Double Chain Ring...yikes

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Well, I went on a 60km practice run on the weekend. I had such a hard time with my bike, that when I got home, I threw-up. I know I pushed myself too hard, but I've done this ride all last year with absolutly no problem, the hills were almost impossible to climb ( or I should say inclines) I was soo discouraged, I had tears in my eyes, and my legs were burning so bad, I had to stop at every km. I called my LBS and they told me I could change the rings and would make a difference. I'm just wondering if it's worth it?? Will it make a BIG difference or will it be just barely noticeable? I went from a $1200 bike to an almost $3000; you'd think it would be better.

"Better" means better suited to you and your needs.
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.

[Jo-n-NY]

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

[Biker Jo]

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

[SadieKate]

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.

[aicabsolut]

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

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.

[violette]

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.

[OakLeaf]

Jo's gearing is considerably lower than violette's, and her terrain is significantly flatter. Jo should be fine with the compact.

[Jo-n-NY]

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.

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.

~ JoAnn

[motochick]

Here is a good article on gearing.
http://www.cyclingsite.com/lists_art...earing_101.htm

Brenda

[Biker Jo]

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.

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.

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.

[VeloVT]

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

Sorry, guess I'm the grouch this morning... hope you'll let it slide this time .

[indysteel]

I would soften this statement a little bit. I understand you have had a very frustrating experience, violette, and that's really unfortunate. 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.

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.

Sorry, guess I'm the grouch this morning... hope you'll let it slide this time .

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.

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.

[aicabsolut]

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.

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 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 . 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.