# Will the Compact Crank Eventually Bury the Road Triple??



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

This is an interesting subject to me, as I may be re-doing the drivetrain on my Lemond road bike soon. I guess I'm just not seeing the point of road triples (i.e. 50-39-30, or whatever's clever lately). 

Seems like a compact crank gets you almost the same gears, with less weight and complexity, and a better Q-factor. I still like triples, but it seems like if you're gonna get one, it should be a mountain triple (for da 'really low' low gears).

Or am I missing something that's really awesome about road triples?  
...


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

none of the above... 1x15s will bury all


----------



## robert_shawn (Oct 5, 2005)

I am with you on this, I would go with a compact (and a few flavors of cassette) before a triple, at least until someone comes up with a _road bike_ worthy CVT. Though I have to admit it is, at least in part, a historical prejudice for me; 3 chain rings = touring/mountain bike. I was dumbfounded the first time I saw a Dura Ace triple crank set.


----------



## Slow Eddie (Jun 28, 2004)

Rohloffs are the wave of the future. And the future is heavy.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

I'd rather have a 53-39-30 with a 12-25 than a 50-34 with a 11-28.


----------



## ARP (Mar 7, 2002)

*They will co exist at my house*

I'm already invested in both, both work fine and have no reason to swap out parts.


----------



## ARP (Mar 7, 2002)

*The weight factor doesn't bother me*



SystemShock said:


> This is an interesting subject to me, as I may be re-doing the drivetrain on my Lemond road bike soon. I guess I'm just not seeing the point of road triples (i.e. 50-39-30, or whatever's clever lately).
> 
> Seems like a compact crank gets you almost the same gears, with less weight and complexity, and a better Q-factor. I still like triples, but it seems like if you're gonna get one, it should be a mountain triple (for da 'really low' low gears).
> 
> ...


The triple on my Lemond is good for early season rides when my legs don't need punished when riding the bigger hills in my area. It also is great for supported touring where you can ride fast if you want or take your time and slog up the hills.


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

As long as there are people loading up touring bikes with 50lbs of gear, road triples will not go away.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Cruzer2424 said:


> As long as there are people loading up touring bikes with 50lbs of gear, road triples will not go away.


Huh... I thought ppl mainly used mtn triples for expedition touring? :confused5: 

...


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Huh... I thought ppl mainly used mtn triples for expedition touring? :confused5:
> 
> ...


Kinda. The touring specific Shimano crankset is in the LX and XT lines. The rings are too big to use for any kind of mountain biking, so I would hesitate to call it a mtn triple. 

http://bike.shimano.com/publish/con...roduct.-code-FC-M771-K.-type-fc_mountain.html


----------



## chas0039 (Jun 26, 2007)

I wouldn't mind a compact if the low gear wasn't 34. Where I ride, I just run out of gears all the time.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

chas0039 said:


> I wouldn't mind a compact if the low gear wasn't 34. Where I ride, I just run out of gears all the time.


I think compacts can take a 33t if need be. If that's not low enough, there are alternatives:

http://blogs.phred.org/blogs/alex_wetmore/archive/2006/01/22/95.aspx

...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Cruzer2424 said:


> Kinda. The touring specific Shimano crankset is in the LX and XT lines. The rings are too big to use for any kind of mountain biking, so I would hesitate to call it a mtn triple.
> 
> http://bike.shimano.com/publish/con...roduct.-code-FC-M771-K.-type-fc_mountain.html


Hmm... 48-36-26 rings, yes, but the same 104/64mm bolt circle as Shimano's mtn triples.

And, the little blurb below it does seem very mtn-bike-oriented:

_Engineered for the way you ride. As Mountain bikes continue to become more diverse, obviously components must evolve. New Shimano Deore XT addresses the various needs of today's riders. New mechanism rear derailleur "SHIMANO SHADOW RD", specially designed for all mountain riding. Together with double-servo mechanism derailleurs now, you have the right choices for several off road riding styles. New XT disc brake, a new level of performance and controllability, features high power braking. "Engineered for the way you ride". With the same concept to as XTR, new DEORE XT is born._

...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

function said:


> I'd rather have a 53-39-30 with a 12-25 than a 50-34 with a 11-28.


That's true, a road triple will let you run a tighter cassette. Best argument I've heard for 'em yet. :thumbsup: 

Heck, you could even go mtn triple and get an even tighter cassette, by that logic... but the Q-factor just ain't so good, and it sure is hard to find mtn triples in 172.5 for a decent price.  

...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

FatTireFred said:


> none of the above... 1x15s will bury all


_(Shhh... don't give 'em any ideas.)_ :eek6:

...


----------



## bruin11 (May 21, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> This is an interesting subject to me, as I may be re-doing the drivetrain on my Lemond road bike soon. I guess I'm just not seeing the point of road triples (i.e. 50-39-30, or whatever's clever lately).
> 
> *Seems like a compact crank gets you almost the same gears, with less weight and complexity, and a better Q-factor.* I still like triples, but it seems like if you're gonna get one, it should be a mountain triple (for da 'really low' low gears).
> 
> ...


I have Campy Centaur on my bike with 53-42-30. The weight is a non issue at least for me. For most of us you could lose a few pounds off of the body. The shifting is fine. I see more people on my rides with compacts dropping chains. I just bought a bike with a compact 50-34 and I hate it. Too much shifting involved to stay in the right gear. When riding the triple, I can stay in the middle ring for the most part and just go up and down on the rear cassette. With a *well adjusted* triple there shouldn't be many problems. IMHO


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> I think compacts can take a 33t if need be. If that's not low enough, there are alternatives:


Hehe, 33 as the small ring... it's really beginning to look like a triple without the big ring...


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Hmm... 48-36-26 rings, yes, but the same 104/64mm bolt circle as Shimano's mtn triples.
> 
> And, the little blurb below it does seem very mtn-bike-oriented:
> 
> ...


That blurb is at the bottom of all XT compoents.

Meh. Call it what you want. I still consider a touring triple as being part of "road components." 

Maybe mtn rings are easier to find at random bike shops in the middle of nowhere, hence the mtn BCD... *shrug*


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Cruzer2424 said:


> That blurb is at the bottom of all XT compoents.
> 
> Meh. Call it what you want. I still consider a touring triple as being part of "road components."


I can't. It's just a mtn triple with slightly bigger rings put on, really. 

That said, I'm starting to grok the road triple love a bit more now. Bruin's 'you can just stay in the middle ring most of the time' argument is a good point... to me, anyway.  

...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

function said:


> Hehe, 33 as the small ring... it's really beginning to look like a triple without the big ring...


More like a triple w/out the middle ring...

...


----------



## Metaluna (Aug 26, 2005)

Cruzer2424 said:


> Kinda. The touring specific Shimano crankset is in the LX and XT lines. The rings are too big to use for any kind of mountain biking, so I would hesitate to call it a mtn triple.
> 
> http://bike.shimano.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/us/index/products/mountain/deore_xt/product.-code-FC-M771-K.-type-fc_mountain.html


In the past, I'm pretty sure the LX crank was identical to the mountain version, just with bigger chainrings (and good luck finding their 48T-specific front derailers in stock anywhere, btw). But apparently Shimano has now split the LX line into SLX, which is their mountain line, and LX which is supposed to be purely for "trekking". I don't know if the new components are any different or just relabeled though.

But there are also other manufacturers making touring/trekking cranks that are more like square taper compact cranks with a granny ring. I'm thinking specifically of the Sugino XD which has a 110/74 BCD. And I think TA Specialites has some 130 BCD cranks that you can get with a 48T top ring. And they sure look a lot nicer than the chunky Shimano cranks, IMHO. 

I suspect you see mountain cranks on some touring bikes more because they're commonly available and easy to get parts for, not necessarily because the gearing is most appropriate for the job (at least not for light touring).


----------



## hayduke1972 (Oct 3, 2007)

I am resistant to triples for the q-factor and...well I too look at triples as mountain and touring items. But, I do run out of gears some times with my 50/34 compact (Ritchey with Octalink...low Q-Factor) and 12-27 cassette (9 speed).

My solution has been this...I have replaced my rear derailleur with a mountain medium cage. For most of my riding I stick with my 12-27 but on long rides which involve big climbs (like the Tour de Blast for you from the NW) or when I'm not in good shape...I switch out to a 11-32 XT cassette. It takes all of a few minutes to switch the cassette and I don't need to make any other adjustments. Sure, I don't have a "tighter" cassette but that doesn't bother me that much.

But I'm getting older (I used to ride 53/39 with 12-25 cassettes 10 years ago) so I'll probably end up with a triple at some point.


----------



## dnlwthrn (Jan 28, 2008)

Here in the midwest, I never use the small chainring on my triple (old Shimano 52-46-30?) Granted, the freewheel is pretty wide. I recently rode a bike with a 53-39 double and a slightly closer cassette (not sure what the combination was). I was very happy with the gearing. I'm putting another bike together right now, and unless I were to be riding some serious hills, I have no need for a triple.

Disclaimer: I'm a recreational rider on a 1989 road bike that weighs almost 26 lbs...


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

You can run 48-38-26 on a road triple, which is a very worthy set-up for loaded touring. I know my Ultegra 6503 front derailleur is set up for a 10-tooth drop between the big and middle ring.


----------



## chas0039 (Jun 26, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> I think compacts can take a 33t if need be. If that's not low enough, there are alternatives:
> 
> http://blogs.phred.org/blogs/alex_wetmore/archive/2006/01/22/95.aspx
> 
> ...


Sorry I wasn't clear. I need more rings, closer to 38 or 40. Unfortunately my crank is Campy so replacements are not readily available due to their odd ring size.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

chas0039 said:


> Sorry I wasn't clear. I need more rings, closer to 38 or 40. Unfortunately my crank is Campy so replacements are not readily available due to their odd ring size.


Hmm, that's a toughie. Don't think I've ever seen a Campy compact inner ring bigger than 36t.  

I think Blackspire makes some 38t and 40t rings for the compact crank 110mm bolt circle, but those are for 8-spd drivetrains. Urk.

...


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

If you ride all the time, and are in excellent shape, then there is no need for a triple. However, if you're someone like myself who is getting back into shape, triples can really help out on the hills. I live in the Houston area, and am worried that by the time I get to the Austin hills of the MS150 next year, I won't be able to finish.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Wow, the ppl have really spoken on this one. Judging by the poll numbers, seems like there's a lot of road triple luv out there.

I'm starting to like them a little better too, now that a couple of the benefits have been pointed out to me. But I'm surprised that no 53-39 zealots showed up, I seem to run into those IRL from time to time. 

...


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

as long as there are mountains there will always be a need for lower gearing


----------



## Chris Keller (May 19, 2008)

I just converted to a Campag Chorus Compact crank earlier this year and I luv it...but I also live in Colorado Springs, CO and do quite a bit of riding in the mountains. I find that I use more of my cassette, actually all of it compared to the standard config where I used the 13, 12 and 11 tooth cogs infrequently (only on fast descents).

I may go back to the standard config (53-39) if I ever leave Colorado. (Hopefully never--I luv it here).

The triple will stay where it belongs...only on my mtn bike (06 Yeti 575--awesome mtn ride!)


----------



## cohenfive (Jul 20, 2005)

this discussion has been really helpful to me. i'm a mtn biker who made the mistake of buying a road bike with only a double, when the cost to have the extra front ring was only $50!! what a putz...

now as winter approaches i'm looking to upgrade to a carbon frame for my road bike and am facing the 'compact vs triple' question. i'm pretty much leaning towards getting a triple. i'm not worried about the shifting issues, it's just limiting in terms of what bikes come with triples. i can tell you from my mtn bike experience that i use each and every gear i have when i'm on bigger rides. in the bay area you are dealing with lots of big and steep hills...


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*my question is...*

Why do we care so much what other riders are using? Us roadies tend to be real conformists always concerned that our equipment is "in". That makes us a marketers dream. FWIW, of 3 bikes: 1 triple, 2 "standard" 53/39's.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

^ It's 'sorta kinda' important what others are using because if something falls out of favor, component manufacturers often stop making it. Or at least, the selection goes waaay down. 

It's also an advice thing... what things are working well for a lot of other ppl. 

This is not to say that any of that should trump individual needs or preferences, quite the opposite... but we don't make those individual choices in a vacuum either.

...


----------



## android (Nov 20, 2007)

You left out:

"Meh. 53-39, Compacts & road triple are all fads, we'll all be back on 52-42 soon"


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

Triples will never go away....as long as there are mountains and amateurs.

BUT!!..a new campy 11 speed with a 12-29 is certainly a triple crank killer...how much lower would u need to go.


----------



## cyclust (Sep 8, 2004)

I think they will co-exist for a while. I really don't know why so many folks complain about the "poor shifting" of triples. For crying out loud, the newer stuff such as 105 and ultegra shifts incredible! Those who whine must not have been cycling back before indexed shifting and all the new advancements. Triples are better for those needing super low gears, though for your average rider, compacts are great too. I just depends on your particular needs. If the component manufacturers start offering larger cassettes than 11-27 [in 10 speed]and give us 11-34s, then compacts may be one step closer to replacing a triple, but for touring and mountain biking triples aren't going away anytime soon, so I think road triples will also stay.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

dagger said:


> Triples will never go away....as long as there are mountains and amateurs.
> 
> BUT!!..a new campy 11 speed with a 12-29 is certainly a triple crank killer...how much lower would u need to go.


Good point. Compact double + 11-speed... 34x29 is a pretty fraking low gear.

Maybe the road triple will go bye-bye eventually, at this rate. Mtn triples then get used for 'extreme' road situations, like expedition-style touring and true mountains, with doubles used for all else on the road.

...


----------



## bullseyehubrider (Dec 4, 2006)

I like road triples. I agree with the person who says one big advantage is that you can use tighter cog spacing on your cassette and still get a decent low gear with your road triple with something like a 30x25. 

On the negative side, I would say that I find Shimano STI triple front shifting to be a bit problematic. My Dura Ace 7700-C triple front shifter, combined with a FD-7703 front derailleur and the Ultegra 6603 52-39-30 triple crank I'm using has been difficult to set up perfectly. I have reviewed the instruction sheet many times and find myself frustrated out on the road when I think I had everything dialed in on the repair stand. Friction front triple shifting doesn't have this added stress. To me if you adjust the clearance in the middle chainring to allow ample cage space when in your 39x low cog, this should be allowable without having a subsequent effect of screwing up how far the lever pulls the cage out when in the big chainring - namely acting like a stop which makes the cage rub when you are in your top gear (in my case a 52x13). This malfunction caused me several times to change the high gear stop on the derailleur which then makes the front derailleur drop the chain (often right in the middle of a technical descent). This over-adjusted high clearance big chainring derailleur cage setting has the added disadvantage of depriving the front derailleur of sufficient "pop" to crisply move the chain from the middle to the small chainrings when you are at the base of a hill. So I have had rides where I end up not in my optimal gear on hills, worrying about throwing my chain or having cage rubbing issues. I've just about got this ironed out after going through the set up drill many, many times. 

Does anyone know if the current 105/Ultegra/Dura Ace triple cage for the 10 speed system is engineered any better than the 9 speed iteration. I'm about to try the Ultegra 6603 10 speed triple front on my 9 speed set up, thing it might mate better with my 10speed crank 6603 and the one tooth smaller (52 tooth) big chainring.


----------



## rmsmith (Feb 15, 2007)

bullseyehubrider said:


> To me if you adjust the clearance in the middle chainring to allow ample cage space when in your 39x low cog, this should be allowable without having a subsequent effect of screwing up how far the lever pulls the cage out when in the big chainring - namely acting like a stop which makes the cage rub when you are in your top gear (in my case a 52x13).


The MTN bike 135-mm rear wheel spacing is better suited to the triple crankset due to chain alignment. Road touring bikes have a 135-mm rear wheel spacing for this reason too.


----------



## cwg_at_opc (Oct 20, 2005)

didn't Sheldon Brown make some sort of Franken-bike with an internal
rear hub, a normal rear derailluer and a triple - something like 45 gears?

here it is, it's actually _*63*_ gears:

http://sheldonbrown.org/otb.html

sheer genius. i still miss the man.


----------



## twelvepercent (Nov 7, 2004)

The Newer Shimano triple seems to have a different fr drr cage; more like an XT??? I am guessing the external B.B. models still have a wide Q factor similar to the 118mm Octalink???
I have wondered if the new Shimano triples are any better than the 9 sp. version???
I have had great performance with Campy Record/Chorus triple...absolutely flawless performance .....still avail. if you look around;
The B.B. is 111mm (115.5 for Centaur; never tried this one).....very versatile; I can go 30-42-53, 26-40-50, 28-40-50, 28-40-52, 28-40-53, etc., etc. on the crank & anywhere from 11-21 to 11-29 incl.any combination of 11,12, or 13 first position cogs (use the Campy cassette booklet to determine exact spacers size when custom building cassettes to avoid skipping)
I am now thinking that the reason Campy triples perform so well is that the 111mm B.B. compensates for the 130mm spacing on the rear......making it more like a 135mm on the back & a118mm Octalink chainline setup


----------



## barrettscv (Aug 31, 2008)

I'm happy with range provided by a 46 & 38 compact double and a 11-25 ten speed cassette. This provides tight gear spacing at the speeds I travel. I do live where its flat, however. 

The first column are the gears on the rear cassette, second column are the speeds on the 46t chain wheel in mph at 80 RPM @ the crank, The third column are the speeds on the 38t chain wheel in mph at 80 RPM @ the crank.

---, 46, -- 38
11, 27.2, 22.5

12, 24.9, 20.6

13, 23, 19

14, 21.4, 17.6

15, 19.9, 16.5

17, 17.6, 14.5

19, 15.7, 13

21, 14.2, 11.8

23, 13, 10.7

25, 12, 9.9


----------



## twelvepercent (Nov 7, 2004)

Looks perfect for your use.....
The reason I need such varied gearing is that I live in the mountains.....I have a 650 ft hill @ 10%+ just to get to the main road....then the rides are minimum 2,000 ft. and usually 3,000 to 5,000ft gain if not more.....then I deal with these idiot drivers on descents, so the 53-11 comes in handy until I can find a decent place to wave them past
seems like our needs are on opposite ends of the spectrum.....when I get my bike corral (if ever) I'll be sure to have at least one double ring for hammering up these nasty hills...maybe even increase the size of my chicken legs!


----------



## Svooterz (Jul 29, 2006)

*Triples and tighter cassettes*

There's a shop owner around here with unconventionnal but "ride-proven" ideas who uses triples exclusively on his own race bikes. When I chat with him, I feel quite the same as when I read Sheldon Brown's stuff - he's that type of guy.

If I'm not mistaken, his setup is 26-38-48 x 11-21. Now THAT'S a tight cassette! It's a very unique setup, to say the least...
I have to agree that 48x11 is plenty fast in most situations (save for going down the steepest hills), and 26x21 is a pretty dam' low of a gear!

A Sheldon-Brown'esque trait of his setup? He uses a 7 speed cassette in the back... which weighs next to nothing and mostly compensates for the use of a triple up front. Plus, his chainline is pretty good, he doesn't have chain rub issues at all. To quote S.B. : "Seven is heaven" - well, someone's gotta agree with him!

Me? Oh well, I'll stick with 10s and a compact crank.
My only gripe is with the 34t inner ring. I'd prefer a 36t or even a 38t one, to reduce the jump. The 50t outer ring is just great though, I very much like it.


----------



## DS1239622 (Mar 21, 2007)

> I wouldn't mind a compact if the low gear wasn't 34. Where I ride, I just run out of gears all the time.


+1

I love my Dura Ace triple. It gives me the 39 tooth middle chainring (which I love), lets me run a tight 12-25 in the back, the big 52 for the downhills/flats, and the small chain ring to bail me out on really tough hills. 

Some claim that front shifting is faster with a compact but Im not racing so that doesn't matter to me. It shifts plenty fast. Im also more than willing to live with the tiny weight penalty. There are 100s of ways to shave that weight back off the bike by replacing other things less important than say.. gearing...

I certainly hope that the compact doesnt completely replace the triple, it will be a shame if it does. I was bummed that the new Dura Ace 7900 deesnt include a triple option. Looks like its time to stock up on 7803 cranks.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

Love my triple But I think there should be a big future for 44/29 doubles for Mtbs. For me its logical to have a tight range cassette on a roadbike and three rings to give the range but the reverse on a Mtb allows sufficient range with a double.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, six months plus have gone by, and someone has resurrected this topic (don't really have a problem with that... some of the better threads are necro-threads actually). 

Upon further reflection, my feelings on the road triple's future are a bit more negative now. Yes, the tighter cassette is a good thing. But going forward, as we start moving to 11-speed (or even more) 'settes, that's going to be less of an issue, and likely a non-issue at some point.

Q-factor is still not great on r-triples. And the ability to run a 30T small ring is just not much of an advantage over the compact's 34T small. Nor is the road trip's 52 or 53T big ring a big deal over the compact's 50T... 50x11 is a huge gear, bigger than 53x12. Lots of road triples even come stock with 50T big rings, nowadays.

I dunno, I'm sure there will always be those who prefer 'em (and more power to them, 'cuz variety is good), but the amount of 'daylight' that's there, in terms of problems significantly solved by road triples, seems to be less and less as we go forward. 

I wouldn't single out r-trips, though... 53x39 road doubles are obviously being impacted, and likely will continue to be impacted, by compacts too, since the average recreational rider is usually over-geared and is often better off with a compact.

There is the 'running out of gears' problem with the compact, but that seems to be mitigated by the increasing number of cogs and increasing range trends we see in cassettes. In fact, compacts and wide-range/more-cogs 'settes seem to be kind of symbiotic.

Thus, the likely road gearing of the future is shaping up to be 50x34 and wide-range 'settes... stuff like 11-25, 11-28, 12-27. And w/the inevitable 11 or more cogs, spacing becomes much less an issue. 

Which is all fine w/me, I'd rather climb like a Ferrari (high-rpm) than a Mack truck (chugga chugga chugga) while getting small jumps, all in a simple, lightweight, low-Q-factor package... i.e. having my cake and eating it too. 

That's the direction/goal the manufacturers seem to be steering by, anyway. 
.


----------



## golfernut78 (Mar 19, 2009)

i just got back in to road cycing after a 10 year hiatus - a lot has changed. my bridgestone rb-3 was out of date 10 years ago and today is an antique. not sure of my commitment i picked up a used bike - klein quantum race. went from 7-speed downtube friction shifters to 9-speed sti.

as i am getting back into this, i am doing local rides (dallas/ft. worth area) and there are some hills, and i am out of shape and heavy. the quantum race has a 53/39 with 13-25 that just wasn't cutting it for me on some of the climbs (short, but steep). i started looking at some gearing options, first going with a sram 12-26. i still needed a little more so i started looking into the compact setup. the more i looked, the more i liked it. working the gear inches you had a nice spread. when looking at the useable gears (eliminating a big big and small small - 2 smallest cogs) i appeared a compact could give you more useable gears in a tighter cluster and at the same time even give you some easier gears. with a tripple, you lose a lot of useable combinations because of the chain angle - to me at least.

in the end, i didn't feel like investing in a new crankset/bb and the compact, for me, seemed like the best setup up would be a 50/36 with 11-25 10 speed, but my bike is currently 9 speed. ended up dropping my 39 for a 38. the 38 26 has helped with climbs.

as for the original question, i think there is a place for all 3 cranks. the traditional 53/39 seems ideal for crits and flatter rides. the compact seems ideal for climbing and the triple seems ideal for touring and really really big climbing. there will always be a market.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Seems like a compact crank gets you almost the same gears,


I guess it depends on what "almost" means. Let's look at three popular small chainrings and three popular maximum cog sizes and see how they compare.

39-23: 45.8"
34-23: 39.9" about 15% lower
30-23: 35.2" and additional 13.5% lower

39-27: 39.0" 
34-27: 34.0" 
30-27: 30.0" 

39-34: 31.0"
34-34: 27.0" 
30-34: 23.8"

Looks like going to a 34 chainring from a 39 gives one a low gear that is about 15% lower. Dropping again to a 30 chainring gives one another 13.5% or so drop. I wouldn't call that 34 and 30 "almost the same".


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Looks like going to a 34 chainring from a 39 gives one a low gear that is about 15% lower. Dropping again to a 30 chainring gives one another 13.5% or so drop.
> 
> I wouldn't call that 34 and 30 "almost the same".


It's pretty close, though. 

Think about the gear equivalents:

30-21 is 'bout equal to a 34-24
30-24 is 'bout equal to a 34-27

Look at Shimano's 12-27 10-spd cassette... the 30T ring drops you one gear in comparison to the 34T in the climbing gears. _One_ gear.

Then there's the whole question of "how low do you really need to go?".  

I know plenty of ppl who've run into situations their 39x25 couldn't handle. 

But once you have 34x25 or 34x27, is there really a lot situations _that_ can't handle, in unloaded riding? :idea: 

There's a few, sure, but it seems to be a pretty small sub-set compared to 39x25.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Before anyone gets _too_ upset with me, bear in mind I think that both 53-39 and road triples will be with us for a good, long while to come.

But I also think that, while they're both going to be around, they're also going to be increasingly 'niche-ified' by compacts as time goes on. 

What's going on with cassettes is helping that process, too. 
.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> ... What's going on with cassettes is helping that process, too.
> .


Especially with the new Campagnolo 11-speed.

The 12-27 11sp cassette is a traditional 12-25 gear-inch spacing, with the bonus of an extra low *27t* cog

Alternately, the 11-25 11sp cassette is a traditional 12-25, with an *11t* high gear added.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

right or wrong - I think triple will survive (more on MTB and hybrid and Touring bikes) but it will be a niche selling item on road bikes from now on. Most road bikes will have either 53/39 or 50/34 front rings. And (for example) a 34-28 on new 2009 Ultegra is a pretty low gear and works with short cage. And 50-11 is fast enough for most riders (assuming 11-28 new Ultegra cassette). Same goes for Campag 13-29 with 50-34 front.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Eventually??? Have you noticed how few new bikes are spec'd with triples anymore?


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

I was being polite. 8^) I have yet to see a triple as a standard on any road bike. It is very much a special order product on a road bike but it will still have its uses in special cases - extreme gradient climbs and touring. In ~95% of the cases on the road a double front ring with do the job - compact or standard.


----------



## cyclust (Sep 8, 2004)

The thing that I like about triples is that you still have the ideal gearing of a 39/53, can still run a tight cassette, like a 12-25, but then you have this handy little granny ring, which I don't use much, but buddy, when I need it, I'm sure am glad it's there! With a compact, it seems like you compromise everything just to keep from having that third ring. It's got too big of a jump between the big and little ring, front shifting is compromised, and you often run out of gear on the top end. In my eyes, the compromises of a triple are much less than the compromises of a compact. Sure, if I were 20 years younger and 40 lbs lighter I wouldn't have to compromise at all, but since we know that at least one of those , probably both, is never gonna happen, then I'll stick with my triple.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

The 11-28 (11,12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28) cassette is becoming increasingly popular on road bikes fitted with a compact.

