Fifty Plus (50+) - 50+ers and compact doubles

With my bike in the shop for an extended time for repairs, I am riding a borrowed bike with a compact double (50/34 and 11/26-9spd) and 105 shifters.

Doing some recent shopping for a new bike (when I thought the insurance company was going to buy me a new one), I found the higher end bikes only come with a compact double. So that got me to thinking how a CD would work for me. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to try one for an extended time. I am used to riding a triple which has been flawless thus far. No thrown chains, easy shifting, just about perfect.

I started riding the loaner bike this past Saturday and have 180+ miles on it thus far. Now that I have had a chance to spend time on a CD, I can say that I could ride either but prefer the triple. I can't really tell any performance advantage that the CD provides (at least, for me).

I have to ask, what's the big deal about compact doubles? I have to double shift just like on my triple. It doesn't shift any better than my triple, worse if anything. OTOH, I've had no trouble getting up hills with the 34/26, which is slightly taller gearing than my usual 30/25 granny.

What I have discovered is that I've been way too conservative in my gear selections on my triple to avoid cross chaining. And that the compact double requires trim to be used pretty often (never on my triple). Otherwise, I seem to be no faster or slower on the CD and I just don't see any real advantage of having a CD over a triple. Maybe I'm missing something.

Oh yeah, OCP points. That's what I'm missing with my triple. ;)

With my bike in the shop for an extended time for repairs, I am riding a borrowed bike with a compact double (50/34 and 11/26-9spd) and 105 shifters.

Doing some recent shopping for a new bike (when I thought the insurance company was going to buy me a new one), I found the higher end bikes only come with a compact double. So that got me to thinking how a CD would work for me. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to try one for an extended time. I am used to riding a triple which has been flawless thus far. No thrown chains, easy shifting, just about perfect.

I started riding the loaner bike this past Saturday and have 180+ miles on it thus far. Now that I have had a chance to spend time on a CD, I can say that I could ride either but prefer the triple. I can't really tell any performance advantage that the CD provides (at least, for me).

I have to ask, what's the big deal about compact doubles? I have to double shift just like on my triple. It doesn't shift any better than my triple, worse if anything. OTOH, I've had no trouble getting up hills with the 34/26, which is slightly taller gearing than my usual 30/25 granny.

What I have discovered is that I've been way too conservative in my gear selections on my triple to avoid cross chaining. And that the compact double requires trim to be used pretty often (never on my triple). Otherwise, I seem to be no faster or slower on the CD and I just don't see any real advantage of having a CD over a triple. Maybe I'm missing something.

Oh yeah, OCP points. That's what I'm missing with my triple. ;)

Vanity! How can you stand to be seen riding a triple? Imagine how tough it was a few years ago when those macho-controlled riders wouldn't be seen with anything smaller than a 39/53?

Actually, we all ride at different strengths on different terrain at different speeds. For some, they actually make sense.

TF

Vanity! How can you stand to be seen riding a triple? Imagine how tough it was a few years ago when those macho-controlled riders wouldn't be seen with anything smaller than a 39/53?

Actually, we all ride at different strengths on different terrain at different speeds. For some, they actually make sense.

TF

Maybe it's just me. I admit having limited experience with the CD setup. But thus far, I have found no advantage for me using a CD over a triple. A CD is less versatile, if anything. So I'm trying to understand why higher end bikes only come with a CD (at least the ones I looked at). It can't be for cost saving reasons. Maybe my engine is insufficiently developed to appreciate the finer points of a CD setup.

If you really want to geek out over the industry's reason for promoting compact doubles, read this *excellent* background piece on "the rise of the compact crank" in the bicycle blog "Bike Hugger."

http://bikehugger.com/2008/05/the_rise_of_the_compact_crank.htm

It also discussed how/why fewer and fewer high-end triples will be offered going forward.

.

A double offers a superior Q-factor, by virtue of the shorter spindle. For those with an extremely narrow pelvis and/or certain types of knee problems, this can be a significant advantage, but for most of us, it probably does not make much difference. For me, the issues are:
1) What top gear can I obtain, versus my needs/desires? (I have no use whatsoever for a 53/11, but some folks swear by them.)
2) How low a bottom gear can I get? (I do fine with a 42/26 or even a 38/23, but others want a lower gear.)
3) What gear ratio progression can I obtain? (I like 6 or 7 percent.)
4) What shift pattern can I arrange? (I don't mind old-school double-shifting with a half-step or 1.5-step "alpine" setup, but others strongly prefer a crossover gearing pattern.) If I do object to double shifts, where do they occur in my gear range? (It does not make sense for the double shift averse to end up with a double shfit right in the middle of the most-used gear range, but this is reportedly common with compact doubles.)

By the way, the compact double is nothing new, since it simpy uses the old school mountain bike 110mm BCD. To build a compact triple, simply buy an old school mountain crankset, such as I have on both mountain bikes and which I put on the Peugeot PKN-10 I gave my son. For the road bike, I really liked my half-step-plus-granny 48-45-34 / 13-15-17-19-21-23 gearing, but again some folks want a top gear higher than 100 gear-inches and/or a low of less than 40 gear-inches.

With my bike in the shop for an extended time for repairs, I am riding a borrowed bike with a compact double (50/34 and 11/26-9spd) and 105 shifters.

Doing some recent shopping for a new bike (when I thought the insurance company was going to buy me a new one), I found the higher end bikes only come with a compact double. So that got me to thinking how a CD would work for me. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to try one for an extended time. I am used to riding a triple which has been flawless thus far. No thrown chains, easy shifting, just about perfect.

I started riding the loaner bike this past Saturday and have 180+ miles on it thus far. Now that I have had a chance to spend time on a CD, I can say that I could ride either but prefer the triple. I can't really tell any performance advantage that the CD provides (at least, for me).

I have to ask, what's the big deal about compact doubles? I have to double shift just like on my triple. It doesn't shift any better than my triple, worse if anything. OTOH, I've had no trouble getting up hills with the 34/26, which is slightly taller gearing than my usual 30/25 granny.

What I have discovered is that I've been way too conservative in my gear selections on my triple to avoid cross chaining. And that the compact double requires trim to be used pretty often (never on my triple). Otherwise, I seem to be no faster or slower on the CD and I just don't see any real advantage of having a CD over a triple. Maybe I'm missing something.

Oh yeah, OCP points. That's what I'm missing with my triple. ;)

Interesting...I could get whatever crankset I wanted on my new Cervelo R3 and in fact still have a demo crankset while I figure out if I want a power meter and which one. I have the 50/34 and the 11/26 10 speed cassette. I do not find the double any different from my triple in shifting and I do not think I am any faster although the double is lighter and therefore physics dictates that I am faster up hills.

Q factor...the double is narrower than my triple and I found that I like the feel of the pedals closer together. From an aero view point, that is a faster position. Of course if you let your knees go wide, you will lose any benefit.

Looks...the double looks much better than the triple.

Adaptation...It took me a couple of rides to get used to the gearing. Now it feels great and the shifting is perfect.

My buddies say...you really like your double much better than the triple --- as a statement of fact? Absolutely. No pro would be caught dead on a triple.:thumb:

The compact double works best for me while racing. I can leave it in the big ring (50 x 23 vs 53 x 23) on most hills as the difference is about 1 and 1/2 gears and I don't need the tall gear of the 53 x 11. The same goes for steep climbs. When I got the bike it had a 12/27 cassette with an easiest gear of 34 x 27 which was within 1 and 1/2 gears of a triple. I don't see how a CD could make someone faster or more efficient, it just makes riding simpler if the gearing is within the range the rider desires.

By the way, the compact double is nothing new...

One of the shops in Seattle is owned by a guy who owns/collects/fixes old French constructeur bikes (Rene Herse, Alex Singer, etc.). I was looking at his personal bike, which I think dates to the 50's -- it has a vintage TA compact crank on it...I think it was a 48/34.

Advantage to me is that I already have rear dérailleurs for a double, but want a lower gear. It's less expensive to switch to a compact up front instead of a triple and the need for a new rear dérailleur too. I'd like to pretend that I'm a sophisticated enough rider to discern the subtle advantages of one setup over the other, but I'm not. I just know that climbing is easier on the 34/26 than a 39/26.

Advantage to me is that I already have rear dérailleurs for a double, but want a lower gear. It's less expensive to switch to a compact up front instead of a triple and the need for a new rear dérailleur too. I'd like to pretend that I'm a sophisticated enough rider to discern the subtle advantages of one setup over the other, but I'm not. I just know that climbing is easier on the 34/26 than a 39/26.

