Double Chain Ring...yikes

[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

[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.

[dachshund]

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.

[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.

[ttaylor508]

I had a OCR3 and it had triple chain ring. I bought a Roubaix, and it only had double. It never even crossed my mind that it would be harder to go up hill! and boy, is it. Did someone here go from a triple to a double?

Hi Violette - have you asked your LBS if they would simply take the bike back and exchange it for the Roubaix Expert triple (http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=34081). If you have not put many miles on the bike and it is still in showroom shape, they may exchange it for the triple and you would probably be much happier. I know our LBS has done this for us without even blinking an eye. $3,000 is a lot to pay for a bike you are not happy with.

[aicabsolut]

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.

[aicabsolut]

Hi Violette - have you asked your LBS if they would simply take the bike back and exchange it for the Roubaix Expert triple (http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=34081). If you have not put many miles on the bike and it is still in showroom shape, they may exchange it for the triple and you would probably be much happier. I know our LBS has done this for us without even blinking an eye. $3,000 is a lot to pay for a bike you are not happy with.

Which model year Expert did you get? I looked up specs (I have a 2006 Comp and a 2008 S-works frame with the Comp's components). Like my Comp, it looks like all recent model Experts came with either a triple or a compact (Ultegra or SRAM Rival).

Get the LBS to look up a spec sheet for your bike. It could be that they built it wrong. Also, (just in case) look for a number printed on your crank arms (usually the underside), and see what they say (170, 172.5, or 175). My bike came built with the correct-ish crankset but the wrong size crankarms. If yours has both, well then the mistake is even more apparent. My shop swapped out the crankarms for free because of the mistake, before they even dealt with Specialized about a warranty replacement for that. If your bike has been built up wrong, then they've got to fix that for you.

I also haven't seen any Specialized Roubaix built with only a 25 in the cassette for years. Something's fishy.

I assume you mean Specialized, like taylor said, because a Fuji Roubaix runs well under $3k.

[violette]

Which model year Expert did you get? I looked up specs (I have a 2006 Comp and a 2008 S-works frame with the Comp's components). Like my Comp, it looks like all recent model Experts came with either a triple or a compact (Ultegra or SRAM Rival).

Get the LBS to look up a spec sheet for your bike. It could be that they built it wrong. Also, (just in case) look for a number printed on your crank arms (usually the underside), and see what they say (170, 172.5, or 175). My bike came built with the correct-ish crankset but the wrong size crankarms. If yours has both, well then the mistake is even more apparent. My shop swapped out the crankarms for free because of the mistake, before they even dealt with Specialized about a warranty replacement for that. If your bike has been built up wrong, then they've got to fix that for you.

I also haven't seen any Specialized Roubaix built with only a 25 in the cassette for years. Something's fishy.

I assume you mean Specialized, like taylor said, because a Fuji Roubaix runs well under $3k.

It was a leftover 2005 Roubaix. It was $2,699.00 and I got it for $1,899.00.

Now, I think I know why I got such a good price!!!

[motochick]

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

Brenda

[aicabsolut]

Ok, so if you have 2005, then you probably have a Pro frame, because there wasn't anything between Comp and Pro back then. That came with Dura-Ace 53/39 and 12-25. There is absolutely nothing of lesser quality about that, though the Pro frame now is better carbon than it was in 2005 (and costs well over $3k). You got it for a good price because it's really old stock. That has nothing to do with the components or gearing. Specialized has started putting compacts on a LOT of bikes these days, but for many, that's a deterrent. It all depends on what's the best for you. You still got a great deal on a great bike. It just doesn't have the right gearing for you. That's fixable. You can even buy a new crankset and eBay the old one.

[violette]

this is the exact bike I bought:

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkM...74&language=US

So you think this is a Pro model? I am so confused...

[smilingcat]

your link pointed to Roubaix elite. A very nice bike. Good components. 105 front deraillure and ultegra rear. 53/39 chainring and 12 x 25 cassette, 9 speed cassette.

You could swap out the 12 x 25 cassette with something easier. Only ones I could find were 11 x 32 or was it 34. If you do this though, you may have to change your rear deraillure. The ultegra rear deraillure may not be able to handle the wide gearing combination. That will add to the cost.

Another route is to swap out your front chainring and spider to a compact one. like Aicabsolut says, check the crank arm length.

You would have to price out the difference.

Another thing you need to do, you probably don't want to hear it, is you need to condition yourself. The bike is set up for someone in pretty good condition. My suggestion with your training ride is:

1. do easy ditance rides. 20 miles then 25 miles thn 30 miles. you want to keep your heart rate below 80%. preferably around 70% or so or unil you can do this at 70% rate.

2. intermix training days with shorter training of hill reps. 2- 5 minutes of climb come back down, rest by easy pedalling till your heart rate is back down. then climb again. do this 2 to 10 times depending on your condition.

3. DO TAKE A REST DAY from cycling.

4. get plenty of sleep and make sure your diet is healthy and balanced.

5. don't combine long distance with lots of hills until your body is in better shape.

Lastly, remember that the bike is only as fas as what you can do. It's not a car, it's not a motorcycle. Your body is the engine. I think I've said it before here, Lance could be riding on a old beach cruiser, and he can ride circles around on my racing bike as if I'm standing still. There is no way I could keep up with such athletes.

If the gearing is too much for you, then you may have to change the cassette + rear deraillure or go to a compact double with possibly a shorter crank arm. 170mm or ven 165mm if you are short.

smilingcat

[alpinerabbit]

I think it would be time for violette to go and talk to her LBS and see what THEY say. This has been mulled over plenty on this board. oops I almost misspelled that last word.