It's better to have a 12-32 (12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32) cassette with a standard crankset than an 11-28 with a compact.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> The 11-28 (11,12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28) cassette is becoming increasingly popular on road bikes fitted with a compact.
> 
> It's better to have a 12-32 (12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32) cassette with a standard crankset than an 11-28 with a compact.


Um... sure. That's why so many roadies are storming LBSes across the nation, demanding 12-32 cassettes and long-cage rear derailleurs.

Oh, wait. They're not. :nonod: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> Eventually??? Have you noticed how few new bikes are spec'd with triples anymore?


Just for the heck of it, I went to Trek's and Specialized's websites, and tallied up the various cranks used on their 2009 road bike line-ups.

I included everything road (including triathlon-bikes, commuter, touring, road frames w/included cranks, women-specific bikes, etc.) but NOT flat-bar 'road' bikes, which I consider to be hybrids/city bikes, no matter _what_ anybody's marketing department says.  


The results:

*TREK*
10 bikes available with standard double cranks/'53-39'
17 bikes available with compact cranks/'50-34'
15 bikes available with road triples

*SPECIALIZED**
16 bikes w/standard doubles/53-39
27 bikes w/compact cranks
13 bikes w/road triples

*TOTAL* (aka 'TREKALIZED')
26 bikes w/standard doubles/53-39
44 bikes w/compact cranks
28 bikes w/road triples


_* Specialized is annoying to count, they list all their S-Works bikes in multiple places, so you have to notice that and count around it to get the correct number.
_

Draw what conclusions you will from the above.

I will add that, if triathlon bikes hadn't been counted, standard doubles/53-39 would've looked downright scarce.  
.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

Another good poll, Mr. Shock


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Sablotny said:


> Another good poll, *Mr. Shock*


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Compact is already becoming the new standard--I actually think it is eating away at the 53/39 market more than the triple market. Strong racers still will prefer the bigger rings, but most people buying road bikes are sport/recreation/club riders--and a compact will work great for them. 

Nobody likes buying a gigantic cassette, but they do like having the simplicity of 2 rings full of gears they'll actually use..


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

One of the problems with a compact is that the tiny 34 ring will wear out the cassette quickly. I would only recommend a compact to girls as they don't usually pedal very hard.

My bike uses a 52/42 and 13-34 (13,15,17,19,21,23,26,30,34) cassette with a short cage MTB rear derailleur. It's man sized!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Err....*



rickhotrod said:


> One of the problems with a compact is that the tiny 34 ring will wear out the cassette quickly. I would only recommend a compact to girls as they don't usually pedal very hard.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

MarvinK said:


> Compact is already becoming the new standard--I actually think it is eating away at the 53/39 market more than the triple market. Strong racers still will prefer the bigger rings, but most people buying road bikes are sport/recreation/club riders--and a compact will work great for them.
> 
> Nobody likes buying a gigantic cassette, but they do like having the simplicity of 2 rings full of gears they'll actually use..


I think you're right. After looking at the Trek and Specialized numbers above, compacts are probably doing more damage to 53-39 marketshare than to road triple marketshare (though no doubt there's an effect there as well).

I mean, road triples were never huge, but 53-39 once owned the market. Now compacts have huge marketshare. They obviously didn't get most of it from the 'little guy', i.e. road triples, simply because there wasn't that much to give.

Perhaps I should've named this poll "Will the Compact Crank Eventually Bury the Standard Double?" instead. :idea:.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

hasn't it already? for performance road that is... i haven't seen a triple campy in centaur and above in a while - they do offer compact... pretty sure that is the case for sram as well..


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

SRAM doesn't do a triple on the road groups.

Actually, I think it won't be long before we see a "performance compact" like a 52x36 or something.. which will only increase the migration from 53/39 and/or triples.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*Interesting discussion*

It probably won't be up to the end-user, the mfr's will probably get rid of the road triple before the demand dries up. SRAM doesn't make a road triple and makes no apologies, and unfortunately that's why I'm riding Shimano Ultegra SL. I'd ride Campy, but my budget won't allow it... 

I prefer the road triple myself because I don't like the shifting of a compact and I like the closer range and larger number of gear combinations a triple provides. I use a road triple differently than most people though. Many times I use the small ring as an alternate low set of gears in place of larger cog/middle ring combinations. That gives more options and a slightly improved chain-line. It also avoids the dropped chains that even perfectly tuned, new drive-trains will occaisionally allow. I've also never been a fan of standing to climb for extended periods. Sit and spin. It's just not as efficient anyway.

When the mfr's start producing 10sp mtn (not that far off...) the compact will look better to more of us triple riders. Especially when we're forced to consider it by the mfr's.

Bob


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

I would consider a Shimano or SRAM compact if they offered a 38 inner ring size in addition to the 34. Then you could run a 50/38 and change to the 50/34 only when needed. Sure you can get aftermarket rings, but original is best!


----------



## dbassi (Sep 30, 2006)

*No more triples in Italy*

Yes. Compacts give nearly as low a gear, so there's really no point to road triples anymore. 

Personally I don't agree, but that is what has happened here in Italy.


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

I just changed from a standard triple to a compact 50/34 with a 12/27 cassette.

I'm a bit torn. I love the compact for climbing (haven't run out of granny gears yet) but find myself shifting the front rings a lot on rolling hills.

Since I can't use the smallest cog in the small ring ("cross chaining") I have to shift to the large ring on slight down hills.

Then I hit a small up hill and can't quite grind it out in the large ring because I can't use the two largest cogs (not enough chain) so back to the small ring.

I personally thought that the triple had too small a change between gears and had hoped the compact would mean less shifting, but not so far.

I'd go to the 36 small ring in the front, but I think that would kill me on canyon rides here in Utah. Changing small rings back and forth does not seem really easy (do I have to remove the cranks?).


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

bruin11 said:


> I have Campy Centaur on my bike with 53-42-30.


The 42 tooth ring is an essential part of the argument. With a loaded tourer or town bike, you can ride almost anywhere flat with a 42t. 

As other posters have noted, 34 is useless on flats, 50t is also useless into a bit of wind, low rises, accellerating from stop signs, etc.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibexslc said:


> *I just changed from a standard triple to a compact 50/34 with a 12/27 cassette.
> *
> I'm a bit torn. I love the compact for climbing (haven't run out of granny gears yet) but find myself shifting the front rings a lot on rolling hills.
> 
> ...


If I can talk future/'big picture' a bit... situations like this are why I think compacts and 11-spd are complementary to one another. From your other posts, you seem to be running an Ultegra/SRAM setup, which is 10spd at most, obviously.

12-27 11-spd would seem to alleviate the "my easiest usable big-ring gear is too big" (50x21) problem. With the two biggest cogs eliminated, as you said, an 11-spd 12-27 cassette gives you 50x23 as your easiest big-ring gear. 

Conversely, it isn't hard to get an 11t cog on an 11-spd, for obvious reasons, which would then take the 34x12 you want to use out of the small-small slot, and make it usable. Unfortunately, the widest-range 11t 11-spd they currently make is only 11-25 though.

Sounds like what you _really_ need is something like an 11-27 or 11-28 11-spd, but they don't make those yet AFAIK (hopefully soon). So, 11spd would solve only one of your two problems currently. The 11spd component makers (for now, just Campy) should wake up there... 11-28 is starting to become the 'cool new thing' on 10spd already, after all. 

'til then, I'd say that a road triple actually might be nice for your particular setup, as you could just stay in your middle ring for a lot of these 'slight uphill, slight downhill' situations, but you say you already had a road triple (ultegra) and ditched it, so there was obviously some things you didn't like there.

Trade-offs, trade-offs... of course, you're unlikely to trash your drivetrain and go 11spd, unless you have bucks and it matters that much to you. Or you could try 11-28 10spd.
.


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

Thanks for the comments.

I actually still have my triple set up, but it remains on my aluminum/carbon frame. Now that I've tasted the full carbon Fuji frame, it will be hard pull that bike out.

I also have an 11-28 cassette that I had considered using (and haven't sold yet), but had cold feet after hearing problems using it with ultegra short cage RD.

I could try two things: 

1) put my long cage ultegra RD (from my triple bike) on with the 11-28 and see if that covers the mid range better. I worry that the increased spacing between gears will be yet another trade off.

2) switch between the 34 and 36 tooth front small ring (if I can change it without pulling cranks each time -- my FSA cranks are not simple to pull/reinstall).


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibexslc said:


> I could try two things:
> 
> 1) put my long cage ultegra RD (from my triple bike) on with the 11-28 and see if that covers the mid range better. I worry that the increased spacing between gears will be yet another trade off.
> 
> 2) switch between the 34 and 36 tooth front small ring (if I can change it without pulling cranks each time -- my FSA cranks are not simple to pull/reinstall).


Hmm... what if you ran both the SRAM 11-28 'sette _and_ the 36t chainring? :idea: 
- The low on that would be very close to your current 34x27.
- You'd definitely get your small-ring 'slight downhill' gear (36x12 instead of the current 34x13).
- Your big-ring 'slight uphill' gear would improve a bit, from 50x21 to 50x22. Now that you have an 11t, you could even go 48t on the big ring, for further improvement there.
- The 31t capacity needed (assuming 50-36) would mean that you could probably keep your current derailleur (shimano short-cages seem to tolerate 31t capacity, though they conservatively say they're 29t cap. I understand they also take a 28t max cog w/out complaints, though they're rated at 27t max cog).

The main drawback is the lack of a 16t... another reason to like 11spd I guess.

Hopefully, the rumor'd SRAM 'sette/ultegra short-cage derailleur incompatibility thing is either overstated, or non-existent.
.


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

Great thought. That is _definitely_ the first thing I should try.
Thanks a lot! 

(the Spock hand thing)


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibexslc said:


> Great thought. That is _definitely_ the first thing I should try.
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> (the Spock hand thing)


LOL, I just did that 'cuz he called me "Mr. Shock". 
.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Spunout said:


> As other posters have noted, 34 is useless on flats


34-11 at 90rpm is 22mph. I doubt many cyclists out there (maybe on this website, but not many in the real world) go much faster than that on flats. If 34-11 is too much of a crosschain for your setup, then running it on the 12 is 20.5mph and up to the 13 is 19mph, and the 14 is 17.5 mph or so.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

pacificaslim said:


> 34-11 at 90rpm is 22mph. I doubt many cyclists out there (maybe on this website, but not many in the real world) go much faster than that on flats. If 34-11 is too much of a crosschain for your setup, then running it on the 12 is 20.5mph and up to the 13 is 19mph, and the 14 is 17.5 mph or so.


idk, why would you not be on the big dog on the flats when running compact?

altho i have shunned them in the past, even i recognised their usefulness when climbing big mountains... traditional on a 12-25 when spiking near 20% AFTER and hour or so climb @ 8% is no fun...

thinking about my big dog scenario, a 50/36 probably wouldn't be much of a drawback, but 36-25 sure would help on the big climbs.... may have to try it out...


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I would be on the big ring just out of habit (i run 48-36-26 mountain cranks on my cross bike) but just found it odd that someone declared the 34 "useless" on flats.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

ibexslc said:


> I also have an 11-28 cassette that I had considered using (and haven't sold yet), but had cold feet after hearing problems using it with ultegra short cage RD.
> 
> I could try two things:
> 
> ...


Try running a 46/34 11-28 setup.

The 46/11 top gear is the same as 50/12. You will be able to remain in the big ring down to the 46/23 gear, so a massive improvement to 50/21. In fact, the 50/21 gear is almost 20% bigger than the 46/23 gear.

Swapping between the 46 and 34 ring will also be much easier. Running a 34/28 bottom gear also means no need to keep swapping between 34 and 36 rings!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> I would be on the big ring just out of habit (i run 48-36-26 mountain cranks on my cross bike) but just found it odd that someone declared the 34 "useless" on flats.


For myself, I'm just sorta wondering why it would matter much even if it was true. 

On a double, if I'm on the flats, I'm the big ring... unless there's a near-storm-force headwind.
(Only a moderate exaggeration... we have something pretty close to that in the Davis-Fairfield area occasionally– pedal at the redline and still only go 12mph, lol).

I dunno, I helped Ibex with his drivetrain preferences, which included a small-ring 'slight downhill' gear, and a big-ring 'slight uphill' gear, but I have to wonder if that's the very best way to go about it... wouldn't a big-ring slight-downhill gear and a small-ring slight-uphill gear be inherently more natural? Is it right to be so hesitant to front-shift, if it saves you from a lot of rear shifting? 

To use Ibex's desired gears as an example... say you're on some rolling hills... you get a slight downhill... instead of going 34x12, why wouldn't you go 50x17 instead? Then you bottom out and hit a slight uphill... instead of running down the cassette and hoping for a 50x25, why not just shift front and, bam!, 34x17? :confused5:

And you're in the center of the cassette, more or less, so it's harder to run out of gears in that situation. 

The one complaint that seems to make the most sense is, are there enough gears so that you can stay in the big ring in significant headwinds? (like Spunout said). But, wide-range cassettes are becoming increasing popular, and we're going 11spd soon enough, so, I think... yes? For most ppl? :idea: 

I think the whole 'small-ring on the flats' thing is a holdover from the days when the average recreational rider was even more over-geared than he is today. 53-39 'rings and 12-21 in the back, or something else equally inappropriate (i.e. 'wannabe racer' gearing). Joe Average rides that setup on the level, with occasional headwinds, and finds that 39x14 actually makes more sense as a base gear than playing around with the crossover (and cross-chaining) region of the big-ring gears. No wonder. 

Things seem to have improved a little, with those kinds of setups not being so in vogue for average rec riders now. 

I dunno... there will always be some combination of rider and terrain and wind that will put the desired range for that person in the crossover gears area of a double, even with wide-range 'settes and 11 cogs. But even then, if that's happening a lot, there's stuff you can do, like swapping out chainrings. 50-34 isn't sacred, any more than 53-39 was/is, or 52-42 back in the day. 

Seems like there's no 'absolute right', just tradition. Tradition seems bad, when it makes ppl ride setups that don't work for them. 
.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Its interesting how many bikes Trek specs with triples. 

Giant, if we're keeping track, specs only 4 of its 26 "road" bikes with triples, although I included three CX bikes (a triple on a CX bike makes little sense).


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Are you trying to say that Dentists like triples?


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> wouldn't a big-ring slight-downhill gear and a small-ring slight-uphill gear be inherently more natural? Is it right to be so hesitant to front-shift, if it saves you from a lot of rear shifting?
> .


I find shifting the front on a 50/34 much more cumbersome. Just not the crisp, quick shifts that you get in the back. I should _make_ myself do just what you suggest.



> Try running a 46/34 11-28 setup..


That may in fact be better. I'll try the 50/36 with the 11-28 cassette since I already have a 36T lying around, and keep my eyes open for a 46T (or 48T?). Maybe closing the front gap a bit will help my front shifting habits.

Back to the opening poll, I voted that triples would hang around. I will likely find a good option, but the triple was pretty good as it was.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibexslc said:


> I find shifting the front on a 50/34 much more cumbersome. Just not the crisp, quick shifts that you get in the back. I should _make_ myself do just what you suggest.


Well, if you have to _make_ yourself do something, maybe it isn't very fun to you, and you shouldn't be forcing yourself. Life is to be enjoyed, eh? 

But FWIW, the 50/36, or proposed 46/34, should front-shift better than the 50/34. Better enough? Your call.



> Back to the opening poll, I voted that triples would hang around. I will likely find a good option, but the triple was pretty good as it was.


While commercially I don't think the long-range prospects of road triples are bright, I can see why recreational riders are well-served by them. Certainly better for Joe Average than 53-39. 

I like the whole 'you can just stay in the middle ring most of the time' thing that road triples have going on (though I don't find the more frequent front-shifting w/compacts to be objectionable). I just don't dig the triple's Q-factor (I really feel it), and doubles are simpler, lighter, more elegant... and, for lack of a better word, 'classy'... to me.

But I like what Trek is doing, with a lot of their bikes being available in compact OR road triple. Choice is good.
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

ibexslc said:


> I'll try the 50/36 with the 11-28 cassette since I already have a 36T lying around, and keep my eyes open for a 46T (or 48T?). Maybe closing the front gap a bit will help my front shifting habits.
> 
> Back to the opening poll, I voted that triples would hang around. I will likely find a good option, but the triple was pretty good as it was.


If you find that 36/28 is a low enough bottom gear then i would suggest a 48/36 11-28 setup.

48/36 is easier to do the double shuffle with than 50/36.

With a 48/36 11-28 setup you need to rear-shift two sprockets before front-shifting. With this setup shifting two sprockets on the cassette applies wherever you are on the cassette as shown below...

48/28 change to 36/23
48/25 change to 36/21
48/23 change to 36/19
48/21 change to 36/17
48/19 change to 36/15
48/17 change to 36/13
48/15 change to 36/12
48/13 change to 36/11

...and vice versa when you change small to big ring:

36/11 change to 48/13 (12.8% bigger)
36/12 change to 48/15 (6.7% bigger)
36/13 change to 48/17 (2.0% bigger)
36/15 change to 48/19 (5.3% bigger)
36/17 change to 48/21 (7.9% bigger)
36/19 change to 48/23 (10.1% bigger)
36/21 change to 48/25 (12% bigger)
36/23 change to 48/28 (9.5% bigger)

So by changing two sprockets when you change to the big ring you increase the gear you are in by between 2.0% and 12.8% as shown above. I consider up to 13.6% acceptable.

If you are having trouble with the double shuffle (front and rear shifting together) remember to always rear-shift before doing the front shift. This makes for the quickest change.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> Try running a 46/34 11-28 setup.
> 
> The 46/11 top gear is the same as 50/12. You will be able to remain in the big ring down to the 46/23 gear, so a massive improvement to 50/21. In fact, the 50/21 gear is almost 20% bigger than the 46/23 gear.





rickhotrod said:


> 36/21 change to 48/25 (12% bigger)
> 36/23 change to 48/28 (9.5% bigger)


The 11-28 SRAM cassette he has doesn't have a 23. Or a 21.

It's 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-22-25-28. 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

dbassi said:


> Yes. Compacts give nearly as low a gear, so there's really no point to road triples anymore.
> 
> Personally I don't agree, but that is what has happened here in Italy.


Wow. The heartland of cycling too. 

What happened? I understand compacts have become very popular at the Gran Fondo rides. Did it just sort of virally spread from there, or was the source something else?
.


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

Alas, I think I need the 34/28 until I'm a bit stronger before putting the 36 on.

Yesterday I threw on the 11/28 cassette and put the medium cage ultegra RD on in hopes of using a fuller range of cogs when in either chain ring (including lo-lo and hi-hi even though I will try to avoid these combos).

Aside from two dropped chains with 'double shuffles' (hadn't read the above post yet), it worked out well. Less need to front shift with better mid range gears on either front ring.

I noticed no better front shifting with the long cage, which I suppose is not expected, but I had hoped that there might be with improved chain tension.

Despite trying to avoid the 34/28 combo (2.4 ratio) which is the same as my old triple granny, I ended up there on the last 50 yards of the steepest canyon pitch. I think I could have done fine with 34/27 (2.5 ratio) but I couldn't quite do it in the 34/25 (2.7) and fear the 36/28 (2.6) would have popped me. Its nice to have that gear in the back pocket for now.

I need to practice double shifting (or avoiding it). I didn't know dropping chains was going to be a bigger problem with the double compact set up.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Because of the chainline (if you have short chainstays) try to shift rings while in the middle of the cassette. I see newbies in races drop chains all of the time trying to shift down to their small ring while in their largest cog. You must anticipate.


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

Spunout said:


> I see newbies in races drop chains all of the time trying to shift down to their small ring while in their largest cog. You must anticipate.


Guilty as charged.

I think I was in the small cogs trying to shift to the large ring when I tossed the chain the second time. 

New tricks to learn.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

The 50/34 is an excellent choice for a 11-28 (11,12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28) cassette, as you need to shift the same number of sprockets (the number of sprockets being three in this case) when you do the "double shuffle".

However, as SystemShock pointed out, you have a different version 11-28 (11,12,13,14,15,17,19,22,25,28) cassette. On this version, there are two places where you need to shift the cassette not three sprockets but four sprockets. For this reason, this version is not as easy to do the "double shuffle" with as the one above.

Try practising shifting to the big ring as follows: Start off in 34/28 gear, change up 34/25, 34/22, 34/19. At this point shift the chain from the 19 sprocket to the 28 sprocket (the STI should be able to do this in one stroke of the lever). Now finish the "double shuffle" by shifting to the big ring.

Then practise shifting to the small ring as follows: Cycle along in 50/28 gear. At this point shift from the 28 sprocket to the 19 sprocket. Now finish the "double shuffle" by shifting to the small ring.


----------



## ibexslc (Aug 27, 2007)

The second example makes sense (going to the small ring from the 50/28) as you are out of low gears. And shifting to the middle of the cassette prevents de-chaining yourself.

Can you explain a bit more about the first maneuver? Why go from 34/28 to the big ring (like when topping a hill maybe)? Does kicking it back to 34/28 before going to the big ring help a lot? I would not have thought to try that.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> Then practise shifting to the small ring as follows: Cycle along in 50/28 gear.


The big ring-big cog combination/cross-chaining is usually pretty hard on the drivetrain, and is generally not recommended. 
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> The big ring-big cog combination/cross-chaining is usually pretty hard on the drivetrain, and is generally not recommended.
> .


I agree, and in practice never use the two biggest sprockets with the big ring.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

ibexslc said:


> Can you explain a bit more about the first maneuver? Why go from 34/28 to the big ring (like when topping a hill maybe)? Does kicking it back to 34/28 before going to the big ring help a lot? I would not have thought to try that.


I will give an alternative example as the one above uses big ring/big sprocket which isn't recommended. Replace it with the following example...

(a) Cycle along in 34/15 at a fast pedalling speed (as though you need to change up to a higher gear).

(b) Then change to 34/22 (you won't be able to pedal fast enough to drive the bike forward at this point).

(c) Now complete the "double shuffle" by changing to the big ring. You should now be in 50/22.

You will still be pedalling fast because 34/15 and 50/22 are similar gears.

Once practiced, you should be able to do this "double shuffle" in about 2 seconds (although i haven't timed it).


----------



## Visitor302 (Aug 6, 2005)

I live in a hill aria... (Ok it's down right mountainous) Sometimes that granny gear in a must!


----------



## flyjoe (Mar 17, 2008)

bullseyehubrider said:


> I like road triples. I agree with the person who says one big advantage is that you can use tighter cog spacing on your cassette and still get a decent low gear with your road triple with something like a 30x25.
> 
> On the negative side, I would say that I find Shimano STI triple front shifting to be a bit problematic. My Dura Ace 7700-C triple front shifter, combined with a FD-7703 front derailleur and the Ultegra 6603 52-39-30 triple crank I'm using has been difficult to set up perfectly. I have reviewed the instruction sheet many times and find myself frustrated out on the road when I think I had everything dialed in on the repair stand. Friction front triple shifting doesn't have this added stress. To me if you adjust the clearance in the middle chainring to allow ample cage space when in your 39x low cog, this should be allowable without having a subsequent effect of screwing up how far the lever pulls the cage out when in the big chainring - namely acting like a stop which makes the cage rub when you are in your top gear (in my case a 52x13). This malfunction caused me several times to change the high gear stop on the derailleur which then makes the front derailleur drop the chain (often right in the middle of a technical descent). This over-adjusted high clearance big chainring derailleur cage setting has the added disadvantage of depriving the front derailleur of sufficient "pop" to crisply move the chain from the middle to the small chainrings when you are at the base of a hill. So I have had rides where I end up not in my optimal gear on hills, worrying about throwing my chain or having cage rubbing issues. I've just about got this ironed out after going through the set up drill many, many times.
> 
> Does anyone know if the current 105/Ultegra/Dura Ace triple cage for the 10 speed system is engineered any better than the 9 speed iteration. I'm about to try the Ultegra 6603 10 speed triple front on my 9 speed set up, thing it might mate better with my 10speed crank 6603 and the one tooth smaller (52 tooth) big chainring.


 tried this a while back. The inside of the tripple derailure hits the middle ring when trying to go to the large ring. This is due to the spacing differences between 9 and 10 speed.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> Its interesting how many bikes Trek specs with triples.
> 
> Giant, if we're keeping track, specs only 4 of its 26 "road" bikes with triples, although I included three CX bikes (a triple on a CX bike makes little sense).


Wow, that's pretty stunning. And Giant's a _huge_ manufacturer too. 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

One other thing that could have some impact on the fate of road triples is the newly-emerging BB30 bottom bracket standard.

One of it's major benefits is a lower Q-factor, by virtue of the outboard bearings being moved back into the frame.

It's not like triples _have_ to have a bad Q-factor... I remember some old Ritchey triples that were actually pretty good in that area. But I don't think they had outboard bearings, IIRC.

It'd be one less drawback for road triples anyway. But I doubt that that, by itself, can reverse the momentum that seems to be trending behind compact right now.
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

Compact triples will be the future with 50/42/36 rings.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> Compact triples will be the future with 50/42/36 rings.


I kinda doubt it.
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I kinda doubt it.
> .


A 50/42/36 would work better than a 50/36 for most riders.

Assume you're running a 10 speed 12-23 (12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23) cassette. On the flat with a 50/36, i would normally be using the 50/19 gear. If i want to drop down a gear it means 4 clicks on the right shifter then 1 click on the left shifter so that i'm in the right gear.

With the 50/42/36 setup, my normal gear would be 42/16 which is right in the middle of the cassette. I have the option of going faster or slower without having to change rings, and when the front shift does need to be made the right shifter only needs 1 click.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> A 50/42/36 would work better than a 50/36 for most riders.


No bike maker specs that on their bikes. Srsly, nobody. 

Why? Probably 'cuz most ppl aren't willing to give up a significantly lower low gear (30T 'ring) for somewhat more convenient shifting when changing 'rings. It's not like compacts where ppl might give up the 34 for a 36. 

(and 36x23 as the low gear on a _triple_ is kinda sad.  )

One the key advantages of road triples is, after all, that you can spend most of your time in middle ring, and thus not have to shift 'rings much to begin with. 

Nor is 'a bunch of clicks with the right shifter' always an issue... with Campy shifters for instance, you can dump a bunch of gears all at once.

Given that, what you're suggesting is probably more a 'solution in search of a problem' than 'the future'.
.


----------



## shibaman (May 2, 2008)

I stopped at my LBS in the middle of a ride. My girlfriend asked about what is selling these days. This man told us that all the Specialized, and Treks had either a compact or a triple. The only bikes he had was the high end Colnago with a standard crank. He said that most people wanted a compact or triple. This is a very busy store with a lot of informed clients with money to spend.