IMHO, this is the reason that compact doubles were created..................not to make converts of the owners of triples, but rather to make a more useful double for the many who were so equipped...:innocent:

The biggest problem with compact cranks is that I need to shift chainrings right about 16-19 mph. And then it needs to shift over 4 cogs, usually. With a triple, it would be easier to stay in the middle speed range of one of the three chainrings.

My (2005 version) Campagnolo shifters actually handle this pretty well, I can shift up or down 4 cogs with one motion. Two thumb pushes drops from the 50 to the 34 chainring, and into the correct cog.

From Mike Sherman's great gear calculator (http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.sherman/shift.html)


MPH at 90 rpm:

.......12...13...14...15...16...17...19...21...23...25
----+------------------------------------------------------------
50 | 29.4 27.2 25.2 23.5 22.1 20.8 18.6 16.8 15.4 14.1
34 | 20.0 18.5 17.2 16.0 15.0 14.1 12.6 11.4 10.4 9.6


.......12...13...14...15...16...17...19...21...23...25
----+------------------------------------------------------------
52 | 30.7 28.3 26.3 24.6 23.0 21.7 19.4 17.5 16.0 14.7
39 | 23.0 21.3 19.7 18.4 17.3 16.3 14.5 13.2 12.0 11.1
30 | 17.7 16.3 15.2 14.2 13.3 12.5 11.2 10.1 9.2 8.5

Changing from a triple to a double was one of the smarter things I've done recently. With the triple, I spent most on my time in the middle ring, using the top 4-5 gears. I would get into the big ring once in a while, but I am not strong enough to push a 53 for very long. Also, since the biggest hill near me is the interstate overpass, I honestly had never once used the small ring. Now, with the double, I stay in the 50 big ring all the time and regularly use 6-7 of the cogs. I'm thinking of changing the 50 chainring to a 48, in which case I'd have regular use of my entire cog, plus the smaller ring if I go somewhere where there are hills.

I used a triple on one of my bikes but the wider q factor of the crank bothered my hip. The compact double is much better in that regard. The compact also shifts a bit better for me than the triple. Generally I like the compact much better.

Interesting...I could get whatever crankset I wanted on my new Cervelo R3 and in fact still have a demo crankset while I figure out if I want a power meter and which one. I have the 50/34 and the 11/26 10 speed cassette. I do not find the double any different from my triple in shifting and I do not think I am any faster although the double is lighter and therefore physics dictates that I am faster up hills.

Q factor...the double is narrower than my triple and I found that I like the feel of the pedals closer together. From an aero view point, that is a faster position. Of course if you let your knees go wide, you will lose any benefit.

Looks...the double looks much better than the triple.

Adaptation...It took me a couple of rides to get used to the gearing. Now it feels great and the shifting is perfect.

My buddies say...you really like your double much better than the triple --- as a statement of fact? Absolutely. No pro would be caught dead on a triple.:thumb:

I'll be switching to a compact double in October per coach's direction. I am waiting until the racing season is over to make such a change. Coach says its lighter so that is reason enough for me. I really like my triple but I very rarely use the lowest gears - but it psychologically nice to know they are there. I adapt pretty easily so I am sure I will like the double. And as stated above, a lot is about perception.

my right toes point out, so a triple is generally a bad thing for me, I need all the heel clearance I can get. I guess I wasn't paying attention when triples started to be easily available on production road bikes. My touring bike has one, and I think it would be silly to have anything else on there.

Now, with the double, I stay in the 50 big ring all the time and regularly use 6-7 of the cogs.

What you would need then, is a triple with a 50 big ring, and then you would still have the very low gears a triple gives you for those especially steep little hills one encounters here and there. You don't have to convert to a CD in order to get a 50 big ring.

I have bikes with both and IMO:

Compact Double = New Coke
Triple = The Real Thing

If you really want to geek out over the industry's reason for promoting compact doubles, read this *excellent* background piece on "the rise of the compact crank" in the bicycle blog "Bike Hugger."

http://bikehugger.com/2008/05/the_rise_of_the_compact_crank.htm

It also discussed how/why fewer and fewer high-end triples will be offered going forward.

.

Well that was an interesting and very informative article. (but I still want the option of a triple!) Maybe I could appreciate the difference more if I rode a standard double.

What you would need then, is a triple with a 50 big ring, and then you would still have the very low gears a triple gives you for those especially steep little hills one encounters here and there. You don't have to convert to a CD in order to get a 50 big ring.

Started with a triple when I went road bike and had the same problem in that 30/42/52 and I would be in the 42 for most of the ride. Except up hills and then the 30 would come into play (We have hills round here) Next bike had a compact and I use the 50 for all of the flatter bits or slopes up to 8 %. The 34 gets used when it gets steeper- but one interesting fact- Those hills that I struggled up in 30/28, I now struggle up in 34/27 but they take less time to climb.

In my case- The Compact has improved me and the hills are still do-able. But thinking about Ventoux again for next year and it is either going to be a change to 9 speed so I can put a 34t on the cassette- or a change to a triple where I can get 28/27 on the gearing.

Interesting...I could get whatever crankset I wanted on my new Cervelo R3 and in fact still have a demo crankset while I figure out if I want a power meter and which one. I have the 50/34 and the 11/26 10 speed cassette. I do not find the double any different from my triple in shifting and I do not think I am any faster although the double is lighter and therefore physics dictates that I am faster up hills.

Q factor...the double is narrower than my triple and I found that I like the feel of the pedals closer together. From an aero view point, that is a faster position. Of course if you let your knees go wide, you will lose any benefit.

Looks...the double looks much better than the triple.

Adaptation...It took me a couple of rides to get used to the gearing. Now it feels great and the shifting is perfect.

My buddies say...you really like your double much better than the triple --- as a statement of fact? Absolutely. No pro would be caught dead on a triple.:thumb:

Lighter weight I will sweat more than the weight difference. But I respect the fact that every bit helps.

Q factor (also mentioned by John E)... true. Didn't consider that. But since my knees stay tucked in, the aero aspect is not a factor for me. But hey, I don't race anyway. Yet. ;)

Looks - well, a matter of opinion. I have no problem with either.

Adaptation ... I'm sure I'm still in the process. Probably by the time my triple is operational again, I'll have to re-adapt to that. But I find it interesting that where I spin out on the 34/11 is about the same speed that I spin out of my 39/12 ... and have to do a double shift in either setup. (The double shift not being a bad thing... just an observation that the CD did not benefit me here).

The compact double works best for me while racing. I can leave it in the big ring (50 x 23 vs 53 x 23) on most hills as the difference is about 1 and 1/2 gears and I don't need the tall gear of the 53 x 11. The same goes for steep climbs. When I got the bike it had a 12/27 cassette with an easiest gear of 34 x 27 which was within 1 and 1/2 gears of a triple. I don't see how a CD could make someone faster or more efficient, it just makes riding simpler if the gearing is within the range the rider desires.

I think that would be one advantage for the CD... leaving it in the 50t chainring. As I get stronger, I should/would be able to make better use of the gearset range with that 50t chainring.

Advantage to me is that I already have rear dérailleurs for a double, but want a lower gear. It's less expensive to switch to a compact up front instead of a triple and the need for a new rear dérailleur too. I'd like to pretend that I'm a sophisticated enough rider to discern the subtle advantages of one setup over the other, but I'm not. I just know that climbing is easier on the 34/26 than a 39/26.

When you say switch up front, I assume you mean from a std double to a compact double? I'm still not knowledgeable enough to understand the whys and wherefores of shifter/derailler restrictions and limitations with the different cranksets, etc.

The biggest problem with compact cranks is that I need to shift chainrings right about 16-19 mph. And then it needs to shift over 4 cogs, usually. With a triple, it would be easier to stay in the middle speed range of one of the three chainrings.

My (2005 version) Campagnolo shifters actually handle this pretty well, I can shift up or down 4 cogs with one motion. Two thumb pushes drops from the 50 to the 34 chainring, and into the correct cog.

From Mike Sherman's great gear calculator (http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.sherman/shift.html)



I'm still trying to figure this out on the compact. I find my chainring shift point to be in the low 20s with either setup.

On the triple, I normally have to shift about 3 cogs when I change from the 39t to the 52t chainring. Or two cogs when going from the 52t to the 39t. That 3 cog swing is the max range of a full shift... and it works perfectly with the triple.

Changing from a triple to a double was one of the smarter things I've done recently. With the triple, I spent most on my time in the middle ring, using the top 4-5 gears. I would get into the big ring once in a while, but I am not strong enough to push a 53 for very long. Also, since the biggest hill near me is the interstate overpass, I honestly had never once used the small ring. Now, with the double, I stay in the 50 big ring all the time and regularly use 6-7 of the cogs. I'm thinking of changing the 50 chainring to a 48, in which case I'd have regular use of my entire cog, plus the smaller ring if I go somewhere where there are hills.

That's a good point. The main area you ride in may well dictate which crankset would be of most benefit.

I used a triple on one of my bikes but the wider q factor of the crank bothered my hip. The compact double is much better in that regard. The compact also shifts a bit better for me than the triple. Generally I like the compact much better.

I honestly didn't notice the smaller Q factor of the compact nor did I think about it until this thread. But I am very aware of cornering clearance and can see the benefit of a CD for that.

I also have had 0 problems with my triple. It's performance has been flawless. I should count my blessings that I don't have any physical problems that would cause me to favor one crankset over another.;)

I'll be switching to a compact double in October per coach's direction. I am waiting until the racing season is over to make such a change. Coach says its lighter so that is reason enough for me. I really like my triple but I very rarely use the lowest gears - but it psychologically nice to know they are there. I adapt pretty easily so I am sure I will like the double. And as stated above, a lot is about perception.

I'll look for your report when you make the changeover. It will be interesting to see your thoughts.

Ya know, I'll bet they put that multi-quote option in here for a reason.:innocent:

I have bikes with both and IMO:

Compact Double = New Coke
Triple = The Real Thing

Heheh. Probably true for more of us than we'd like to admit. ;)


Started with a triple when I went road bike and had the same problem in that 30/42/52 and I would be in the 42 for most of the ride. Except up hills and then the 30 would come into play (We have hills round here) Next bike had a compact and I use the 50 for all of the flatter bits or slopes up to 8 %. The 34 gets used when it gets steeper- but one interesting fact- Those hills that I struggled up in 30/28, I now struggle up in 34/27 but they take less time to climb.

In my case- The Compact has improved me and the hills are still do-able. But thinking about Ventoux again for next year and it is either going to be a change to 9 speed so I can put a 34t on the cassette- or a change to a triple where I can get 28/27 on the gearing.

Hmm. Forced improvement. I could live with that. We are talking bicycles here, right? ;)

50t and 8% slopes. OK, that works for me as long as I can spin up a short hill.. or stand up a (slightly) longer one. Or maybe that's the improvement aspect you mention. Hey, I'm all for spending less time climbing those hills. Which just means I better get out and ride more hills!

OT: (sorta). If I wanted to play around with my crankset, how would I know what chainrings would work with my shifters/deraillers/etc.? Or is that the subject of another thread? My triple currently has 52/39/30 and 12-25/10 spd cassette (full Ultegra).

OT: (sorta). If I wanted to play around with my crankset, how would I know what chainrings would work with my shifters/deraillers/etc.? Or is that the subject of another thread? My triple currently has 52/39/30 and 12-25/10 spd cassette (full Ultegra).

If you have Ultegra Brifters- then you will find that the front derailler brifter is either 3 ring or 2 ring. So if you have a triple on now- It would require a new brifter AND a new front mech to go compact. I have 105 brifters and they work with 2 or 3 rings (Purposely got the bike built up with that just in case I wanted to change)
Alternative is to stay triple on the front and change rings to suit your required gearing. May have to go MTB crankset to get low enough if that is what you want but on the Tandem we run 48/36/24 with 9 speed 11/32 cassette but I also have a friend that runs 50/38/28 on his MTB

An alternative is to run the triple with only two rings on it and adjust the stops on the Derailler but that only looks sensible if you just remove the inner ring.

And on chain rings- it is the bolt spacing that will denote what rings you can run. The LBS will be able to tell you the range you can use if they see the Crankset. But if it is Ultegra- You can go down to a 50, possibly 48, for the big ring- and the inner ring could go as low as a 24.

Thanks for that info, stapfam. The LBS told me at one point that I would need to change to 105 components to put a 50t chainring in place of the 52t ring. It's stuff like that where I get confused. Seems as long as it meets the BCD, it would work. But there must be more to it than that.

No worries. I'm gonna leave it alone for now.

I used to ride with a triple on a Trek5200 from a few years ago (9spd). For the last year I've used a compact double (10spd) and much, much prefer it. The easiest gear is just about the same, and I only give up a tiny bit of top speed before I spin out. (I can pedal up to about 32 MPH on the double.)

This weekend my new bike was in the shop so I had to ride the 5200 with the triple on a very hilly rolly course. I just hated it. Too much fiddling with the FD. Never knowing when it was worth dropping down to the smallest front cog. I felt like I was baby-sitting it the whole time.

