Originally Posted by
mkadam68
Most definitely, yeah:
+1
There are very few difference between them: steel (Satellite) or aluminum (Ventura Comp), triple or compact, and the Ventura is (very slightly) more aggressive in its geometry.
The knock on aluminum has always been it's a harsher ride. I don't know if this criticism still holds true today. But then, this is an entry-level bike, so the greatest engineering/geometry may not have gone into it: it could still be harsh. The carbon fork won't effect the ride comfort much (if it were a seat stay, that's another matter). And, aluminum doesn't rust.
The knock on steel has always been rust, but it always seems to get good marks for comfort. That's because it's also usually flexible. This might be a concern for a clydesdale (it was for me).
I'd personally go for the Ventura Comp.
I'm not a fan of triple cranks: learning to shift them can be a lengthy process. The compact crankset of the Ventura is more appealing to me. It has a slightly shorter wheelbase, making it feel just a bit more nimble. I would expect the aluminum frame to be less flex-y than the steel.
Depending on how heavy you are, you'll probably want to look into getting some stronger wheels. Check w/the shop: it may be cheapest to do it now rather than later.
I agree it would make little difference between the bikes. The Satellite is actually a little lighter than the Ventura, especially considering that it has a triple vs a double on the Ventura. The Satellite does look a little cooler with it's silver finish
I've ridden almost exclusively on triples. Comes with the territory
I've never noticed any issues with shifting on the outer rings. They are just a crisp as the few doubles I have owned. Shifting from the middle to the inner is a bit slower but it's not that bad and it usually done when you are going slow anyway.
The compact doubles, on the other hand, suffer from really crappy gear ratios. On a 12-26 cassette (I couldn't find an 11-26 that Jamis lists and it wouldn't make that much difference anyway), the jump from the outer ring to the middle ring is too large. If you look at the gearing, it works out to two independent 9 speed set ups. There's no place on the range where you can make a smooth transition from the inner ring to the outer without having to go through a triple shift (once on front and twice on back) or having to deal with a 20+ gear inch jump. The transition just isn't a smooth as you find on a 54/42 with the same cassette. The difference between the rings on a 50/34 is 43% while it's only 23% on a 52/42. The drop from the 42 to 30 is 40% but that's a bailout gear.