I have been using a compact on my System six for a while. For the most part I am happy with it. I have found that I don't really run out of gears very often. Most of the time the down hills I have been of have been so damn steep i have had to use the brakes to make the corners. I have been able to climb some very steep grades with the 34x27 gears. There were a couple of times i could have used a granny. Some of the older guys use a compact with a 12- 37 with a XT long cage derailer. They can climb well, but not as fast as me. Some of these men are in their mid 60s- 70s, and they are very strong in the mountains. Very impressive! :thumbsup: 

That said, I am trying to decide what to do with an extra Dale System Six frame that I have. Build it with a Triple to really climb the hills, and still have the down hill speed of a double. Or another compact set up? I have been spending a lot of time climbing in the local hills, so I need gears to climb with.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*The future...*

Hmm... just thought of another reason why the compact is the darling of the bike industry: It keeps the upgrade cycle going longer. Maybe all the way to 14 cogs (Shimano allegedly had a 14-cog prototype they were playing with a couple years back).

Now with road triples, it's different... it's hard to imagine many ppl saying that 30x25 just isn't low enough. And an 11-25 cassette is very well-covered with 11 or 12 cogs. Upgrade cycle ends once you've hit that, in terms of # of cogs (which is a powerful driver of upgrades, as we've seen).

With compacts, the 'upgrade fun' isn't over as quickly. An 11-28 'sette isn't necessarily overkill with a compact... in fact, it's already being spec'd on some very popular bikes. Campy has 29t road cogs, they might even do an 11-29 someday. With something like that, 14 cogs is very possible. 

So, basically:

r-triples = 1 or 2 more upgrade cycles, in terms of # of cogs (depending if you're Campy or Shimano or SRAM)
compacts = 3 or 4 more upgrade cycles

So compacts = more $$$ in the long-run for the component makers, all else being equal.

Then, once we've hit 14 cogs, it's time for CVT. 

The movie never ends, it goes on and on and on...
.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Now with road triples, it's different... it's hard to imagine many ppl saying that 30x25 just isn't low enough. And an 11-25 cassette is very well-covered with 11 or 12 cogs. Upgrade cycle ends once you've hit that, in terms of # of cogs (which is a powerful driver of upgrades, as we've seen).
> 
> With compacts, the 'upgrade fun' isn't over as quickly. An 11-28 'sette isn't necessarily overkill with a compact... in fact, it's already being spec'd on some very popular bikes. Campy has 29t road cogs, they might even do an 11-29 someday. With something like that, 14 cogs is very possible.
> 
> ...


That doesn't make a lot of sense. A 34/28 is almost the exact same gear as a 30/25. Here, go nuts. Have you even tried a compact? With an 11-28 and a 34/50 there isn't much to lose, unless a)you want a corncob cassette b)you're touring or c)you're racing and need the 53, but then you won't need a 34.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

In case no one believes me:
(sorry about the wacky cassette, I did it quickly)


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> That doesn't make a lot of sense. A 34/28 is almost the exact same gear as a 30/25. Here, go nuts. Have you even tried a compact? With an 11-28 and a 34/50 there isn't much to lose, unless a)you want a corncob cassette b)you're touring or c)you're racing and need the 53, but then you won't need a 34.


I don't think you really understood what I was talking about.

The point kinda *WAS* that 34/28 and 30/25 are about the same gear. But getting there via the compact route = more potential upgrade cycles for the component makers.

Think about it some more, get back to me.
.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

So you're saying people are going to upgrade out of lack of sense rather than necessity????


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> So you're saying people are going to upgrade out of lack of sense rather than necessity????


Sure hasn't stopped them in the past, lol. :lol:

But seriously, most ppl are pretty susceptible to marketing, especially the easy come-ons, such as, "If *X* number of cogs is good, then *X+1* must be BETTER."

Or haven't you noticed how we've progressed from 5 cogs to 10 or 11 over the past 30 years? Three decade of upgrades driven, in significant part, by increasing the # of gears. Heck, it's probably longer than that, but my memory doesn't go back that far.

Wow. That's a pretty reliable cash machine. If you're a component maker, why not keep it rolling as long as possible? :idea: 

Finally, plenty of ppl would disagree with you on the whole "it isn't necessary" thing. 11-28 with 10 cogs does leave some pretty significant gaps in the climbing gears. There's also no 16t cog, and no 18 (yep, mere mortals do use it). Not too hard to sell ppl some more cogs on something like that, whether or not you personally don't see the point. 

Though I am sympathetic to your POV... I myself find it all a bit crazy-excessive sometimes, too.
.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*never ending thread...*

This thread seems endless. FWIW, the current 11-28 10 speed has an awful 19-22 shift that I'd never by into. Anyone can quickly figure out that 34/28 approximately equals 30/25, but 30/27 or 28/25 is a more common lowest gear. You'de need a 31T to beat that with a compact.

In the next year or two, Campy might come out with an 11-29, 11 speed, but not likely since they are aiming 11 speed at racers and really try to avoid cassettes without a 16T. 

If you know what you're doing you can make an 11 speed triple right now. You could easily make a 53/39/28 with a 12-27.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

C-40 said:


> FWIW, the current 11-28 10 speed has an awful 19-22 shift that I'd never by into.


Yup, if it's the SRAM 11-28. But the Dura Ace 11-28 is a 19-21 shift.



> Anyone can quickly figure out that 34/28 approximately equals 30/25, but 30/27 or 28/25 is a more common lowest gear. You'de need a 31T to beat that with a compact.


It really depends on which bike maker you're looking at.

If it's Trek, then yeah, a lot of road triples there are paired with 'settes ending in 27t, with some 26t.
Go over to Specialized, and there's a lot of both 25t and 27t paired w/road-trips.
Over at Cannondale, 26t seems to dominate (SRAM).
Scott USA? Mostly 25t.

Don't really see a ton of 28t _chainrings_ on the road triples spec'd, tho'. 30 seems much more common.



> In the next year or two, Campy might come out with an 11-29, 11 speed, but not likely since they are aiming 11 speed at racers and really try to avoid cassettes without a 16T.


You may end up surprised there. 11-spd obviously won't stay 'racer-only/mainly' for long... heck, Campy's already previewed a new Athena 11-spd group that's allegedly hitting this fall. 

Nor are other component makers keeping very wide-range cassettes out of their top/'racer' groups... Shimano's already got 11-28 out for Dura Ace, ditto SRAM in their Red group (and elsewhere).

Finally, once we get up to 12 to14 cog cassettes, you almost _have_ to go that wide to justify it.
.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*whoopee..*

So Shimano trades the 19-22 for a equally nasty 24-28, but at least the big jump is where it's most needed. You need 11 speeds to get decent jumps with an 11-28 or 11-29.

12 speeds or more is a long way off. Shimano won't have 11 for several years.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

C-40 said:


> So Shimano trades the 19-22 for a equally nasty 24-28, but at least the big jump is where it's most needed. You need 11 speeds to get decent jumps with an 11-28 or 11-29.


I agree. That's part of why 11-spd is inevitable, top to nearly bottom, and for all of the Big Three component makers... as long as wide-range 'settes remain popular, and long as there's $$$ to be made in upgrades.



> 12 speeds or more is a long way off. Shimano won't have 11 for several years.


12 will take awhile, but it'll happen... the overall pace seems to be a new cog every six or seven years (we were at five cogs 30-35 yrs ago).

Not sure I'd bet on Shimano not having 11 for a long time. Campy beat Shimano by two years on 10-spd, and Campy's 11 was intro'd last year.

So you'd think Shimano would have its 11 within a couple of years from now. Especially as they've already embraced WR 'settes, and like money just as much as Campy does. 
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

Touring bikes already have enough gears with 7, 8, or 9 speed triples.

For a general purpose bike using a 50/34 compact, you only need a 9 speed 12-28 (12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28) cassette.

It's only the need for very close ratios on sporty bikes that's driving the market towards 14 gears.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*four years...*

Campy had 10 speed in 2000 and Shimano didn't offer it until 2004.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

C-40 said:


> Campy had 10 speed in 2000 and Shimano didn't offer it until 2004.


If so, then _Cycling News_ is wrong. From an article dated November, 2004:

_So when rival firm Campagnolo took line honours - by some margin - *to release its 10 speed group to the public* more than three years ago [edit– which you'd think would be 2001], many Shimano aficionados wondered: 'Did someone fall asleep at the tech wheel?'

It was a good *two years later* before the first *Dura-Ace 10 speed groups were spy-spotted in the pro peloton in early-to-mid 2003, and it was not until the end of the year before they landed in stores* around the world._

*http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2004/reviews/shimano_dura-ace
*

Hey, maybe they are wrong. Let me know.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> Touring bikes already have enough gears with 7, 8, or 9 speed triples.
> 
> For a general purpose bike using a 50/34 compact, you only need a 9 speed 12-28 (12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28) cassette.


Nice, wide range, but... no 16 cog. No 14. No 18. And no 11. 

While for myself I might agree that you don't truly _need_ all those xtra cogs (I made do with 7 cogs for many years), plenty of ppl will disagree with both me and you on that, and go ahead and buy the xtra cogs.



> It's only the need for very close ratios on sporty bikes that's driving the market towards 14 gears.


And that's more than enough to drive the mad upgrade machine all by itself.  

Plus, even on bikes spec'd with road triples, the big bike makers spec cassettes with plenty of 1-tooth jumps in them.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

shibaman said:


> I have been using a compact on my System six for a while. For the most part I am happy with it. I have found that I don't really run out of gears very often. Most of the time the down hills I have been of have been so damn steep i have had to use the brakes to make the corners. I have been able to climb some very steep grades with the 34x27 gears. There were a couple of times i could have used a granny. Some of the older guys use a compact with a 12- 37 with a XT long cage derailer. They can climb well, but not as fast as me. Some of these men are in their mid 60s- 70s, and they are very strong in the mountains. Very impressive! :thumbsup:
> 
> That said, I am trying to decide what to do with an extra Dale System Six frame that I have. Build it with a Triple to really climb the hills, and still have the down hill speed of a double. Or another compact set up? I have been spending a lot of time climbing in the local hills, so I need gears to climb with.


If 34x27 isn't quite low enough, and you're okay with the higher Q-factor/complexity/weight of a triple, I'd say consider going with the road triple. 

I mean, yeah, there are now some 11-28 cassettes out that'd improve your gearing range with the compact, but since both those 'settes are 10-speed (Shimano Dura Ace and SRAM), and are trying to cover a very wide range, they have weaknesses... no 16t cog, and some big jumps in the lower gears (for example, a 24-to-28 jump for the Shimano, and a 19-to-22 jump on the SRAM).

What would be better for a potential compact + WR cassette situation is if you were on an 11-spd rig (higher-end Campy), but even there, Campy is offering limited choices thus far–12-27 is the widest 11-spd 'sette they have out right now. Maybe that'll change in a few months when their 11-spd Athena group releases.
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

When we have a 14 speed 11-32 (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25,28,32), the triple will finally make the compact obsolete.

A 50/45/40 triple would be a good choice. The closely spaced rings would make right clicks unnecessary when a front shift is made. To get an excellent chainline, the 40 ring could be used for the inside sprockets, the 45 ring for the middle sprockets, and the 50 ring for the outside sprockets.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> When we have a 14 speed 11-32 (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25,28,32), the triple will finally make the compact obsolete.


Just in time to get killed off by CVT.  

And, of course, 42 gears does seem like overkill. Just to balance the complexity of that monster 14-cog cassette a bit, I think a double (compact) would have the edge.
.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> When we have a 14 speed 11-32 (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25,28,32), the triple will finally make the compact obsolete.
> 
> A 50/45/40 triple would be a good choice. The closely spaced rings would make right clicks unnecessary when a front shift is made. To get an excellent chainline, the 40 ring could be used for the inside sprockets, the 45 ring for the middle sprockets, and the 50 ring for the outside sprockets.


Seems WAY too complicated ... who rides like that, or would _want_ to 

I recall my first "10 speed" bike in late 1960s, where 10sp meant double chainring & 5 rear cogs ;-)

When I was a young teen, I thought all the fancy double shifting of FD & RD to maintain a somewhat monotonic progression of gear-inches, was "nifty" ;-)

But nowadays I much prefer having a modern 10- or 11-speed cassette and minimizing the amount of FD shifting required.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

tom_h said:


> Seems WAY too complicated ... who rides like that, or would _want_ to
> 
> I recall my first "10 speed" bike in late 1960s, where 10sp meant double chainring & 5 rear cogs ;-)
> 
> ...


Let's bring back the 5 speed double...

Maybe a 12-30 (12,15,19,24,30) with 53/48 rings. Double shifting of FD & RD with every gearchange. That would be a real 10 speed as every gear combination would be used (48/30,53/30,48/24,53/24,48/19,53/19,48/15,53/15,48/12,53/12). Together with modern sprocket spacing, you could have excellent chainline in all the gears.

This could also be used as a trainer, to help those who struggle with front shifting :idea:


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> If so, then _Cycling News_ is wrong. From an article dated November, 2004:
> 
> _So when rival firm Campagnolo took line honours - by some margin - *to release its 10 speed group to the public* more than three years ago [edit– which you'd think would be 2001], many Shimano aficionados wondered: 'Did someone fall asleep at the tech wheel?'
> 
> ...



