Bike Forums - Going from compact to standard cranks

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)

- Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)

- - Going from compact to standard cranks (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/969594-going-compact-standard-cranks.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Ross (Post 17098731)

You would think... Sadly, there are some obstacles to making a triple crankset a practical alternative for many cyclists. The ones that are most germane to me personally are
A) triple cranksets & long cage RDs are being orphaned, at least at the high end, by most manufacturers. Campy only makes one version (if they even still do offer the Comp Triple) which was sub-Athena quality, Shimano might still offer an Ultegra triple...but then again might not, and SRAM doesn't offer anything. Most egregiously, none of the big manufacturers offer an electronic triple, which to my mind would be the best argument for bothering with electronic shifting at all...because
B) I've yet to meet a bike mechanic who can tune up a triple such that it performs as smoothly, effortlessly, noiselessly, and predictably as a double (standard or compact).

If Shimano ever came out with Ultegra electronic "Di3" with 53/39/30 chainrings I'd be all over that.

I have no experience with doubles. Just MTB and road triples. The 105 triple I use shifts flawlessly. Maybe I'm lucky for not knowing better. :)

As far as high end goes - I like the low end 8 speed stuff best. Of all the things I've tried. I'm now selling my 105 triple in order to get a Claris, or Sora 3x8 speed groupset. It should give me big range, tight gearing and cheap 5 to 10 euro chains, cassettes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaninar (Post 17099015)

You can't say you prefer "low end 8 speed stuff" while saying you haven't tried the newer high end doubles in the same breath. That's like saying I prefer my Subaru over an Escalade even though I've never driven one.

sounds like you are stepping it up to get serious!

Wide range compact is why triples are going away. The sram on my old bike with 50/34 and 11-32 cassette gives you the highs and lows of most triples and easier use and maintenance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech420 (Post 17099279)

Prefer it over 105 10 speed at least. To be specific.

Though my perfect setup would be 39-50 with a cassette starting at 14 tooth small sprocket and ending with a 32. Don't know who do they make the 11 tooth sprockets for. I use 50-11 only when going fast downhill. Since that is hard to find, and I can't seem to replace 39 on flats, I stick to triples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Ross (Post 17098731)

B) I've yet to meet a bike mechanic who can tune up a triple such that it performs as smoothly, effortlessly, noiselessly, and predictably as a double (standard or compact).

This...

I have a triple (53/39/30 and 12-25) on my current bike, and I always seem to have to tweak and play with it a bit after I have a tune up to get it back to shifting somewhat smoothly again. Then again, it is 10 yr old Tiagra, so it was never going to be all that smooth anyway. I am about to buy a new Emonda with a compact (50/34 and 11-28). The 34-28 is pretty comparable to the 30-25 on the old triple, so I won't miss much, but I keep finding myself wondering about the selections the bike manufacturers make. It seems like everybody who offers a 52/36 on their bikes uses an 11-25 cassette, while the ones that offer 50/34 all seem to use 11-28. It would almost seem like doing the reverse would make more sense and appeal to more riders.

It sounds like degrading the front shifting is part of the manufacturers' plan to kill off the triple -- with non-indexed front shifting, a well-tuned system has no trouble shifting and trimming on a triple. Poor setup and lack of shifting finesse can't completely explain the issues people seem to have with triples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Ross (Post 17098731)

When you had 5, 6, or 7 cogs on the rear, a triple was necessary to get wide range without huge gaps between gears.

With 10 or 11 cogs on the rear, the only reason you'd need a triple is if for some strange reason you need a sub-10% difference in gears.

I rode compact for a long time(5 years) then switched to sub-compact 36/52 which was GREAT, but I was in way better shape. Another one of my bikes has a standard(53/39), it sucks! I have to grind way more often and even though the speeds were the same, I was suffering like a dog to maintain my power numbers. On a few threshhold training sessions I blew it because my legs fatigued too soon, I attribute it to the standard.

Since my injury I can't ride the standard, I have to use a compact with 11-28 to get over some of the climbs so my leg doesnt hurt too much.

Imo standard is crap.