# Triple vs compact



## Staffordshire Mamil (10 Nov 2010)

Hello all,
Newby here.
I am mid 50s and have got back into road cycling, buying my first bike for about 35 years,I am really surprised at how adictive it can be !!
Anyhow here's the question:

I bought a 2nd hand 2008 Ridgeback Flight 01 hybrid which is a real speed machine, essentially a reasonably light road bike but with flat bars. It has 3 chainrings 52/42/32 Teeth
and a Shimano Sora 12-25 8 Speed cassette. I rarely use the smallest chainring.
I am looking to buy a Boardman Comp road bike with drop handlebars which has a compact chainset 50/36 teeth and Tiagra 12-25 9 speed cassette. 

Can anyone explain how much difference I would notice on the lowest gear, I am concerned that my ageing legs would struggle to get me up the odd steep hill where I have currently have the comfort of the good old granny ring if required.

Many thanks in advance for your help and advise.


----------



## delstron (10 Nov 2010)

Firstly visit

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

and input the details of each gear combination. This will give you some comparative figures to look at.

A 50/*34* compact chainset is the more common combination and would be closer to a triple, if you have the flexibility to get this changed before or after purchase.

Try a search on the forum, the subject has been covered more than a few times.


----------



## jimboalee (10 Nov 2010)

Up the same hill at the same speed, power requirement will be similar. A lower gear will allow you to turn more revs, thus reducing the ammount of pressure on the pedal required on each pedalstroke.

Alternatively, a lower speed can be maintained by turning the cranks at the same speed and same pedaling pressure.

Some folks like to use high revs and low pedal pressure, while other folks like standing up and pedaling slower ( like climbing stairs ).

The latter group, given a bike with lower gears will have more inclination to ride up steeper hills with their low revs, high pressure, standing up technique; while the former group will get into difficulty on really steep hills because of their lack of practice in 'grinding'.

Being in Staffordshire, you will want to go into the Peak District, so I would say "Triple" with a 30 ring on the inside.


----------



## raindog (10 Nov 2010)

Between 32/26 and 36/26 there won't be a massive difference, and as you say you rarely use the small ring on your triple, then you should be fine with the compact on the Boardman. I've got a triple on one of my bikes and 50-39 on the other and I love riding them both.

The thing with a compact is that it's often difficult to find a comfortable gear without constantly changing up front, whereas with a triple you can usually do most of your riding on the middle ring. I've noticed when I'm on my triple riding behind someone on a compact they're always changing from one chainwheel to the other, when I only seem to be nipping up and down the cassette.


----------



## asterix (10 Nov 2010)

My area is very hilly, I tend to do fairly long rides of over 40 miles and I have a triple. Most of the time I just use the outer rings, but near the end of the ride I am often really glad to have the extra chainring, especially as I live at the top of a hill!


----------



## Will1985 (10 Nov 2010)

Welcome to our forum Staffordshire Mamil!

This topic is covered a lot and there are fierce exponents of both camps. As raindog spotted *the difference in gearing between the two is about the same as one gear* (that is, the bottom gear on the Boardman would be the 2nd lowest gear on the Ridgeback), so you really need to ask yourself if you ever need to use the Ridgeback's bottom gear.

At the end of the day, the number of rings on a chainset is personal preference, but you can only find out by experimenting with both. 

PS. Jimbo, your post is really not helpful to beginners - aren't you supposed to be staying in Know How with this cut and paste stuff?


----------



## yello (10 Nov 2010)

Greetings SM. I can only endorse what raindog says. I very much doubt you'd struggle on that compact but there could be more gear changing on the chainrings. Not a problem per se but a consideration. So, like Will says, your choice is mainly preference.

All my geared bikes are triples and I predominantly ride on the middle ring. I sometimes consider switching one of the bikes to a compact but I really don't think there'd be any real benefits to me. I'm quite happy to stay on triples and just occasionally I'm thankful for having the 'bail out' gears!


----------



## jimboalee (10 Nov 2010)

Will1985 said:


> Welcome to our forum Staffordshire Mamil!
> 
> This topic is covered a lot and there are fierce exponents of both camps. As raindog spotted *the difference in gearing between the two is about the same as one gear* (that is, the bottom gear on the Boardman would be the 2nd lowest gear on the Ridgeback), so you really need to ask yourself if you ever need to use the Ridgeback's bottom gear.
> 
> ...



