Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Results 1 to 15 of 88

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by indysteel View Post
    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.
    It seems that some people prefer the small increments between gears, and others don't care about that. I like having the smaller increments, so I'm sticking with a triple.

    I've noticed that the people working the LBS's around here promote the compact double. I imagine it's the simplest solution for them, and then of course we're looking to them for recommendations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by dachshund View Post
    It seems that some people prefer the small increments between gears, and others don't care about that. I like having the smaller increments, so I'm sticking with a triple.

    I've noticed that the people working the LBS's around here promote the compact double. I imagine it's the simplest solution for them, and then of course we're looking to them for recommendations.
    That's not necessarily true. There are lots of reasons to get a compact double. For one, I've seen lots of people having the cross chaining problem Liza is experiencing only in reverse--they ride almost exclusively in the middle ring of a triple, and use the entire cassette in back. Considering that you get to use less of the cassette without cross-chaining per ring in a triple, I think you wind up with more useable gears with a compact or standard double. In addition, the rings have little to do with tighter gearing ("smaller increments"). Most of that is solved by the spread of the rear cassette. With a higher spread, you miss some gears at the easy end, and you may also be missing a 16t cog. Plus, you get a lot of overlap in gear inches between each ring. The only gears you gain in a triple are at the easy end (unless you have a 53-11), and not much (if any) in between.

    Second, a lot of people want a double for weight reasons and "coolness" points, but they may not be able to handle standard gearing for their strength, riding style, and terrain. They may prefer cruising in a 39 (or 36 or 34) for easy training or in traffic over a 42. Maybe they like to spin up from a stop instead of powering out a few revolutions to get up to speed.

    Third, triples are harder to come by on more expensive bikes that aren't WSD bikes for whatever reason. So, for those who need some easier gears, it makes much more sense for the manufacturer and LBS to build up fancy bikes with a compact option rather than having only standard doubles and forcing people to either buy a compact crankset separately or not getting sales because the entire grouppo would have to change to accommodate a triple. Finally, you can eliminate the hard shifting and cross chaining associated with a triple without sacrificing too much. Sure, there are Dura-Ace components for triples, but some people still feel limited by the triple.

    It has also become more fashionable for people to spin fast, because of the Lance philosophy. So some racers really like compacts for that reason (and because they may be able to do an entire race in the big ring easier that way). Unless you've got a power sprinter or descender who needs a 53-11, a 50-11 is a plenty hard gear.

    Going back to what someone said earlier, your $3k bike is not worse than your old bike. I'm sure the frame is lighter, stiffer, and more responsive. I'm sure the level of components you have on the new bike is much improved. What made it the wrong bike choice for you was the gearing relative to what you needed. Maybe you should've noticed that on your test rides. Maybe the shop should've asked you about gearing when they looked at your old bike (but maybe not...because lots of people have a granny ring and don't use it). Still, all is not lost. You can get some relief by changing your cassette to a wider spread. A 27 or 28 cog in back will make a big difference. If that is not enough, you can change your crankset. Maybe the shop will help you out with cost, because you've been so unhappy so far.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •