Triple or Compact?
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 3,162
Bikes: Litespeed Firenze / GT Avalanche
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
A properly designed drivetrain does not require "cross-chaining" to select gears that are actually needed by most riders. If you must "cross chain" to get to a gear that you need, you need a different cassette, or different chainrings.
Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
I knew a kid learning to shift a car who drove all the way to campus in first gear. Don't confuse what is possible "possible" with what a device is designed for.
It is fine if you want to be more restrictive than the manufacturers reccomendation. But, your chain and cogs are not going to burn up by staying within Shimano's reccomendations.
#52
Look at these hotties.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeOxfordCT
...Or what are your thoughts on Compact specific FD derailleurs in general ??
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Rome, GA
Posts: 538
Bikes: Lemond Zurich, Specialized Stump Jumper, Soon to be Litespeed Solano
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeOxfordCT
BTW How long have you been riding the compact ? What were you riding prior ? Feedback ??
#54
GALICO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 70
Bikes: LOOK 555, SPECIALIZED
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I finialized the order today, went with the Ultegra Triple 10-and the 12/25 Dura Ace Cassette. The savings make buying the Easton Ascent II wheels a no brainer (I was going to use my Joe Young Custom Wheels off my current bike see https://www.youngwheels.com/) and I am going to use Dura Ace Breaks. It will be under 17 lbs. This thread has been a good one for me and I think others who got involved. Just one note of interest. I support my bike shop and because I have been a good patron I get good deals. This whole project from my bike shop is comming in at 20% less than any online selllers price. it will be assembled by a master wrench. I'll post a Pic. and you have all contributed. Thanks
#55
human
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: living in the moment
Posts: 3,562
Bikes: 2005 Litespeed Teramo, 2000 Marinoni Leggero, 2001 Kona Major Jake (with Campy Centaur), 1997 Specialized S-Works M2, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
i'll say this once:
modern road bikes with short chainstays are not suited to triples.
there.
the sort chain length means that the chainline has to traverse too wide an angle to get crisp shifting on a triple. this is not the case with mtbs and touring bikes with longer stays. moreover, mtb chainrings are smaller than road chainrings, so the rear derailleur has to throw less chain.
use a triple if you like, but you will never shift as crisply as with a double. a compact crankset gives you moust of the low gears you'll need to climb everything but walls, with a better chainline and less chain than a triple. if you need something lower than 34x25 or 34x27, then you're moving at about 10 km/h and every kid on a trike will be passing you.
if you need a triple, go for it. live with the sloppy shifting and don't complain when your lbs wrench can't make it better.
modern road bikes with short chainstays are not suited to triples.
there.
the sort chain length means that the chainline has to traverse too wide an angle to get crisp shifting on a triple. this is not the case with mtbs and touring bikes with longer stays. moreover, mtb chainrings are smaller than road chainrings, so the rear derailleur has to throw less chain.
use a triple if you like, but you will never shift as crisply as with a double. a compact crankset gives you moust of the low gears you'll need to climb everything but walls, with a better chainline and less chain than a triple. if you need something lower than 34x25 or 34x27, then you're moving at about 10 km/h and every kid on a trike will be passing you.
if you need a triple, go for it. live with the sloppy shifting and don't complain when your lbs wrench can't make it better.
__________________
when walking, just walk. when sitting, just sit. when riding, just ride. above all, don't wobble.
The Irregular Cycling Club of Montreal
Cycling irregularly since 2002
when walking, just walk. when sitting, just sit. when riding, just ride. above all, don't wobble.
The Irregular Cycling Club of Montreal
Cycling irregularly since 2002
#56
Look at these hotties.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by velocipedio
if you need a triple, go for it. live with the sloppy shifting and don't complain when your lbs wrench can't make it better.
I'm a double guy (I've owned both a 53/39 and compact).
I just test rode a triple recently......after doing so I realize most of you are full of s****. The damn thing shifts fine.
Mechanical glitches? Sure, Maybe if you are doing the adjusting yourself and you don't know what the hell you are doing.
Sydney was right all along. If you can't make a triple work.......maybe you need to take it to a real mechanic.
#57
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Brett 12
This is the kind of nonsense that makes people buy what is wrong for them.
I'm a double guy (I've owned both a 53/39 and compact).
I just test rode a triple recently......after doing so I realize most of you are full of s****. The damn thing shifts fine.
Mechanical glitches? Sure, Maybe if you are doing the adjusting yourself and you don't know what the hell you are doing.
Sydney was right all along. If you can't make a triple work.......maybe you need to take it to a real mechanic.
I'm a double guy (I've owned both a 53/39 and compact).
I just test rode a triple recently......after doing so I realize most of you are full of s****. The damn thing shifts fine.
Mechanical glitches? Sure, Maybe if you are doing the adjusting yourself and you don't know what the hell you are doing.
Sydney was right all along. If you can't make a triple work.......maybe you need to take it to a real mechanic.
Whatever your past, Brett 12, under whatever guise, this post does more to preserve knees and cycling enthusiasm than any other on this list -- especially among 25+ riders.
And it even validates sydney!
#58
Made in Norway
Originally Posted by velocipedio
i'll say this once:
modern road bikes with short chainstays are not suited to triples.
there.
modern road bikes with short chainstays are not suited to triples.
there.
Talking about insulting your own intelligence. You really shouldn’t do that.
Now if you read this, enlighten us. How many mm more did the chainstays use to be ?
Last edited by Lectron; 02-19-05 at 06:26 AM.
#59
JoeWolcottCT
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wolcott, CT
Posts: 1,656
Bikes: Cannondale
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rowan
Wow! Revelation! Does that mean us older riders can come out of the triple closet?
Whatever your past, Brett 12, under whatever guise, this post does more to preserve knees and cycling enthusiasm than any other on this list -- especially among 25+ riders.
And it even validates sydney!
Whatever your past, Brett 12, under whatever guise, this post does more to preserve knees and cycling enthusiasm than any other on this list -- especially among 25+ riders.
And it even validates sydney!
I'll go for the quad when they make it if that's all I can ride rather than not ride at all
GA Biker - I'll definitely be interested to hear your feedback on the 11-28 when you get & ride it !
#60
Senior Member
Originally Posted by JoeOxfordCT
I think people should just ride what they are comfortable with. I too mulled the triple vs. double/compact thing too. I ended up going compact but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do triple at some point in the future or that I couldn't have done it now and been happy. Let's remember that for those of us who aren't racing, the main thing is to be out cycling, and cycling comfortably. I want to be as fast as possible while still being confident that I have enough gearing to conquer any climb I may happen upon. If there were no such thing as a compact I would have gone triple, if there were no such thing as a 39-27 combo I would have definitely gone triple. If at some point in the future I need/want more gears than I can get with 50-34 with a 10sp 11-28, I'll go for a triple.
I'll go for the quad when they make it if that's all I can ride rather than not ride at all
GA Biker - I'll definitely be interested to hear your feedback on the 11-28 when you get & ride it !
I'll go for the quad when they make it if that's all I can ride rather than not ride at all
GA Biker - I'll definitely be interested to hear your feedback on the 11-28 when you get & ride it !
It's those who diss triples as being a non-option that cause the problem. Usually they are young bucks for whom knee problems are not a problem... until they get old.
To declare my interest, I tour. I have heard of so many people being discouraged from using triples or 22-32-44 combinations by bike shop staff whose only interest is in flat-land racer activity. Even on forums discussing frame design and wheel designs, big gears seem to be an issue, rather than ensuring everyone is comfortable with lower gearing.
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Peterson Iowa
Posts: 765
Bikes: Trek 7000 and a Trek 1200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This may be a simple observation but my mb (it's a triple- duh) shifts fine, my road bike is a double so I know what a double shifts like. Now someone can tell me what I don't know about this subject. FCOFL
#62
GALICO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 70
Bikes: LOOK 555, SPECIALIZED
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
[QUOTE=velocipedio[you need a triple, go for it. live with the sloppy shifting and don't complain when your lbs wrench can't make it better.[/QUOTE]
I have over 11.000 miles on my triple in two years. At first I had shifting problems due to a defectinve FD, but my wrench has been able to keep this old 105/ultega smooth. We have climbs here in our big mountains (Utah) where my granny gears got me to the top. I can mash larger gears now that I have the hours in my legs but when I began I got up those hills, Old women with walkers heading to bingo passed me, but I made it and accomplished my goals. It suits me-it works for me and I may put a compact on my currant bike that is facing a semi retiremet just for variety. YOu know Variety is the spice of life-my wife says only in bikes
I have over 11.000 miles on my triple in two years. At first I had shifting problems due to a defectinve FD, but my wrench has been able to keep this old 105/ultega smooth. We have climbs here in our big mountains (Utah) where my granny gears got me to the top. I can mash larger gears now that I have the hours in my legs but when I began I got up those hills, Old women with walkers heading to bingo passed me, but I made it and accomplished my goals. It suits me-it works for me and I may put a compact on my currant bike that is facing a semi retiremet just for variety. YOu know Variety is the spice of life-my wife says only in bikes
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 13,954
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 109 Times
in
78 Posts
Originally Posted by gabiker
The only time a compact gives up the high gear is if your using a 53/11, but if your using a 53/12 and go to a 50/11 you gaining on the high and also gaining on the low especially if you use a 11/28.
Not that it realy matters but a 53/12 is more efficient even if its the same gear inches as a 50/11.
"In a derailleur transmission there is often a difference of 1 to 3% in effieciency between adjacent gears. A 1% improvement in efficiency will mean 12 seconds or more in a 25-mile TT.....A 52/15 gear combination will have a higher effieciency than a 42/12...For high effieciency the trick seems to be avoid combinations using sprockets smaller than 14t."
HIGH-TECH Cycling, Second Edition, P.37 Edmund R. Burke, Phd, editor
#64
JoeWolcottCT
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wolcott, CT
Posts: 1,656
Bikes: Cannondale
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by miamijim
Not that it realy matters but a 53/12 is more efficient even if its the same gear inches as a 50/11.
"In a derailleur transmission there is often a difference of 1 to 3% in effieciency between adjacent gears. A 1% improvement in efficiency will mean 12 seconds or more in a 25-mile TT.....A 52/15 gear combination will have a higher effieciency than a 42/12...For high effieciency the trick seems to be avoid combinations using sprockets smaller than 14t."
HIGH-TECH Cycling, Second Edition, P.37 Edmund R. Burke, Phd, editor
"In a derailleur transmission there is often a difference of 1 to 3% in effieciency between adjacent gears. A 1% improvement in efficiency will mean 12 seconds or more in a 25-mile TT.....A 52/15 gear combination will have a higher effieciency than a 42/12...For high effieciency the trick seems to be avoid combinations using sprockets smaller than 14t."
HIGH-TECH Cycling, Second Edition, P.37 Edmund R. Burke, Phd, editor
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 3,162
Bikes: Litespeed Firenze / GT Avalanche
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by velocipedio
i'll say this once:
modern road bikes with short chainstays are not suited to triples.
there.
the sort chain length means that the chainline has to traverse too wide an angle to get crisp shifting on a triple. this is not the case with mtbs and touring bikes with longer stays. moreover, mtb chainrings are smaller than road chainrings, so the rear derailleur has to throw less chain.
use a triple if you like, but you will never shift as crisply as with a double. a compact crankset gives you moust of the low gears you'll need to climb everything but walls, with a better chainline and less chain than a triple. if you need something lower than 34x25 or 34x27, then you're moving at about 10 km/h and every kid on a trike will be passing you.
if you need a triple, go for it. live with the sloppy shifting and don't complain when your lbs wrench can't make it better.
modern road bikes with short chainstays are not suited to triples.
there.
the sort chain length means that the chainline has to traverse too wide an angle to get crisp shifting on a triple. this is not the case with mtbs and touring bikes with longer stays. moreover, mtb chainrings are smaller than road chainrings, so the rear derailleur has to throw less chain.
use a triple if you like, but you will never shift as crisply as with a double. a compact crankset gives you moust of the low gears you'll need to climb everything but walls, with a better chainline and less chain than a triple. if you need something lower than 34x25 or 34x27, then you're moving at about 10 km/h and every kid on a trike will be passing you.
if you need a triple, go for it. live with the sloppy shifting and don't complain when your lbs wrench can't make it better.
The cogs on a double and triple are exactly the same. The SHIFTING mechinisim on a double and triple are EXACTLY the same. The only thing different is the chain tensioner (cage), which has NO effect on the shifting. A double and a triple rear der shift the same.
The chainline thing - nice try. Still Bo-oh-oh-oh-ohgus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#66
Look at these hotties.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeOxfordCT
Interesting point. Can you please explain exactly what you mean by increased efficiency ?
I'm blow away by this too. It just doesn't seem logical. gear inches are gear inches. As long as the chainline is the same there shouldn't be any difference in efficiency.
I think miami jim is misinturpreting the book though......the author is trying to make a point about chainlines. he mentions 14T becasue normally that is the 3rd cog from the outside in a cassette and those cogs tend to have straighter chainlines than the smallest cogs (big chainring is more towards center of cassette than the very outside)
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 13,954
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 109 Times
in
78 Posts
Brett, I'm not mis-interpreting the book. I think it has to do with the smaller diameter of the cog. A smaller diameter has a smaller radius therefore torque multiplication may be different. Chainline, as mentioned in the book is a different topic.
This same principle happens to cars on a dyno. If a car is putting down 300 rear wheel HP and you change the gearing or diameter of the rear wheel HP numbers change. If doesnt make sense but it happens.
This same principle happens to cars on a dyno. If a car is putting down 300 rear wheel HP and you change the gearing or diameter of the rear wheel HP numbers change. If doesnt make sense but it happens.
Last edited by miamijim; 02-20-05 at 06:48 AM.
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 13,954
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 109 Times
in
78 Posts
The book tested the alignment theory:
"If the derailleur chain is in misalignment, crossing from the outer chain ring to the inner sprocket or from the inner chain ring to the outer sprocket doesn't seem to greatly effect efficiency. Modern chains bend so freely that with indexed shifting, which assures proper derailleur alignment, cross chains dont seem to cause appreciable added friction."
Same book, same page.
"If the derailleur chain is in misalignment, crossing from the outer chain ring to the inner sprocket or from the inner chain ring to the outer sprocket doesn't seem to greatly effect efficiency. Modern chains bend so freely that with indexed shifting, which assures proper derailleur alignment, cross chains dont seem to cause appreciable added friction."
Same book, same page.
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I had read previously that larger chainrings and cogs are slightly more efficient. It has to do with the chain changing direction, and the greater bending of the links around the smaller radiuses of the smaller cogs and chainrings. Those of you who have been doing this for a while will have noted that derailleur jockey pulleys keep getting bigger and bigger......
Brett 12 and I have previously discussed the cogging effect of 11T rear cogs, v. larger ones. Apparently as the chain leaves the top of the cog to return to the chainring, there is variation in ratio (?) as the chain bears on different parts of the tooth, which reduces efficiency, this effect occurring only on cogs of 11T or less with 1/2" pitch chain. I knew enough to mention it and name it properly ("cogging effect"), and note that you can feel some vibration in the drivetrain in the 11T that is not present in the 12T, but I still haven't read up on it, because that exceeds my need for knowledge on the subject. If true, it certainly marks a point at which there is a stepwise reduction in efficiency of smaller cogs.
Brett 12 and I have previously discussed the cogging effect of 11T rear cogs, v. larger ones. Apparently as the chain leaves the top of the cog to return to the chainring, there is variation in ratio (?) as the chain bears on different parts of the tooth, which reduces efficiency, this effect occurring only on cogs of 11T or less with 1/2" pitch chain. I knew enough to mention it and name it properly ("cogging effect"), and note that you can feel some vibration in the drivetrain in the 11T that is not present in the 12T, but I still haven't read up on it, because that exceeds my need for knowledge on the subject. If true, it certainly marks a point at which there is a stepwise reduction in efficiency of smaller cogs.
#70
Look at these hotties.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by miamijim
Brett, I'm not mis-interpreting the book. I think it has to do with the smaller diameter of the cog. A smaller diameter has a smaller radius therefore torque multiplication may be different. Chainline, as mentioned in the book is a different topic.
This same principle happens to cars on a dyno. If a car is putting down 300 rear wheel HP and you change the gearing or diameter of the rear wheel HP numbers change. If doesnt make sense but it happens.
This same principle happens to cars on a dyno. If a car is putting down 300 rear wheel HP and you change the gearing or diameter of the rear wheel HP numbers change. If doesnt make sense but it happens.
Short cranks make more power than long cranks if the gearing used for the test is very low.
Originally Posted by SDS
I had read previously that larger chainrings and cogs are slightly more efficient. It has to do with the chain changing direction, and the greater bending of the links around the smaller radiuses of the smaller cogs and chainrings. Those of you who have been doing this for a while will have noted that derailleur jockey pulleys keep getting bigger and bigger......
Brett 12 and I have previously discussed the cogging effect of 11T rear cogs, v. larger ones. Apparently as the chain leaves the top of the cog to return to the chainring, there is variation in ratio (?) as the chain bears on different parts of the tooth, which reduces efficiency, this effect occurring only on cogs of 11T or less with 1/2" pitch chain. I knew enough to mention it and name it properly ("cogging effect"), and note that you can feel some vibration in the drivetrain in the 11T that is not present in the 12T, but I still haven't read up on it, because that exceeds my need for knowledge on the subject. If true, it certainly marks a point at which there is a stepwise reduction in efficiency of smaller cogs.
Brett 12 and I have previously discussed the cogging effect of 11T rear cogs, v. larger ones. Apparently as the chain leaves the top of the cog to return to the chainring, there is variation in ratio (?) as the chain bears on different parts of the tooth, which reduces efficiency, this effect occurring only on cogs of 11T or less with 1/2" pitch chain. I knew enough to mention it and name it properly ("cogging effect"), and note that you can feel some vibration in the drivetrain in the 11T that is not present in the 12T, but I still haven't read up on it, because that exceeds my need for knowledge on the subject. If true, it certainly marks a point at which there is a stepwise reduction in efficiency of smaller cogs.
#71
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,111
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked 3,567 Times
in
1,793 Posts
Originally Posted by Brett 12
The more I think about that cogging effect the more it makes sense. I'm guessing the ratio slightly changes becasue the chain isn't able to completely conform to the size of the small cog.
#72
Look at these hotties.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
The greater losses on a small cog are caused by the chain links having to bend at a larger angle to wrap around the cog.
#73
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Rowan
Wow! Revelation! Does that mean us older riders can come out of the triple closet?
Whatever your past, Brett 12, under whatever guise, this post does more to preserve knees and cycling enthusiasm than any other on this list -- especially among 25+ riders.
And it even validates sydney!
Whatever your past, Brett 12, under whatever guise, this post does more to preserve knees and cycling enthusiasm than any other on this list -- especially among 25+ riders.
And it even validates sydney!
Last edited by Dchiefransom; 02-20-05 at 06:15 PM.
#74
Look at these hotties.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dchiefransom
Since all the front derailleurs list a capacity of 15 teeth
Besides that 15 tooth limit on double front derailleurs gets broken all the time whenever a compact crank is installed...no problems either.
#75
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,111
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked 3,567 Times
in
1,793 Posts
Originally Posted by Brett 12
Just wonder what the % loss or change in efficiency (of an 11T) is compared to 12T?
Spicer et al, On the efficiency of bicycle chain drives;
Human Power, the Journal of the IHPVA; Number 50, Spring 2000
Here's a link to the PDF containing the chart.