I'm 50 and the OP has a few years under his belt more than me, and I'm crediting him with a bit of intelligence.

Where in my post do I lose you Will?

He has a Ridgeback Flight 01, on which he could invert the stem and install bar-ends, or fit drops and it would be a decent bike to tackle Buxton and surrounds.

He's considering a Boardman Comp Road. A bike for serious milage on warm summer days. Pack it with a 30 triple and he's all set to go to Castleton and Speedwell cavern on a day trip. Have a double with a 34 ring and he's lost one gear.


'Compact chainsets' for those who want to look like a road bike and not like a tourer, but need the low gears cus they can't pull a 53/39.

'Triples' for those who want a pleasant day out up the hills and don't give a shoot what others think.


----------



## 2Loose (10 Nov 2010)

I would also point out that the Boardman is lighter than the Ridgeback, so will probably be even easier to ride up hills despite a very slightly higher bottom gear.

When I went from my MTB to my roadbike, the gearing on the roadbike fell almost smack into the middle of the gear range of the mtb. I did use the bottom mtb gears on occasion and thought I may have to push the roadbike up hills from time to time because of this. Glad to say that it wasn't so. In fact if anything, the roadbike is better to climb hills than the mtb. 

Staffordshire Mamil, I don't think you have anything to worry about


----------



## adscrim (10 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> 'Compact chainsets' for those who want to look like a road bike and not like a tourer, but need the low gears cus they can't pull a 53/39.
> 
> 'Triples' for those who want a pleasant day out up the hills and don't give a shoot what others think.




Compacts are for those who want compacts and those who want a specific bike that come with a compact. I have two road bikes. One has 50/36 and a 11-23 cassette, the other 53/39 12-25. All generalisations are false (including that one).

OP, if you want the new bike, then get the new bike. If, further down the line you're thinking 'I could really do with an extra gear', then you can always fit a 12-27.


----------



## automatic_jon (10 Nov 2010)

adscrim said:


> OP, if you want the new bike, then get the new bike. If, further down the line you're thinking 'I could really do with an extra gear', then you can always fit a 12-27.



Hear, hear. 

It's actually quite satisfying fitting something as simple as a new cassette, it give the feeling that you've got a greater understanding of the bike instead of just buying something off the peg and making do.
If you like the bike then get it, you can always fine tune it as time goes by.


----------



## steve52 (10 Nov 2010)

dont make my mistake go for the tripple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Banjo (10 Nov 2010)

I am the wrong side of 50 have been cycling for a couple of years .I am very glad I opted for the triple. 

On not too steep hills I can normally use the 39 tooth middle ring and 25 tooth largest cog combination On steep or long hills or if I am not feeling great I would be walking without the 30 tooth granny ring. 

My top gearing is 50 12 and on occasions I think its not quite fast enough but its the bottom gears that are really important to me.

PS I dont understand all of Jimboallees posts but didnt find anything too technical in this one.







Triple Country


----------



## jimboalee (10 Nov 2010)

automatic_jon said:


> Hear, hear.
> 
> It's actually quite satisfying fitting something as simple as a new cassette, it give the feeling that you've got a greater understanding of the bike instead of just buying something off the peg and making do.
> If you like the bike then get it, you can always fine tune it as time goes by.




Its even more satifying fitting a cassette that you've built up with seperate sprockets and spacers to ratios you've worked out for yourself.

When I suggested this on another thread, I got told to stut my face.


----------



## 007fair (10 Nov 2010)

I think this depends on fitness / strength more than style or preference
I have a triple (30,39,50 - 12,27) ..I am of distinctly average fitness but can get up all hills (not tried the alps though!) but do so slowly and often on lowest 'granny' gear.	
If you have the fitness / leg strength then a compact or a double will be Ok and get you up quicker .. but if you can't handle the speed then you have to get off and push. The triple means you can ease off and keep cycling

I was on a run recently with 2 guys who were both fitter than me. 1 on a double and the other (15 years younger and a good cyclist) on a single!	
We had a timed effort up to the top of the campsies north of glasgow.
The guy on the single got there in about 7 mins, the double next in 9 and me last in 10 

But this does not mean the single is better. If I had that I would have had to push 

Next time I wouldn't mind trying a double just to see - but I like having the option of a really low gear 
If there is any possibility of light touring then the triple would be preferable also


----------



## jimboalee (10 Nov 2010)

Banjo said:


> I am the wrong side of 50 have been cycling for a couple of years .I am very glad I opted for the triple.
> 
> On not too steep hills I can normally use the 39 tooth middle ring and 25 tooth largest cog combination On steep or long hills or if I am not feeling great I would be walking without the 30 tooth granny ring.
> 
> ...