I was riding a Campy 10 equipped C-40, in February of 2000. I'm sure some people had it in late 1999. My training diary from that year says I paid $1200 for a Record 10 group and $700 for a pair of Shamal wheels. The 2000 model year spare part PDF shows 10 speed Record and Chrous cassettes, if you doubt that 10 speed started in early 2000. It was NOT a late 2000 offering as 2001 parts.

http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/spares00-C.pdf

Your article shows 2004 as the first year for the production version of DA10. I'd say that is a 4-year difference.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

C-40 said:


> I was riding a Campy 10 equipped C-40, in February of 2000. I'm sure some people had it in late 1999. My training diary from that year says I paid $1200 for a Record 10 group and $700 for a pair of Shamal wheels. The 2000 model year spare part PDF shows 10 speed Record and Chrous cassettes, if you doubt that 10 speed started in early 2000. It was NOT a late 2000 offering as 2001 parts.


As you are a huge and consistent Campy fan (from other posts of yours that I've read in the past), I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.



> Your article shows 2004 as the first year for the production version of DA10.


Not so sure there... '2004 Dura Ace' would seem to refer to the _model_ year, which, as you obviously know from your "late 2000 offering as 2001 parts" statement above, is not the same as calendar year.

You can even go back to the RoadBikeReview archives, and see that ppl were indeed saying that DA 10 was out in late-2003, or had actually purchased it as of then:

_Shimano 9-Speed Conversion to Shimano 10-Speed	ngl
*Dec 22, 2003* 10:58 AM

*Now that the DA 10 speed is out*, does anyone know what 9 speed components must be changed for the upgrade to 10 speed? _

https://archive.roadbikereview.com/00/0EFE109D.php


_Re: Campy 10 vs Shimano 10	Sirius
*Dec 21, 2003* 7:34 PM

I have used Campy Record for the last few years on several frames *but I recently purchased a DA10 group* with the new DA wheelset as well and I have to say the new DA10 works very well. The brakes are much improved and the shifting on the front is IMHO better than Campy. I still miss the thumb shifter on Campy and how you can shift more than 1 cog at a time unlike DA. And I also like how the cables on Campy are wrapped under the bar tape. Technically, I feel DA10 is ahead of Campy especially now that there are no real technical advancement from Campy for 04 just more carbon and the new carbon crank does not match the carbon used in all the other components. I still love my 03 carbon crank and the rest of the gruppo._

https://archive.roadbikereview.com/00/0EFE0F59.php


Far as 11-spd Shimano being "several years away" from now, I just don't buy it. Even two years ago, back in '07, Jan Ullrich _already_ had a customized version of 11-spd Dura Ace running on his bike. Sure does not seem like an insurmountable technical challenge, eh?:


















.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> Let's bring back the 5 speed double...
> 
> Maybe a 12-30 (12,15,19,24,30) with 53/48 rings. Double shifting of FD & RD with every gearchange. That would be a real 10 speed as every gear combination would be used (48/30,53/30,48/24,53/24,48/19,53/19,48/15,53/15,48/12,53/12). Together with modern sprocket spacing, you could have excellent chainline in all the gears.
> 
> This could also be used as a trainer, to help those who struggle with front shifting


Ah... old-school half-step gearing. Gotta luv it, even if time and tech has completely passed it by. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*made my point...*

Late 1999 and late 2003 are 4 years apart, so you made my point. The first DA was 2004 model year parts and the first Campy 10 was 2000 model year, both available at about the same time, late in the previous year.

Back then, I didn't have as many internet sources to tell me about advance availability of new parts like I do now. Some folks were using Campy 11 back in September of last year. I had it in late October, but it was still 2009 model year parts.

I agree that Shimano probably won't wait four years to come out with 11 speed because there is now more competition from SRAM and FSA who will supposedly have an 11 speed group soon.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

With 11 speed, there's starting to be less need for a compact.

53/39 rings and 12-32 (12,13,14,15,16,18,20,22,25,28,32) cassette would be my choice.

50/34 rings and 11-28 (11,12,13,14,15,16,18,20,22,25,28) cassette would give a similar choice of gears, but then there's the 3, 4, or even 5 jumps on the cassette when a front shift is made. Here, you can lose quite a bit of time while you fiddle to get the right cadence.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Not exactly...*



C-40 said:


> Late 1999 and late 2003 are 4 years apart, so you made my point. The first DA was 2004 model year parts and the first Campy 10 was 2000 model year, both available at about the same time, late in the previous year.


Mmm, if we're gonna pick nits, I didn't really make your point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you personally were riding Campy 10 in Feb 2000. Which isn't quite 4 years before DA 10 came out, since we know DA 10 came out at least by December 2003.

Of course, some ppl _may_ have gotten Campy 10 a little before you did, but, by the same token, some ppl _may_ have gotten DA 10 a little before the sources I hunted down did. C'est la vie.



> I agree that Shimano probably won't wait four years to come out with 11 speed because there is now more competition from SRAM and FSA who will supposedly have an 11 speed group soon.


I think you're absolutely right there, it is a different world than it was when 10-spd came out.

I also have to wonder if Shimano's delay isn't partly for marketing reasons, as in, they didn't want to upstage the new electronic shifting group that just came out.  
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> With 11 speed, there's starting to be less need for a compact.
> 
> 53/39 rings and 12-32 (12,13,14,15,16,18,20,22,25,28,32) cassette would be my choice.


But not the market's choice. Few road-riders are into cogs bigger than 28 (Shimano, SRAM) or 29 (Campy). Nor do they dig long-cage derailleurs. And, of course, 53/39 is becoming less common, not more.



> 50/34 rings and 11-28 (11,12,13,14,15,16,18,20,22,25,28) cassette would give a similar choice of gears, but then there's the 3, 4, or even 5 jumps on the cassette when a front shift is made. Here, you can lose quite a bit of time while you fiddle to get the right cadence.


Wow, you're really obsessed with those 'too much shifting when changing chainrings' scenarios, aint'cha? :lol: 

You really need to get some Campy shifting and the ability to 'gear dump'. You'll be a lot happier.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*To sum up...*

Anyways, looking at the lay of the land, it appears that:

– 53/39 will continue its slow decline in popularity, eventually becoming a 'niche' product mainly for (actual) racers and triathletes, and as spec on ultra-high-end bikes, where it's still kinda expected.

Therefore, this thread is misnamed... the compact won't really bury the road triple, it will/it is (mostly) burying the standard double.

– Most of the road market will fall (actually, already has fallen) to compacts and road triples, with compacts having the edge in popularity thanks to less complexity, less weight, better Q-factor, no need for 'uncool' long-cage derailleurs, and developments such as the rising popularity of wide-range cassettes with tons o' cogs, which blunt some road-triple advantages. 

– Despite the above, triples, whether road-t's or mtb triples on road bikes, will never fully be displaced by compacts, as they'll still be needed for touring bikes, for older and/or heavier riders, and for any rider, frankly, living in or near a mountainous region of the country (or a particularly long/steep climb).

That about cover it?
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

As long as racers are on standard doubles, "racing" bikes will have the option and people who aspire to ride fast will buy them.

Most people who seek out a triple don't give a fig about "complexity", are not deterred by long cage derailleurs and have never heard the term "Q-factor". As long a triple offers more options, that is what they will favor because having the maximum number of options appeals to them more than some geek's insistence that a compact offers all the "right" options.

A minority of these people will upgrade to an aftermarket compact, which will always be the compact's primary domain. The compact double appeals to the cyclist who actually thinks about the gears they will use and favors the most efficient arrangement that provides them. IOW, it is and always will be a niche product.

I don't want a triple riding here on the Wasatch Front. As such, I don't want a compact either. Riding that slow is boring.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> As long as racers are on standard doubles, "racing" bikes will have the option and people who aspire to ride fast will buy them.
> 
> ...A minority of these people will upgrade to an aftermarket compact, which will always be the compact's primary domain.
> 
> ... IOW, [the compact] is and always will be a niche product.


Strong opinions. But I don't think the bike makers are spec'ing the way you're expecting them to. For road bikes, 2009 model year:

*TREK*
10 bikes available with standard double cranks/'53-39'
17 bikes available with compact cranks/'50-34'
15 bikes available with road triples

*SPECIALIZED*
16 bikes w/standard doubles/53-39
27 bikes w/compact cranks
13 bikes w/road triples

*TOTAL* (aka 'TREKALIZED')
26 bikes w/standard doubles/53-39
44 bikes w/compact cranks
28 bikes w/road triples


... so much for compact currently being and always being a 'niche' product. 

And isn't really any better for std double at most of the other big bike makers I've looked at. 



> As long a triple offers more options, that is what they will favor because having the maximum number of options appeals to them more than some geek's insistence that a compact offers all the "right" options.


Wow, hope that wasn't a flame directed at moi. That would make you look rather bad.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Ps–*



PeanutButterBreath said:


> I don't want a triple riding here on the Wasatch Front. As such, I don't want a compact either. Riding that slow is boring.


LOL. Everyone on a triple or compact is slow? 

What a quaint notion. :lol:
.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*so...*

So basically you're saying that I made up the story about having Campy 10 in February of 2000? Give me a break. I't got training diaries dating back to 1995 when I first bought Campy 8 speed.

http://www.campyonly.com/rumors_2000.html

February 26, 2000 -- We're hearing continued rumors that Campagnolo has misjudged the market (that's nothing new--remember their collossal failure when they didn't see the MTB market coming?). Their latest gaffe was to shift production to the new 10-speed gruppos, which meant that fewer 9-speed sets were made. Guess what? 10-speed isn't selling well, and dealers are having a hard time finding 9-speed gruppos to sell or build bikes with . . . More to come.



http://www.campyonly.com/history/campy_timeline.html


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I was talking about what stereotypical consumers want, not what options manufacturers put in their catalog.



SystemShock said:


> Wow, hope that wasn't a flame directed at moi. That would make you look rather bad.
> .


I don't see how your seeming lack of a sense of humor reflects on me one way or the other. 

And WRT triples, compacts and riding slow, note that I was referring to my preferred style of riding and gearing.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Um... what?*



C-40 said:


> So basically you're saying that I made up the story about having Campy 10 in February of 2000? Give me a break. I't got training diaries dating back to 1995 when I first bought Campy 8 speed.


Umm... how in the world did you misinterpret what I said that badly?

This is what I said, and I think it's pretty darn clear:


SystemShock said:


> I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you personally were riding Campy 10 in Feb 2000.


That sure does not sound like I'm saying that you made anything up... exactly the opposite, actually. Unless the definition of giving someone the benefit of the doubt has dramatically changed recently. 

So, I have to say... whaa?? :confused5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I was talking about what stereotypical consumers want, not what options manufacturers put in their catalog.


So, you were not talking about the market in general, but rather, a small subset of it? 

Interesting. Of course, one would say that the big bike makers do try to spec what consumers want, 'stereotypical' or not. It kinda helps with the selling of bikes, n' all.



> I don't see how your seeming lack of a sense of humor reflects on me one way or the other.


ROFL. Oldest shtick in the book... take a cheap shot, and then say "I was only joking" when called on it.

C'mon PB, do I really tick you off _that_ much? I'm fairly nice, actually. :wink5: 



> And WRT triples, compacts and riding slow, note that I was referring to my preferred style of riding and gearing.


Thank you for the clarification.
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Catalogs do not define a market. Sales do. Catalogs do not tell you how many of an option are actually produced, sold, etc.

You are the one who accused me of taking a cheap shot. I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I is no spring chicken. I'm sure you are nice. I've noticed that a lot of triple/compact riders tend to be on the jolly side, if you know what I mean. :ciappa:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Catalogs do not define a market. Sales do. Catalogs do not tell you how many of an option are actually produced, sold, etc.


What are catalogs full of, but things that ppl BUY?

And what are things that ppl buy? SALES.

C'mon PB, you know better than that line of argument. The big bike makers sell an awful lot of bikes with an awful lot of cranksets on 'em. Whether or not those bikes appear in a catalog is pretty immaterial.



> You are the one who accused me of taking a cheap shot. I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I is no spring chicken. I'm sure you are nice. I've noticed that a lot of triple/compact riders tend to be on the jolly side, if you know what I mean. :ciappa:


Wow. You take a cheap shot, then try to claim I'm as bad as you for calling you on it? Then try to toss in a fat joke besides?  

PB, PB, PB... what is your problem? You're just making yourself look like an immature little brat. And before you accuse me of 'flaming you back', stating the reality of the situation isn't a flame... if the reality happens to not be particularly flattering to you, that's your fault for behaving badly, not mine for pointing it out.

Grow up, and stop with the petty insults. They do not do you any favors.
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> What are catalogs full of, but things that ppl BUY?
> 
> And what are things that ppl buy? SALES.
> 
> C'mon PB, you know better than that line of argument. The big bike makers sell an awful lot of bikes with an awful lot of cranksets on 'em. Whether or not those bikes appear in a catalog is pretty immaterial.


None of this is a valid basis to predict what cranks people are buying. Do you actually think that manufacturers print the catalog and then immediately produce bikes in the same proportion (e.g. 44 compacts for every 26 Trekalized standard double)? They don't.

You can't use the catalog to "prove" that compacts are selling and then say that what appears in catalogs is immaterial. Sure, bike companies sell a lot of bikes. And sure, I'd wager that almost all of them have a crankset of some kind. These facts represent an excellent opportunity to make valid use of the term "immaterial".

I thought you were ROTFL? Now you are all bunched up for some reason? Lighten up. Nobody is going to take you seriously anyway unless you are on a standard double. Put it on the biggest ring you still have and try to keep up.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> None of this is a valid basis to predict what cranks people are buying. Do you actually think that manufacturers print the catalog and then immediately produce bikes in the same proportion (e.g. 44 compacts for every 26 Trekalized standard double)? They don't.


