# 10 Speed versus 30



## Twenty Times (Dec 16, 2009)

Hey guys, narrowing down my research pretty well with all the help you guys have given. Thank you for that!

Most of my riding will be on flat lands (minor hills at most). Is there any need to go with a 30 speed? Most are 10, but every now and then I see a 30 pop up.

Also... Is the $300 / list worth it for the upgrades?

CAAD9 4
http://brandscycle.com/product/10-cannondale-caad9-4-58744-1.htm

versus
CAAD9 5
http://brandscycle.com/product/10-cannondale-caad9-5-58746-1.htm

And I read that there has been issues with 105 left shifter - any word on that?


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Could it be that you meant to ask about 20 speed vs 30....in other words 2 rings up front vs 3?

If so, personally I can't imagine ever using 30 gears on flat ground. 20 seems to be more than enough for me. Triples have their place, but flat ground ain't it.

I have a CAAD9 5 and it's been great, including the left shifter. I know there are a lot of reports about problems on the intrawebs.....but compared to the amount of people using 105 left shifters and considering most of the reports are people parroting things they read on the net....I wouldn't be too concerned with it. 105 stuff has worked great for me.

As for the differnce between shimano 105 vs the Sram on the 9-4.....they are both quality. The difference in quality and if it's worth the extra money is a topic that would never come to conclusion so no point in getting into it really.
One thing that is significantly different though is the way you shift each. So I'd suggest focusing on which shifting technique seems best for you because I think you can count on each working perfectly well so that's a wash. I'm pretty sure the sram is lighter if that means anything to you. Same wheels on both so the difference does boil down to the group set. So again, just my personal opinion but I'd focus on HOW they work not HOW WELL they work because that should be a given and the most meaningful difference is the technique.


----------



## Twenty Times (Dec 16, 2009)

_Yes, I did mean 20._

The CAAD9 gets your praise? I was able to get on 1 (although quickly) and it felt nice, but the compact design.. I don't know, I felt more comfortable, but very "toury." (if that is A: a word and B: a description). If I go with 1, it won't be the compact. I hopped on a few other bikes.

Specialized - I just don't like the look of the bike.
Trek Pilot 2.1 - In the running. I like Trek as a company
GF Ion Super.- they did not have.
Giant - Was not loving it.

I have yet to make a real decision.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Twenty Times said:


> Hey guys, narrowing down my research pretty well with all the help you guys have given. Thank you for that!
> 
> Most of my riding will be on flat lands (minor hills at most). Is there any need to go with a 30 speed? Most are 10, but every now and then I see a 30 pop up.
> 
> ...


If you're riding the flats you'll see none of the advantages of the triple chainring and possibly slightly less crisp shifts, so going with a double is the obvious choice.

My opinions follow, but I'm not a fan of SRAM, so 105 would be my choice. As Hank mentioned, Rival may be slightly lighter and shifts are executed differently, so you may want to try both before deciding.

Re: the 105 left shifter problem. Shimano only offers one model and it's double/ triple compatible. The problem arises when running a double and it hasn't been set up properly, allowing for over shifts onto a non-existent third ring, causing the shifter to jam. When my bike was new I had this occur a couple of times, but freed it each time, and once I set it up correctly, its functioned fine. If you did experience a problem, Shimano would warranty the shifter, so I wouldn't base a decision on this issue alone. 

HTH


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Twenty Times said:


> _Yes, I did mean 20._
> 
> The CAAD9 gets your praise? I was able to get on 1 (although quickly) and it felt nice, but the compact design.. I don't know, I felt more comfortable, but very "toury." (if that is A: a word and B: a description). If I go with 1, it won't be the compact. I hopped on a few other bikes.
> 
> ...


If you found the CAAD9 geo to be 'toury' I suggest you focus on bikes with short head tubes, like the Felt 'F' series. Scott Speedsters may also be worth a look.

BTW, the Trek will have slightly less aggressive geo than the CAAD9.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Twenty Times said:


> _Yes, I did mean 20._
> 
> The CAAD9 gets your praise? I was able to get on 1 (although quickly) and it felt nice, but the compact design.. I don't know, I felt more comfortable, but very "toury." (if that is A: a word and B: a description). If I go with 1, it won't be the compact. I hopped on a few other bikes.


It's a great bike for my body and what I want to get out of riding....put it that way. I can recommend it on quality but wouldn't venture a guess on appropriateness for you.

If I understand your use of the word toury correctly I find that weird. It's definitely not a touring bike and I wonder if perhaps the shop had a stem with the high upward angle or it was sized wrong. Most, if not all, people with a CAAD9 that fits and have the bars and seat in someone ordinary positions wouldn't use the word toury. With the CAAD9 I thought 'compact' referred to the gearing and not the frame but I could be wrong.


----------



## Twenty Times (Dec 16, 2009)

Hank Stamper said:


> It's a great bike for my body and what I want to get out of riding....put it that way. I can recommend it on quality but wouldn't venture a guess on appropriateness for you.
> 
> If I understand your use of the word toury correctly I find that weird. It's definitely not a touring bike and I wonder if perhaps the shop had a stem with the high upward angle or it was sized wrong. Most, if not all, people with a CAAD9 that fits and have the bars and seat in someone ordinary positions wouldn't use the word toury. With the CAAD9 I thought 'compact' referred to the gearing and not the frame but I could be wrong.


I felt very upright on the compact. Hmmm? I will have to look into again. Everything was quick as I will not truly be ready to buy for another month. I was just looking for an escape from the house and looked around.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*Terminology note*

The 20-speed doesn't really have 20 speeds, nor the 30, 30. Both have multiple duplicates in the combinations, as well as some combinations that are essentially unuseable. The 20 will have at most 15 or 16 unique gears. So knowledegable riders won't refer to them that way. You're talking about a 10-speed cassette, with a double or a triple crankset, and you're really asking about double versus triple here. 

Just a heads up so you can sound like an old pro as soon as possible ;-)


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Twenty Times said:


> I felt very upright on the compact. Hmmm? I will have to look into again. Everything was quick as I will not truly be ready to buy for another month. I was just looking for an escape from the house and looked around.


It is odd that you're describing your experiences with the CAAD9 that way. It could very well have been due to the setup, because that model uses traditional geo, not compact.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> If you found the CAAD9 geo to be 'toury' I suggest you focus on bikes with short head tubes, like the Felt 'F' series. Scott Speedsters may also be worth a look.
> 
> BTW, the Trek will have slightly less aggressive geo than the CAAD9.



+1. A Felt F75 might fit the bill for you. Still I'm surprised that a CAAD9 felt like that to you. That bike has always had a more aggressive geometry I thought. Also, The Trek you mention is a comfort road frame. The Pilot will be much less aggressive than the CAAD9. Like another poster mentioned, it may have been set up in a way to make it feel that way but the CAAD frame is a serious racer. There aren't too many bikes out there that have a geo that is more aggressive. My advice would be to take another test ride with a slightly different setup.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Twenty Times said:


> _Yes,..._
> The CAAD9 gets your praise? I was able to get on 1 (although quickly) and it felt nice, but the compact design.. I don't know, I felt more comfortable, but very "toury." ..


Suggest to all the aggressive crit racers on CAAD9s, that they might win more races on a less "tour-y" bike


----------