I'm keeping the compact double :)

When I rebuild my Simoncini this fall I wll go from a 52/42/32 9sp 13/25 to a 50/34 11/25 10 spd.
I will loose a little bit on the low side and gain a lot on the high side. I ride the flats and rollers in the 52 now and switch to the 42 on most of the climbs, it is only when I get to one of the hills I ride that is over 2 miles long and has some grades in excess of 10% that I drop to the 32 and I have been known to climb them entirely in the 42. I don't think I will miss the little pie plate.

BTW my Tarmac has a 53/39/30 12/25 10 spd and I end up using it the same way. I don't want to go 53/39 on the rebuild because I like the idea of having the low option for long rides in the Adirondaks where you can have climbs that go for miles and hitting one of these after already traveling 50 or 60 miles can wear you down.

When I rebuild my Simoncini this fall I wll go from a 52/42/32 9sp 13/25 to a 50/34 11/25 10 spd.
I will loose a little bit on the low side and gain a lot on the high side. I ride the flats and rollers in the 52 now and switch to the 42 on most of the climbs, it is only when I get to one of the hills I ride that is over 2 miles long and has some grades in excess of 10% that I drop to the 32 and I have been known to climb them entirely in the 42. I don't think I will miss the little pie plate.

BTW my Tarmac has a 53/39/30 12/25 10 spd and I end up using it the same way. I don't want to go 53/39 on the rebuild because I like the idea of having the low option for long rides in the Adirondaks where you can have climbs that go for miles and hitting one of these after already traveling 50 or 60 miles can wear you down.

Sounds like you are a strong rider. How long have you been riding and how long have you been able to do those long climbs on that 42t? I think I might still be challenged with those gears on climbs.

My bike came with a 52/39/30 triple and I found I wasn't using the large ring often. I looked into changing to a compact and realized it would require changing too many components to be economical. I solved my issue very inexpensively by simply going to a 50 outer chainring so I now have a 50/39/30 combo and have about 1200 miles on this combo. Love it.

b\By the way, couldn't care less about the Q factor. I am not a racer. I also rarely use the smallest chainring, but when I do it's nice to have.

It occurs to me that a lot of the bad rap triples have is due to the vast majority of them being shimano. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone needs indexing on a front deraillieur but all the shimano triples have it and it is a pain to get set up right and if its not set up right its a pretty bad experience. The campy triples (at least thru 2006) don't index in the front and are really easy to set up and use -- on mine its 3 clicks of the thumb button from the big ring to the middle. What could be easier?

The compact double OTOH, was a huge pain to set up. Now that I have it working I find my self cross chained way more than I'd like. Even though I can do a simultaneous front and rear shift, its three cogs in the back when I cross over and sometimes I miss and have to tweak it up or down a cog. All this so I can have less gears, a lower high and a higher low.


All that being said, its all just fashion. Triples were the fashion for a while, now its CDs. It will probably be 52-42 doubles next (the in thing when I started 35 years ago).

My bike came with a 52/39/30 triple and I found I wasn't using the large ring often. I looked into changing to a compact and realized it would require changing too many components to be economical. I solved my issue very inexpensively by simply going to a 50 outer chainring so I now have a 50/39/30 combo and have about 1200 miles on this combo. Love it.

b\By the way, couldn't care less about the Q factor. I am not a racer. I also rarely use the smallest chainring, but when I do it's nice to have.

I briefly looked into replacing my 52t with a 50t, but my LBS said to do it right would require changing some other components too. That was before I expanded the cogs I would use with the 52t ring. I've been way too conservative trying to minimize crosschaining and used to stop at 52/16. Using the 15 tooth cog greatly helped ... as I suspect 52/14 would. And now I use my 52t ring more and more.

I agree about the Q factor aspect. And while my 30t ring is seldom used, it's nice to have when I need it. IAC, I'll have a few more weeks of riding on the compact double. Maybe it will grow on me and the contrast will be evident once I get back on my triple. We'll see.


It occurs to me that a lot of the bad rap triples have is due to the vast majority of them being shimano. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone needs indexing on a front deraillieur but all the shimano triples have it and it is a pain to get set up right and if its not set up right its a pretty bad experience. The campy triples (at least thru 2006) don't index in the front and are really easy to set up and use -- on mine its 3 clicks of the thumb button from the big ring to the middle. What could be easier?