There is a big problem on internet forums. Give a 'too technical' response and you get told to shut up. Give a 'dumbed down' response and you get told to shut up.


----------



## asterix (10 Nov 2010)

Oi Jim, stop moaning!


----------



## zigzag (10 Nov 2010)

007fair said:


> I was on a run recently with 2 guys who were both fitter than me. 1 on a double and the other (15 years younger and a good cyclist) on a single!
> We had a timed effort up to the top of the campsies north of glasgow.
> The guy on the single got there in about 7 mins, the double next in 9 and me last in 10
> 
> But this does not mean the single is better. If I had that I would have had to push



single front chainring is my preferred setup. i've covered lots of miles on flat, mountains and hills. never needed to walk (the steepest incline i've tried was around 25%). ok, i spin out at 40mph, but that's enough speed for me. if i raced i'd use 53/39. for average rider triple (or mtb double) is the best choice, but i can't even imagine myself using triple


----------



## boydj (10 Nov 2010)

raindog said:


> The thing with a compact is that it's often difficult to find a comfortable gear without constantly changing up front, whereas with a triple you can usually do most of your riding on the middle ring. I've noticed when I'm on my triple riding behind someone on a compact they're always changing from one chainwheel to the other, when I only seem to be nipping up and down the cassette.



+1
After riding nothing but triples for several years, including a few hilly sportives, I got a 'compact' this year. I have to say that I much prefer the triples because they suit my riding style better. I like to maintain a fairly constant, relatively fast cadence, which is fairly easy to do on the middle ring of the triple while keeping the chainline fairly straight. With the compact, I find myself changing the front ring much more frequently and running more to the extremes at the back. For next year I'll probably change the 34 for a 36 and put a cassette on with 27 rather than a 25 at the bottom.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (10 Nov 2010)

as someone who's club regularly takes in the staffs moorlands, my advice is to go triple. 52/42/30 gives you higher gears for the descents as well as lower gears for the ascents than a 50/34 compact will give, not to mention that the spread of gears mean that changes up or down have less of a jump between them.


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 Nov 2010)

Triples here too.

Main reason? The double shifting required on a compact-double. As others have said, the shifting pattern is much simpler on a triple without the big hole cause when swapping chainrings (also followed compact riders constantly swapping cogs). Add in a slightly wider gear range from the off AND if you need to you can always go for the 27T cassette as the 'compact' users advise... and in addition with a Shimano triple you could also swap the 30T chainring for a 28 to give a stump-pulling 28 x 27!


----------



## jimboalee (10 Nov 2010)

alecstilleyedye said:


> as someone who's club regularly takes in the staffs moorlands, my advice is to go triple. 52/42/30 gives you higher gears for the descents as well as lower gears for the ascents than a 50/34 compact will give, not to mention that the spread of gears mean that changes up or down have less of a jump between them.




Is that Macclesfield abrev' in your details?

I took a double 52/38, 13 - 23 from Crewe Railway Stn to Moorside Grange Hotel one weekend. Wished I had a triple.
Twas on the weekend of the commonwealth games road race in 2002.

I think that was the last straw because a month later my wife told me to clear off with my bikes and not come back ( except to look after our sons when she went out on the pop ).

I don't think a triple would have saved my marriage, but the advice is there, just the same....


----------



## Staffordshire Mamil (11 Nov 2010)

Thanks guys for all your comments/advice. 

It just goes to show, one man's meat is another man's poison !! I have to be honest, I am now erring on the side of caution and will probably look for the 3 ring option. The ridgeback horizon tourer could be the chosen one. Easy geometery and plenty of gears for this old timer.
Regards & thanks again


----------



## Nozzer (11 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Is that Macclesfield abrev' in your details?
> 
> I took a double 52/38, 13 - 23 from Crewe Railway Stn to Moorside Grange Hotel one weekend. Wished I had a triple.
> Twas on the weekend of the commonwealth games road race in 2002.
> ...





Brilliant!!


----------



## 007fair (12 Nov 2010)

zigzag said:


> *single front chainring *is my preferred setup. i've covered lots of miles on flat, mountains and hills. never needed to walk (the steepest incline i've tried was around 25%). ok, i spin out at 40mph, but that's enough speed for me. if i raced i'd use 53/39. for average rider triple (or mtb double) is the best choice, but i can't even imagine myself using triple



This guy was on a single speed! ..


