compact double v triple? (my new bike!)

[spokewench]

This is the elevation for the Devil Mountain Double. To the top of Mt. Hamilton is 13,000 feet of elevation gain. There is another 7,000 between Hamilton and the end.

By themselves, these are all hard climbs. Diablo, I think, is actually one of the easier ones. The backside of Hamilton averages out to 8 or 9%. Sierra Rd's average is around 10%. Those sections where it flattens out to 5 or 6% are a welcome relief.


V.

Wow, those are really hard rides for 200 miles. I've ridden all those climbs on the Devil Mountain Double and some of them are pretty hard! I agree with you, Diablo is probably one of the easier ones, it never gets hard except right at the top.

I'm not a long distance rider though. 100 or so mies is enough for me and I call it quits. Don't like to be on the bike that long.

[RussianHillGal]

I was on the TNT xc ski team (Winter 06-07) & just signed up for the TNT Nike Women's team. So yes, I’m just being “supervised” for the cycling (I don’t think I could fundraise for 3 events in one year). I'm so looking forward to Saturday!!

[Chile Pepper]

Great discussion. What an eye-opener! I'm riding with a 42/52 chainring and a 13/26 cassette (seven cogs) (friction shifting). I haven't fallen over yet, but it sounds like it's just a matter of time. I see an upgrade in my future....

[SadieKate]

I don't know if you'll be able to get something that small with STI. I use friction shifters.
V.

Sure you can. It is a function of the curve of the front derailleur matching the size of the rings and then the tooth differential between the large and small. With Campy I can have a 24 tooth differential (26 inner and 50 outer on the Litespeed, 26 to 48 on the Kelly, 28-52 on the Mercian). I think Shimano is about the same but the spec's would say.

[Veronica]

I've never researched what can be down with STI or Campy. Hate to give advice on something I know very little about. You're the gear guru SK. I was hoping you'd say if it could be done.

V.

[SadieKate]

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.

[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.

[7rider]

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.

[Veronica]

Wow.
Has this poor thread fallen into a phallic display of "My hill is bigger than your hill"!

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.

[spazzdog]

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

spazz-tic

[maillotpois]

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.

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.

Again, no jinxing here before the 400 people!!

[SadieKate]

Cool. You be the bungee cord and I'll do the gear inches anytime.

[maillotpois]

Whew. Sometimes I have flashes of math brilliance, but not often.

I think perhapd a dry French rose is in order.

[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.