The compact double OTOH, was a huge pain to set up. Now that I have it working I find my self cross chained way more than I'd like. Even though I can do a simultaneous front and rear shift, its three cogs in the back when I cross over and sometimes I miss and have to tweak it up or down a cog. All this so I can have less gears, a lower high and a higher low.


All that being said, its all just fashion. Triples were the fashion for a while, now its CDs. It will probably be 52-42 doubles next (the in thing when I started 35 years ago).

Ahh, where would this world be without the fashion conscious among us? ;)

Never ridden a Campy setup, but as mentioned earlier, my all Shimano triple has been flawless. Evidently my LBS knows how to properly setup a triple.

It occurs to me that a lot of the bad rap triples have is due to the vast majority of them being shimano. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone needs indexing on a front deraillieur but all the shimano triples have it and it is a pain to get set up right and if its not set up right its a pretty bad experience. The campy triples (at least thru 2006) don't index in the front and are really easy to set up and use -- on mine its 3 clicks of the thumb button from the big ring to the middle. What could be easier?

...

Front derailleur indexing is indeed an engineering blunder, because it takes away the rider's ability to feather the position of the cage, to avoid chain rub. This is probably the Campagnolo Ergo system's greatest single advantage over Shimano. (Another option is to use a nonindexed barcon or Lance Armstrong style downtube lever on the left side, but the purists would probably be offended.)

I briefly looked into replacing my 52t with a 50t, but my LBS said to do it right would require changing some other components too. ...

Huh?

1) Remove the 5 mounting bolts.
2) Remove the 52T ring.
3) Install the 50T ring in its place.
4) Replace the 5 mounting bolts.
5) Test rigorously. If the chain never overshifts, you are good to go. Otherwise, lower the front derailleur cage slightly, so that it clears the chainring teeth by 1mm.

Several years ago, I replaced the OEM 52 with a 50 on my Bianchi and have not even bothered to lower the front derailleur. I probably should, but it works fine right where it is.

My bike came with a 52/39/30 triple and I found I wasn't using the large ring often. I looked into changing to a compact and realized it would require changing too many components to be economical. I solved my issue very inexpensively by simply going to a 50 outer chainring so I now have a 50/39/30 combo and have about 1200 miles on this combo. Love it.

...

In fact, Campagnolo used to offer their triple with the buyer's choice of 52-42-30 or 50-40-30. Personally, I favor a "mix-and-match" 50-42-30, because the ratios work out so well with a 2-tooth drop in back, e.g.:

50-42-30 / 13-15-17-19-21-23-26

Huh?

1) Remove the 5 mounting bolts.
2) Remove the 52T ring.
3) Install the 50T ring in its place.
4) Replace the 5 mounting bolts.
5) Test rigorously. If the chain never overshifts, you are good to go. Otherwise, lower the front derailleur cage slightly, so that it clears the chainring teeth by 1mm.

Several years ago, I replaced the OEM 52 with a 50 on my Bianchi and have not even bothered to lower the front derailleur. I probably should, but it works fine right where it is.

That sounds pretty straightforward. Perhaps I misunderstood what the LBS was saying. Or maybe they misunderstood what I was asking. I thought I would have to change my Ultregra derailler to a 105, or was it a shifter? I dunno.

I get lost pretty quickly when it comes to mixing and matching components as to what works and what won't. As I've never wrenched on this part of the bike, it's still somewhat of a mystery to me. However, I look forward to getting my hands dirty and learning about this stuff.

John E is right. I didn't even lower my front derailleur cage. Works great. I was skeptical, but LBS said try it and see. The entire operation took less than 10 minutes. I have Ultegra SL shifters and derailleurs. I had to go to a Dura Ace ring because there is no 50 tooth Ultegra ring with130 mm bolt pattern. Not a big deal.

I've been way too conservative trying to minimize crosschaining and used to stop at 52/16. Using the 15 tooth cog greatly helped ... as I suspect 52/14 would.

Eh? maybe I'm missing something but running 52/16 or 52/15 or 52/14 is not cross chaining.
Unless, maybe, your front rings are mounted inside out. 52/27 would be cross chaining. 30/14 would be cross chaining but 52/14? No.