----------



## Andrew_P (12 Nov 2010)

I have just gone from a 48/38/28 11-32 to 50 x 34T 12-27t and I have not missed the triple, in fact when I replace the front back I will more than likely change to 53/39 - 11/25


----------



## jimboalee (12 Nov 2010)

007fair said:


> This guy was on a single speed! ..



No. A single chainset with no front mech, but a cassette on the rear with a rear mech.

This set-up is not peculiar. 34 x 11 is a 81", a comfortable touring gear. 34 x 34 is 27", a decent climbing gear.

11 - 34, nine speed MTB cassette.


----------



## 007fair (12 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> No. A single chainset with no front mech, but a cassette on the rear with a rear mech.
> 
> This set-up is not peculiar. 34 x 11 is a 81", a comfortable touring gear. 34 x 34 is 27", a decent climbing gear.
> 
> 11 - 34, nine speed MTB cassette.



Jim My last response 'This guy was on a single speed!'	was clarification to my earlier post '

007fair, on 10 November 2010 - 11:30:51' where I said 'I was on a run recently with 2 guys who were both fitter than me. 1 on a double and the other (15 years younger and a good cyclist) on a single!' Should have said single speed..

I hope this makes sense!


----------



## hondated (12 Nov 2010)

Triple for me with mbk gearing, why walk when you can cycle


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'm 50 and the OP has a few years under his belt more than me, and I'm crediting him with a bit of intelligence.
> 
> Where in my post do I lose you Will?
> 
> ...


Utter cock.

People who understand variable gears and how to match them to the available power output and riding style use a setup that's suits their personal needs. There is no right or wrong.


----------



## buggi (12 Nov 2010)

if you go for a compact choose a 50/34 and 12-27 combination. the difference between that and a triple is negligable. my mate did the calculations and it's not even a full gear off the smallest (about half)


----------



## jimboalee (12 Nov 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> Utter cock.
> 
> People who understand variable gears and how to match them to the available power output and riding style use a setup that's suits their personal needs. There is no right or wrong.


I stand by what I say.

When a young lad starts cycling, the maximum permissable gear on the bike is 52 x 14 ( 7.93m ). The bike will have a 52/38 because the lad doesn't want to be left behind by the lads with a 52/38. I had this crankset when I was fourteen.
The rear block will be 14 - 28, giving a lowest gear of 38 x 28 = 37". I had a 38 x 25 = 41" cus' I was a big lad.

Now these gears are for JUNIORS. As the lad grows up to nineteen years old and gets stronger, he quickly changes to a 53/39 and dispenses with the 28 sprocket in favour of a 25 cog. ala most race bikes today.


As I said, Compacts are for cyclists who can't pull a 39 x 25.

Or shall I put it another way... Compacts are for cyclists who missed the boat when they were teenagers.


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I stand by what I say.
> 
> When a young lad starts cycling, the maximum permissable gear on the bike is 52 x 14 ( 7.93m ). The bike will have a 52/38 because the lad doesn't want to be left behind by the lads with a 52/38. I had this crankset when I was fourteen.
> The rear block will be 14 - 28, giving a lowest gear of 38 x 28 = 37". I had a 38 x 25 = 41" cus' I was a big lad.
> ...


I've been on the boat since I was 13. I have learnt to choose the gears I require for my power output and recognise that everyone is different.

There is no right and wrong answer.


----------



## jimboalee (12 Nov 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> I've been on the boat since I was 13. I have learnt to choose the gears I require for my power output and recognise that everyone is different.
> 
> There is no right and wrong answer.



As a matter of interest, what gearing did you use when you was at school?

Did you have the 'normal everyday' 52/42? Did you swap out the 42 for the smallest available for that spider?


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Nov 2010)

While I was at school I had a single chainset, 48t. The block was probable 14-21 which was fairly standard then. When I joined a club as a junior and started racing it would have been 52/42 and probably the same 5-speed block. For road racing whatever sprockets were blanked out (14&15?) to comply with what the gearing restrictions were.


