.

I'm curious... how long are the rides you are doing on this? How long are the hills and how steep? I know you said you are 600 feet above sea level. But is it a mile to sea level, five or twenty?

I ask because if all your rides look like this... a double is perfectly fine. This is all short steep rollers and you can grunt your way over. But if you are doing terrain like the other profile I posted, back on page 1 I think... you're super strong and shouldn't be giving advice to new riders.

V.

[SadieKate]

But if you are doing terrain like the other profile I posted, back on page 1 I think . . .

And doing it in the middle of a 100 mile ride as the original poster stated.

[Eden]

I did this one last year. It is one of the harder days of racing (at least available to people at my low cat) you'll find in this area - caveats abound - this is a race and most of the people who choose this race climb well.

My gearing for this race was a standard 39/53 on the front, largest on back 27. I was very tired at the end of this race, but never wobbled or fell over. I'm not going to suggest that everyone go out and buy a standard double right off the bat. Nor will I suggest that everyone would be happy with one in the long term. Just do your homework and see what kind of rider you think you will be. Of course its hard to even know until you go out and do it.

I did go the route of buying a triple on the first bike I bought in about 15 years in 2005, and then discovered racing - so I did end up replacing that bike in only a year. Coming off of my 90's vintange Trek I would have laughed out loud if you suggested that I wouldn't need a triple so it really seemed like the right thing to do. New lighter frames and the fact that I could actually buy a small enough bike made a difference I could never have imagined. Honestly I don't know if I had a compact double in the first place if I would have kept that bike or not, but swapping the triple would have been more exensive than I could have justified for that frame.

[teigyr]

Veronica,

Those look like the Aids Ride terrain charts. If so, I did it on a double but had a larger cassette in back. Also, I was in shape back then.

Everyone has far more experience than me so I'm trying to stay out. That being said, I have a compact double. I love it, it shifts better than DH's triple (and I've never lost a chain) but it does have its limitations. I'm thinking about putting a larger cassette on the back because I have a 12-25 as of now. If someone is out of shape, even a compact double will be a challenge sometimes. So...I'm not regretting the compact double whatsoever but I can see why people would ride a triple.

bowing out now

[SadieKate]

All I know is I try not to make gearing recommendations for areas in which I don't live or ride. I look at the gearing used by riders that I think are my peers ability-wise (not racers, not genetic freaks, etc.) even if they are in better shape. That tells me what gear range I need to consider and then I determine what components are necessary to provide that range. And a widely spaced cassette just so you can run a double absolutely sucks on flat terrain.

If you're racing, you have a whole different rationale for choosing components.

And if you only ride 50-60 miles distance at most, I don't think you can understand what gears one may need at mile 99.

[aicabsolut]

I'm curious... how long are the rides you are doing on this? How long are the hills and how steep? I know you said you are 600 feet above sea level. But is it a mile to sea level, five or twenty?

I ask because if all your rides look like this... a double is perfectly fine. This is all short steep rollers and you can grunt your way over. But if you are doing terrain like the other profile I posted, back on page 1 I think... you're super strong and shouldn't be giving advice to new riders.

V.

That graph could totally be done with a compact double. I do stuff like that all the time with a 50/36 12-27. That graph isn't nearly as bad as the earlier one in that a lot of the hard hills are only around 200ft gains. I don't get out to that terrain as often as I'd like to do 65+ mile rides, but I can hang on for 50 just fine. With a 50/34, there'd be no problem at all. My cadence doesn't go below 60rpm on a hill.

[Veronica]

That graph could totally be done with a compact double. I do stuff like that all the time with a 50/36 12-27. That graph isn't nearly as bad as the earlier one in that a lot of the hard hills are only around 200ft gains. I don't get out to that terrain as often as I'd like to do 65+ mile rides, but I can hang on for 50 just fine. With a 50/34, there'd be no problem at all. My cadence doesn't go below 60rpm on a hill.

Ahhh... that's my point. The second graph is rollers, not our typical terrain. That ride was 90 minutes away from me, probably two hours away for RHG. And she plans 100 miles.

V.

[aicabsolut]

Ahhh... that's my point. The second graph is rollers, not our typical terrain. That ride was 90 minutes away from me, probably two hours away for RHG. And she plans 100 miles.

V.

Gotcha.


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.

[SadieKate]

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.

[Trekhawk]

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.

Im still re-living the fact that I actually passed some people on those two short sections and yes I was in my granny.

Trekhawk who wouldn't be without her triple here in Northern California.

[Kano]

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!

[RoadRaven]

I'm curious... how long are the rides you are doing on this? How long are the hills and how steep? I know you said you are 600 feet above sea level. But is it a mile to sea level, five or twenty?

I ask because if all your rides look like this... a double is perfectly fine. This is all short steep rollers and you can grunt your way over. But if you are doing terrain like the other profile I posted, back on page 1 I think... you're super strong and shouldn't be giving advice to new riders.

V.

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

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.

[crazycanuck]

eek: That elevation

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