It occurs to me that a lot of the bad rap triples have is due to the vast majority of them being shimano. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone needs indexing on a front deraillieur but all the shimano triples have it and it is a pain to get set up right and if its not set up right its a pretty bad experience. The campy triples (at least thru 2006) don't index in the front and are really easy to set up and use -- on mine its 3 clicks of the thumb button from the big ring to the middle. What could be easier?

The compact double OTOH, was a huge pain to set up. Now that I have it working I find my self cross chained way more than I'd like. Even though I can do a simultaneous front and rear shift, its three cogs in the back when I cross over and sometimes I miss and have to tweak it up or down a cog. All this so I can have less gears, a lower high and a higher low.


All that being said, its all just fashion. Triples were the fashion for a while, now its CDs. It will probably be 52-42 doubles next (the in thing when I started 35 years ago).

1. I think that Shimano triples have gotten a bad rap because such a high percentage of bike mechanics are race oriented and don't know how to set them up. I've ridden one for over 10 years on my tandem and, even with the longer shift cable, I don't have any shifting issues with it at all. None of my tandeming friends complain about front shifting either.

2. I converted my Klein to a compact double a few years ago. I didn't think that it was hard to set up at all. The lack of front overlap gears can be a PITA if the terrain where you live forces you to make a lot of front derailleur shifts. Incidentally, the reason I went to a compact double was because I wanted lower gears and I couldn't find anyone local who had an Ultegra triple and who wanted to swap the other way. The CD was economical because the only thing that I had to buy was the crankset. I'm delighted with it.

3. As for the fashion thing, I absolutely agree.

Eh? maybe I'm missing something but running 52/16 or 52/15 or 52/14 is not cross chaining.
Unless, maybe, your front rings are mounted inside out. 52/27 would be cross chaining. 30/14 would be cross chaining but 52/14? No.

I claim 50+ moment. :o

You are correct and I listed it backwards from what I meant. Should have said 52/19-21 with 52/25 being the extreme on that end. Thanks for catching that. What I listed was about as minimal a crosschain as you can get.

Riding the double has been an eye opener for me as to just how much cc will work. (a lot!).

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks indexed front shifting was invented by the devil. Talk about creating a real problem to solve a nonexistent one.:mad:

About Q-factor. That is simply a fancy way to refer to the width between you pedals. Some people are very sensitive to variations, others are not. Some like it as narrow as possible. Some prefer it a little wider. Some don't notice a difference either way. Whether or not it matters to you has absolutely nothing, zilch, nada to do with whether or not you race.

Sounds like you are a strong rider. How long have you been riding and how long have you been able to do those long climbs on that 42t? I think I might still be challenged with those gears on climbs.

I have had the Simoncini since around 1996 and I have been riding pretty regularly since then although my riding up until about 3 years ago was pretty casual. In 2000 I was injured in a accident and was not able to exercise for several months, I changed jobs which required a lot of travel and we had another baby - so consequently my life was a wreck for about 4 years - I gained 25 lbs. I got serious about getting back into shape three years ago, I have lost the 25 lbs and am working on 5 more. I have been able to climb hills like that for the last 2 years although more so this year. It is really this year too that I don't find myself in the middle ring much any more.

...
About Q-factor. That is simply a fancy way to refer to the width between you pedals. Some people are very sensitive to variations, others are not. Some like it as narrow as possible. Some prefer it a little wider. Some don't notice a difference either way. Whether or not it matters to you has absolutely nothing, zilch, nada to do with whether or not you race.

I don't really seem to notice the difference either.

...I got serious about getting back into shape three years ago, I have lost the 25 lbs and am working on 5 more. I have been able to climb hills like that for the last 2 years although more so this year. It is really this year too that I don't find myself in the middle ring much any more.

Life happens, doesn't it?

As slow as progress is at times, it's still exciting and encouraging to see improvement. I have much to look forward to.

At 56, I rode up Vail Pass two weekends ago using the stock 36/23 compact my Felt came with. I'm tickled because it allows me to ride the hills I climbed 20 years ago with a 42/20.

Regarding setting up Shimano triples, they are difficult but not impossible once you get the hang of it. The trick is to start a little further inside with a little more slack in the cable than you think you'd need. And if the trim settings stop working consistently, a squirt of aerosol silicon lubricant inside the control lever loosens it all up.

I've been trying out new bikes these past couple of weeks and have ridden bikes with both CD and Triple. For my needs, the CD is interesting, but the triple give me more options. I live in a hilly area and since I'm not a racer or in race condition, I'm going to opt for the triple.