Sigh. No PB, the big bike manufacturers don't do that... they spec what sells/what is popular with potential bike buyers. Which is compact, judging from... what they're _actually spec'ing._ Wow... wotta concept!  

Also, considering that 53-39 is more popular on the ultra-high-end bikes and tri-bikes rather than the bread-n'-butter mainstream bikes, it's very likely that bikes spec'd with compact are outselling 53-39 spec'd bikes by quite a bit more than 44 to 26. The same argument would apply for road triple vs 53/39 too.

Btw, I really don't know what you're on about with "catalogs", but it seems to be a sideshow/semantics, not a real argument.



> You can't use the catalog to "prove" that compacts are selling and then say that what appears in catalogs is immaterial.


Well, fortunately for me, I didn't say that. I said the fact that the bikes appear in catalogs is immaterial. What matters is how they're spec'd, since bike makers spec in response to customer demand.



> I thought you were ROTFL? Now you are all bunched up for some reason?


Nah. I'm ROFL at what a two-year old you're being about this. 

And small children often think adults are too serious. :wink5:



> Nobody is going to take you seriously anyway unless you are on a standard double. Put it on the biggest ring you still have and try to keep up.


And here's the whole problem right here, folks... PB is a 'standard double snob'.  

I apparently 'offended' him by daring to state an opinion... that 53-39 is slowly becoming niche.

Put down the axe, PB, there's nothing to grind here.
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I guess you think that if Honda 'specs' the Civic in 5 colors, each color represents 20% of the Civics they paint and 20% of the Civics they sell? That's your argument in a nutshell, and it couldn't be more wrong.

Catalogs are where companies document their model-year specs. Catalogs are marketing material, not purchase orders. They don't represent anything other than what the company is willing to build _if_ enough people order them.

Bike companies are in the business of selling people what they want to buy, not what "makes sense". Getting back to my original point, people who want to buy into the image of a racer and people who want to buy into the concept of the triple's maximal gearing out-number people who do the math and recognize that a compact "makes sense" for 99.99% of recreational riding.

As a "standard double snob", I don't care if a compact probably wouldn't make me any slower or that it might make hills easier. I like the challenge of heading for the hills with a 53/39:12-25 and making it to the top anyway. Make sense? Who cares? Your opinion of my wanna-be-racer-ness doesn't perturb be in the slightest. All I ask is that you grant the same respect to my opinion of you as a slow guy grasping at the logic straw to salvage your ego. :aureola:


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

As we get more cogs in the back, there will be less and less of the triple cranksets being sold. I think the compact crank is a great thing for those that live in very hilly terrain and don't want to get a triple.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I guess you think that if Honda 'specs' the Civic in 5 colors, each color represents 20% of the Civics they paint and 20% of the Civics they sell? That's your argument in a nutshell, and it couldn't be more wrong.


I think you're engaged in some wishful thinking here. Along the lines of, "Gosh, I personally prefer 53-39, so the models that are spec'd with 53-39 _must_ be outselling all the models spec'd with compacts, even though there's obviously more models spec'd with compacts!"  

The thing is, go and actually LOOK at the models spec'd with 53-39. Most, but not all, tend to fall into two categories:

- very expensive/ultra-high-end road
- triathlete bikes

Let's take Trek's line-up, for example. Trek spec'd 10 bikes for the '09 model year with 53-39. Five were Madone Pros, the cheapest of which was $4000. The other five were triathlete bikes.

Compare that to the Treks spec'd with compacts and road triples... not only were there more models of them, but they represented the _full-spectrum_ of price ranges, from entry-level road, to midrange, to on up to as high as $8800.

Do you honestly think that triathlete bikes and the ultra-high-end 53/39s outsold, or even came close to outselling, the rest of the road lineup, especially considering that 53/39 wasn't even represented _at all_ in the midrange or entry-level? :shocked: 

C'mon now, that makes zero sense to anyone who's being rational, rather than emotional.

Or, to use your Civic color analogy... yeah, it's just like that, 'cept that 53/39 is peuce, and compacts and r-triples are black, white, red, and silver.



> Catalogs are where companies document their model-year specs. Catalogs are marketing material, not purchase orders. They don't represent anything other than what the company is willing to build _if_ enough people order them.


Thank you for the definition of what a catalog is, but it doesn't seem terribly relevant to the discussion at hand, at least not as how you've argued it so far. See above.



> Bike companies are in the business of selling people what they want to buy...


My point exactly. And from what bike companies are spec'ing, what most ppl seem to 'want to buy' are compacts. I don't say this from the viewpoint of someone who wants compact to 'win'. I say this as someone who's observing the market and going, "Yup, that's the way it's goin'."



> ...people who want to buy into the image of a racer and people who want to buy into the concept of the triple's maximal gearing out-number people who do the math and recognize that a compact "makes sense" for 99.99% of recreational riding.


Reality does not appear to agree with you. I think you're thinking of the market as it was, not as it is, or as it's becoming. More and more recreational riders are realizing that they're overgeared with standard doubles, whether or not they do much 'math' to figure it out. 

Additionally, as life expectancies have improved, the general population as a whole is older than it used to be. What do you think that's doing to the 'bike buyer' demographic, and the kind of equipment they want/need/demand? 

Heck, even Lance is in the mix... his high-rpm climbing style seems tailor-made for popularizing lower gears uphill.



> As a "standard double snob", I don't care if a compact probably wouldn't make me any slower or that it might make hills easier. I like the challenge of heading for the hills with a 53/39:12-25 and making it to the top anyway. Make sense? Who cares? Your opinion of my wanna-be-racer-ness doesn't perturb be in the slightest. All I ask is that you grant the same respect to my opinion of you as a slow guy grasping at the logic straw to salvage your ego.


At least you admit that you're a 'standard double snob', which is progress. I guess.

For myself, I don't really have a dog in this fight. What I don't like is someone arguing on the basis of sheer emotionality. Your feelings appear to have been hurt by what I said, which is a bit silly. I don't really _care_ how you ride, I care how *I* ride, and I'm curious as to how the market, as a _whole_, rides. Because that helps determine what choices will be available in the future.

In short, you should chill and realize that, just because someone says something you don't like, it's not a personal attack on you, the kinds of technologies you like, or the way you ride. Because, I honestly don't much care what you do. If you want to ride a recumbent naked while on fire, feel free... it's all good to me. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> At least you admit that you're a 'standard double snob', which is progress. I guess.


I though I made it pretty obvious from the start, what with referring to compact evangelists as geeks and insinuating that triple and compact riders are slow. You've been playing the I-know-you-are-upset-but-what-am-I game ever since, and I can practically see your lower lip quiver as you type.

Your rambles about high-end bikes are emblematic of your weak-legged reasoning. Why would high-end bike buyers be more limited in their options? If compacts are what people want, why would high-end buyers be deprived?

Poring over Trek's website (their catalog) is not observing the market. You remain convinced that sales correspond closely with the models that are spec'd. (You seem to actually believe that if Honda offers peuce as a color, they actually spray a proportional number of cars peuce. ut

Your observations are pretty suspect anyway. Cannondale offers a 53/39 all the way down to the <$1000 Sora/Tiaga level CAAD9 7. Specialized offers on all the way down to the <$900 Allez Double. Giant offers the TCR Alliance 0, a 105 level bike with a standard double. Seems to fill out the price spectrum pretty handily.

Meanwhile, if you go back to Trek, the FX line is all-triples, all they way down the line.

So really, your observation only holds if you focus disproportionately on the "non-competitive but not a comfort bike" category. The 1 series, the Synapse, the Defy and the Roubaix (but not the the Sequoia -- triples only). And even then only if you cherry-pick Trek which is disproportionately compact happy.

:nono:


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

The other thing is that it's pretty confusing knowing when to shift from the middle ring to the inner ring, so I think double is a simpler system.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

rook said:


> The other thing is that it's pretty confusing knowing when to shift from the middle ring to the inner ring, so I think double is a simpler system.


When it starts getting really hard to pedal up hill !
:wink:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I though I made it pretty obvious from the start [that I'm a standard double snob], what with referring to compact evangelists as geeks and insinuating that triple and compact riders are slow.


Yawn. Actually, you backpedalled away from that, saying that "you were only talking about your own preferred gearing and equipment" or somesuch (pretty weak dodge, btw). 

The 'geek' cheapshot was a giveaway, though. Your widdle feelings were obviously hurt, a definite sign of impending '53-39 jihad'. 



> Why would high-end bike buyers be more limited in their options? If compacts are what people want, why would high-end buyers be deprived?


Easy... the ultra-high-end is one of the last bastions of the standard-double snob.

What, they didn't tell you that at the meetings? 

Srsly though, if you look more closely at the bike lineups, there's plenty of high-end bikes spec'd with compacts. The main difference is, you see compacts spec'd at ALL pricepoints, while you don't see 53-39 that much outside of the very high-end, and tri-bikes. 53-39 is already starting to be 'niched'.



> Poring over Trek's website (their catalog) is not observing the market. You remain convinced that sales correspond closely with the models that are spec'd. (You seem to actually believe that if Honda offers peuce as a color, they actually spray a proportional number of cars peuce.)


Nope. I think it's worse than that, as far as std doubles are concerned... not only are more and more models being spec'd with something _other_ than 53-39 (i.e. compacts and triples), but the models so spec'd also tend to be higher-volume... the midrange and entry-level models. And even at the high-end, compacts are being spec'd a lot too.

Nor is this a trend confined solely to Trek.



> Cannondale offers a 53/39 all the way down to the <$1000 Sora/Tiaga level CAAD9 7. Specialized offers on all the way down to the <$900 Allez Double. Giant offers the TCR Alliance 0, a 105 level bike with a standard double. Seems to fill out the price spectrum pretty handily.


Well, let's take a closer look at these companies. 

You've already seen my numbers on Specialized... almost _twice_ as many bikes spec'd with compacts as with 53-39 (27 to 16). Giant? They're still pretty 53-39 friendly, but if you don't allow 53-39 its stated niches - the ultra-high-end and triathlon bikes- they actually have more compact bikes than std double bikes.

And Cannondale interested me enough to survey them the same way I did Trek and Specialized:

CANNONDALE
18 bikes available with std doubles
23 bikes available with compacts
10 bikes available with road triples

Those numbers look fairly similar to Trek and Specialized's, come to think of it. 

But you seem to be saying, "Whoa, look out, Cannondale is totally into 53-39 in the midrange and below." Um, not so much:

CANNONDALES UNDER $2500
6 bikes avail. with std doubles
13 bikes avail. with compacts
10 bikes avail. with road triples.

They're different from Trek in that at least they have a _few_ std double bikes that aren't tri- or very high-end. But, they have a lot more of those that are compacts. And triples.



> Meanwhile, if you go back to Trek, the FX line is all-triples, all they way down the line.


I didn't even count the FX line in my stats, as they are flat-bar bikes, i.e. what most would consider hybrids/city bikes (think I already explained this, too). 

The 1 Series, 2 Series, and all the Madones 'cept the Pros are all compacts and triples.



> So really, your observation only holds if you focus disproportionately on the "non-competitive but not a comfort bike" category. The 1 series, the Synapse, the Defy and the Roubaix (but not the the Sequoia -- triples only).


Nope. As we've already seen, both Cannondale and Specialized are heavily into compacts... at all price points. It's kind of hard to avoid, because they're spec'ing so many compacts– combine the two companies, and it's 50 compacts to 34 std doubles. 

It's actually the 53-39 bikes that are niched... again, mostly high-end and tri. 



> And even then only if you cherry-pick Trek which is disproportionately compact happy.


Again, not really. Their compact numbers are pretty in-line with several other big bike makers. Though you could say that they've niche-ified their std double bikes to the high-end and tri-bike categories even more than the other bike makers have. But they're all doing it to some extent, least the ones I've looked at.



> You've been playing the I-know-you-are-upset-but-what-am-I game ever since, and I can practically see your lower lip quiver as you type.


LOL. Oh my. The things children tell themselves, trying to hold their nerve when debating with the grown-ups. :lol:

Spare me the drama, PB.
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> They're still pretty 53-39 friendly, but if you don't allow 53-39 its stated niches - the ultra-high-end and triathlon bikes- they actually have more compact bikes than std double bikes.


Right. "If". Well I have no investment in stacking the deck, so I'm looking at all bikes designed for competitive and recreational road riding (i.e. bikes typically bought for recreational road riding), not just the categories that back up my POV.



SystemShock said:


> And Cannondale interested me enough to survey them the same way I did Trek and Specialized:
> 
> CANNONDALE
> 18 bikes available with std doubles
> ...


I'm not sure that's thinking, but its definitely not math. The numbers don't back up your argument. :nono:



SystemShock said:


> But you seem to be saying, "Whoa, look out, Cannondale is totally into 53-39 in the midrange and below." Um, not so much:


Let me clarify, I never said any such thing. HTH



SystemShock said:


> I didn't even count the FX line in my stats, as they are flat-bar bikes, i.e. what most would consider hybrids/city bikes (think I already explained this, too).


Of course you didn't, because they don't support your POV. But they are road-going bikes meant for long rides, not city riding. Its laid out pretty clearly on the website. Don't let your drop-bar snobbery blinker you.

So we are still at the point where you have to cherry-pick manufacturers and categories within those manufacturer's line-ups to see this trend. Well, you're right -- if you don't allow the standard double its niches, and you don't allow the triple its niches (lines like the FX), then the compacts seem to be prominant. Good eye. 

Here's a gimme for you: compacts rule the CX niche.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Right. "If". Well I have no investment in stacking the deck, so I'm looking at all bikes designed for competitive and recreational road riding (i.e. bikes typically bought for recreational road riding), not just the categories that back up my POV.


Glad to see that you're not disagreeing that 53-39 is indeed becoming niche'd to mainly the high-end and tri-bikes.



> I'm not sure that's thinking, but its definitely not math. The numbers don't back up your argument.


Really? They sure seem to. Care to lay out your argument, or do you think just saying something makes it so? 



> Let me clarify, I never said any such thing. HTH


No, you gave an example of some of the few midrange and entry-lvl 53-39 bikes that're still out there, trying to give the impression that std doubles are still a really popular spec in those price ranges. Upon deeper inspection, that mostly fell apart, so now we're back to "I didn't say that." Got it.



> Of course you didn't, because they don't support your POV. But they are road-going bikes meant for long rides, not city riding.


ROFL. That's a new one. Flat-bar, single-hand-position bikes are meant for long rides? Nope. And it's kinda funny that the 'standard double snob' is screaming "Count the hybrids as road bikes!" in order to try to shore up _his_ POV.

The even funnier thing? It wouldn't even help your argument to do so. 'Cuz it doesn't change the equation of 53-39 vs compact at all, since nearly all the hybrids are triples.



> So we are still at the point where you have to cherry-pick manufacturers and categories within those manufacturer's line-ups to see this trend. Well, you're right -- if you don't allow the standard double its niches, and you don't allow the triple its niches (lines like the FX), then the compacts seem to be prominant.


Wow, you still don't get it, even after all this time. Ok, I'll talk slow, so you can keep up...

The midrange bike market is not 'niche'. It's high-volume.
The entry-level bike market is not 'niche'. It too is high volume.
Compacts are getting spec'd a ton in both those markets. 53-39 is not.
Additionally, compacts are getting spec'd a lot at the high end too, i.e. across a very broad spectrum of price points.
53-39 is not. It's mostly getting spec'd only at very high price points (lower volume), and for triathlon bikes (again, lower volume).

So... what do you call it when Item A is getting spec'd almost everywhere? Not niche.
What do you call it when Item B is getting spec'd only in certain corners of the market? Niche.

Hey, thanks for playing. You've been great. :thumbsup: 


ps- Folks, you wanna know the sad thing? I actually _like_ std doubles, even in spite of PB's obnoxious homering for them. They're classic. I rode a 52-39 Dura Ace std double for many, many years. But I'm forced to lay out the signs of their decline in popularity in slightly harsh terms, 'cuz nothing else shines through the fog of PB's denial-o-rama.  

It's just that things are changing, and some ppl don't like change. The population is aging, more and more recreational riders have stopped buying into the 'wannabe-racer gearing' nonsense, and even if you _do_ care about what racers are using, here comes Lance and his high-rpm climbing style, which also tilts ppl towards the lower gears needed to enjoy/employ it.

Don't really see how _noticing_ the change harms anyone to the point where they have to go all jihadi on the issue, but I guess sometimes it's easier to argue that something's not happening, rather than accepting it. Std double won't go away... it'll increasingly be niche'd, but it won't be unavailable. 

So I'm not sure why anyone would be upset, since they'd still have access to it? Ah well. :idea: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rook said:


> As we get more cogs in the back, there will be less and less of the triple cranksets being sold.


That's probably right. With more cogs comes the ability to have wider-range cassettes spec'd, without the penalty of enormous jumps between cogs. Road 'settes ending with 27 or 28t cogs are becoming more and more popular, as we go 11-spd and more, that trend accelerates.

So, once gears like 34x28 become pretty commonplace, there's less incentive to go triple for reasons of hill-gearing. But, there are other reasons to like triples, plus there'll always be terrain so steep that even compact + WR cassette can't quite handle it. 

So triples aren't going away (not that that's what you were saying).
.


----------



## jvanv8 (Nov 14, 2006)

tom_h said:


> Alternately, the 11-25 11sp cassette is a traditional 12-25, with an *11t* high gear added.


This used to be the setup I insisted on when I rode Shimano. It baffles me why the 'mountainous' 25 cassette for climbing does not include an 11T for descending. Do they think people only climb up?

I was pricing the expensive dura-ace 12-25T plus the hard to find 11T gear + the special 11T lockring... and it was adding up fast. I also didn't like the exposed cables (this was last year) and shifters that weighed a ton. I would rather support a company like SRAM that questions what the big guys are doing and listens to the riders. I switched to SRAM and now use a Red 11-26 cassette with a standard 53T crank. I can pedal up steep hills and descend them too... this really shouldn't be a big deal, but it's something that Shimano can't seem to manage.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

jvanv8 said:


> This used to be the setup I insisted on when I rode Shimano. It baffles me why the 'mountainous' 25 cassette for climbing does not include an 11T for descending. Do they think people only climb up?
> 
> I was pricing the expensive dura-ace 12-25T plus the hard to find 11T gear + the special 11T lockring... and it was adding up fast. I also didn't like the exposed cables (this was last year) and shifters that weighed a ton.
> 
> I would rather support a company like SRAM that questions what the big guys are doing and listens to the riders. I switched to SRAM and now use a Red 11-26 cassette with a standard 53T crank. I can pedal up steep hills and descend them too... this really shouldn't be a big deal, but it's something that Shimano can't seem to manage.


SRAM's great, but this year's Dura Ace now has 11-25, 11-27, even 11-28. And you'd think that'd migrate down to some of their lower groups over the next year or two.

Sure, we can (rightly) complain about Shimano being slow, but they do seem to be waking up. SRAM's 11-26 'settes have been a reasonably popular spec among the bike makers (and not just w/full SRAM componentry), perhaps that had something to do with it.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> But there seem to be more people that disagree than agree, and I am sure you don't put much stock in my opinion anyway (which is why you won't mind me chuckling at yet more proof of your cluelessness).


If knowing that flat-bar hybrids are inferior to real drop-bar road bikes for long rides is 'clueless', then guilty as charged. 
But I bet if I ran a poll on it, many would be guilty.

The funny part is that in that thread, you agree...


PeanutButterBreath said:


> YMMV, but these bikes make little sense to me in general, and especially for any kind of distance riding


 ...yet still call me clueless. Does that make two of us, then? :idea: 

Every few years a bad idea comes along in cycling, and ppl buy it for awhile despite it all. High-end hybrids/FB bikes pretending to be high-performance road machines are probably one of those.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Very good article...*

There's a very good article called _The Rise of the Compact_ over at BikeHugger. 

I disagree with some of the author's conclusions (i.e. that the triple has been/is going to be the main loser in the rise of the compact), but the author definitely did his homework. I agree with him that racers (and triathletes) will continue to use 53-39, for obvious reasons.

You can find it at

*http://bikehugger.com/2008/05/the-rise-of-the-compact-crank.html*
.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> There's a very good article called _The Rise of the Compact_ over at BikeHugger.
> I disagree with some of the author's conclusions (i.e. that the triple has been/is going to be the main loser in the rise of the compact), but the author definitely did his homework.


Everyone seems to like referencing Hamilton's climb with a compact, the man had a broken collarbone and was trying to avoid getting out of the saddle on the steeper sections!

And of course reference to Hampsten's preference for compacts without mentioning that he's climbing, to quote "silly steep" climbs like the Mortirolo.

Then there are comments like;

"A compact double needs an 11 tooth start cog for most riders in not-so hilly areas…"

If people need a compact they need to stop trying to find comforting comparisons and just get on with the business of riding their bike.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> And down comes the gavel.


Is it really 'judgemental' to state the obvious?

And you agree too, so you're protesting... why? :confused5:



PeanutButterBreath said:


> There is a difference between thinking something is a bad idea and being totally ignorant of its existence. What makes you clueless is that you think you know what "bread and butter" bikes are, but obviously don't pay much attention to what people are riding and discussing around here (too much time peering into the crystal ball over at trekbikes.com, I suppose.)


Actually, the definition of clueless would probably be closer to "someone who makes blind assumptions based on personal grudges".

Therefore, oh looky... we have the living avatar of cluelessness playing pot, kettle, black with me. How nice.  

PB, I'm quite aware of the existence of high-dollar hybrids. Their limitations are troubling, that's all, and no, they're generally not great for long rides the way road bikes are. You believe the same thing, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

So... you also say ppl are discussing the heck out of FB bikes? That it's the BIG happening thing, ready to utterly dominate the bike world? Really? Drop bar road bikes are going the way of the dodo, and should count their days? FB is just setting the forums _on_ _fire_ with buzz and excitement? Whoa. And you think this, 'cuz you linked to one lil' ol' thread about it, that has FAR fewer views and posts than this one on _cranks_? Umm... okay. Whatev. :shocked: 

Finally, pls stop whining about Trek. You know as well as I do (well, unless you're being willfully ignorant, which admittedly you're good at) that Trek's far from the only bike maker spec'ing a ton of compacts these days. Specialized, Cannondale, and many others are doing the same thing. To quote Sarah Palin, it's not like Trek's a 'maverick'. :lol:

But, I guess it can make one feel better to play make-believe, in the face of facts we don't like. Whatever soothes that tortured, tortured soul, PB. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Now you are really grasping at the personal grudge straw.


I just call 'em like I see 'em. It's obviously personal for you, as we've seen from all your insults/flames. Not really a way for a mature adult to behave over a difference of opinion. Tsk.



> Even though you are stacking the deck as heavily as you can WRT which bikes qualify, Trek is idiosyncratic.


Hybrids are hybrids, road bikes are road bikes. And even if we were to count 'em, it wouldn't help 53-39, since they're not spec'd with std doubles. In fact, adding in a bunch of triples would actually _reduce_ 53-39's share. Duh?



> Run your own numbers and you will see that Trek's percentage of standard doubles is a relative anomaly


Fine, let's run those numbers, first off on the question of whether or not Trek is especially 'compact-happy', as you've said/insisted before:

*TREK:* 17 out of 42 road bikes are available with compacts, for a percentage of *40.5%* of models offered.
*SPECIALIZED:* 27 out of 56 road bikes w/compact, for a percentage of *48.2%* of models offered.
*CANNONDALE:* 23 out of 51 road bikes w/compact, for a percentage of *45.1%* of models offered.

Wow... so it actually turns out that Trek, the company you singled out as 'compact-happy', was actually the LEAST 'compact-happy' of those three major bike makers?  

That's pretty funny. :lol:

Next, let's check out the number of standard doubles offered, as you requested:

*TREK:* 10 out of 42 road bikes are available with std doubles, for a percentage of *23.8%* of models offered.
*SPECIALIZED:* 16 out of 56 road bikes w/std doubles, for a percentage of *28.6%* of models offered.
*CANNONDALE:* 18 out of 51 road bikes w/std doubles, for a percentage of *35.3%* of models offered.

Well, you've finally got half a point there PB... while Trek is not especially 'compact happy', they are a bit more 'standard double unhappy' than appears to be the norm. Not by enough to count as an 'anamoly' (Specialized is pretty close), but yes, they're not quite as into std double. Still, it's not like std double is setting the world on fire for _any_ of these guys. Nor are any of them spec'ing as many models with std doubles as they are compacts.

So now, as a 53-39 jihadi, you have a choice to make, PB: Do you hate Specialized more for being the most 'compact happy', or do you hate Trek more for being the most 'std double unhappy'? Or do you hate 'em both for being huge bike makers who don't think the way you do? :lol:



> ...even among the mere three brands that you dare to count.


'Mere' three bands? Specialized, Trek and Cannondale were picked because they sell a _ton_ of bikes, Trek and Specialized especially. You must be aware of that. But, if you need to have it pounded in:

_[Shimano] is the dominant supplier of parts for higher-end bikes, *and today 90% of those are sold by Trek, Giant, and Specialized, the top three brands in the U.S.*_

*http://seekingalpha.com/article/133...ig-margins-in-the-61-billion-bicycle-industry*

If we were talking cars, I guess you'd insist that I should count Citroen, Yugo, and Isuzu instead of Toyota, GM, and Volkswagen, right? Y'know, 'cuz their marketshares are so high.  



> Giant? Orbea? Scott? Felt? Cervelo? Too "ultra high end", no doubt.


With the exception of Giant, none of those sell nearly as many bikes as Specialized or Trek, and likely Cannondale as well, i.e. 'the big boys'. But I'll give you that Giant still specs a lot of std double.

Far as the rest goes, I'm sure we can find small/niche bike makers all day long who sell primarily to the high-end who still spec lots of 53-39... wouldn't really change the overall picture, since we've already agreed that the ultra-high-end is 53-39's stronghold.

Hey, I hear Rivendell really really likes 73mm reach brakes. And that's great. But does it really mean much for the prospects of 73mm reach brakes in the market as a whole? Are ultra-long reach brakes in any danger of taking over the market? No, not really. But it might be a big deal if Specialized and Trek started spec'ing them all over the place.

Common sense. Try it some time.
.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Will this thread ever come to an end? Does any of it really matter? 

srlsy


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Peanya said:


> Will this thread ever come to an end? Does any of it really matter?
> 
> srlsy



I know it is long, but I was actually kindof enjoying the spirited debate. Some people opposing each other's ideas on this thread actually have offered good counter arguments. It's interesting. I used to not like compact cranks, but now I'm about 50/50 on them.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

It's the same person is where my money is. Come on, who'd seriously debate something as a personal preference for so long? Some people ask for attention in different ways.


----------