----------



## Tynan (12 Nov 2010)

heady stuff for beginners section

as ever, I think we all forget that there's lot of different riders of different capabilities doing different rides on different terrain, I'm on a double but in London so the small ring is mint, it's been used twice on Ditchling, eerything else I've managed on the big ring

mind you I am rock hard


----------



## jimboalee (13 Nov 2010)

As I keep repeating... Compacts are for riders who can't pull a 39 x 25.

What they have to consider is "Am I submitting to my PRESENT physical capability, or shall I fit a chainset for my FUTURE capability; and work hard to get to a capability enough to pull the 39 x 25".

Buy a Compact. Do some hard work. Retrofit a 53/39.

Why not just fit the 53/39 now? 


Then there will be people who say "I don't want to 'work hard'!"

Why have you bought a RACE BIKE ?


----------



## Alien8 (13 Nov 2010)

It's all horses-for-courses but Jimbo is right, if you need something lower than 39x25, but want two chainrings, you're going to have to go for a compact. My feeling is that most compact owners have them because it seems to be de-facto for most middle-of-the-range road bikes nowadays - rather than it being a concious decision because they actually need that spread in gears.


----------



## asterix (13 Nov 2010)

> Then there will be people who say "I don't want to 'work hard'!"
> 
> Why have you bought a RACE BIKE ?



To get the look and because they are very light? 

(I have no 'race bike' myself being more of a care-free touristy type).


----------



## jimboalee (13 Nov 2010)

It has been mentioned on here that choice of low gear is dependant on the rider’s ability.

Yes of course it is when the rider is sat on the saddle using the muscles in his legs to produce the power.



When the rider’s backside leaves the saddle, it is 90% of the rider’s mass that produces the power by means of it bearing down on the pedal through the pedalstroke. All he has to do is ride the bike like he’s carrying a loaded rucksack up a few flights of stairs.



I can remember Pedro Delgado riding up some hill in France at 16 kmh. The hill was 7.5% and he took just under 40 minutes to get to the top. 16 kmh up a 7.5% requires almost 350 W.

I counted his revs. Around sixty per minute. He must have been on 39 x 17, standing up the majority of the climb.



I went to the gym quite recently and set up the bike to absorb 340 W at 60 rpm. It required standing up for forty minutes but I ‘just about managed it’. 



Pedro, however, raced down the other side of the hill and then rode up another.



Now I’m a lot heavier than Pedro, and I did the 10 km 7.5% climb just like the hill in France, and then walked to the coffee machine. I was simulating a 39 x 17 gear ratio. My Spesh SWorks has a 39 x 25 for heaven’s sake.



Now for us people in England, there aren’t many hills that are 7.5% for 10km, so why would anyone need a Compact chainset on a race bike?



Tourers and Hybrids, A TRIPLE. Race bike, a 53/39.


----------



## asterix (13 Nov 2010)

> 16 kmh up a 7.5% requires almost 350 W.



Two questions: First, your calcualtion would depend on the weight of rider and bike as well as speed and gradient? ; second, a hill of 10km, even in France is very unlikely to be a constant 7.5% all the way so are we talking average gradient?


----------



## jimboalee (13 Nov 2010)

asterix said:


> Two questions: First, your calcualtion would depend on the weight of rider and bike as well as speed and gradient? ; second, a hill of 10km, even in France is very unlikely to be a constant 7.5% all the way so are we talking average gradient?



OK, so I'm 10% out in the numbers.

The principle here is.... If an only half decent cyclist like me can simulate an Alpine climb that a pro did on a 39 chainring; and there not being any climbs in England that are anything like the Alpine climbs, why do people cower to a 34 tooth chainring on a sub 20 lb race bike?


----------



## cyberknight (14 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I stand by what I say.
> 
> When a young lad starts cycling, the maximum permissable gear on the bike is 52 x 14 ( 7.93m ). The bike will have a 52/38 because the lad doesn't want to be left behind by the lads with a 52/38. I had this crankset when I was fourteen.
> The rear block will be 14 - 28, giving a lowest gear of 38 x 28 = 37". I had a 38 x 25 = 41" cus' I was a big lad.
> ...



Or carry a good 15-20 llbs of stuff on a hilly commute ........................


----------



## jimboalee (14 Nov 2010)

I've been toying with the idea of swapping out the 52/42/30 on my Dawes Giro for a 48/36/26 for next year's Castleton Classic, Kiddy Killer and Cambrian.

I seldom use the 52 ring and the lower ratio offered by the 26 ring will come in handy.

But I would NEVER, NEVER swap out the 53/39 on my SWorks.


----------



## Garz (14 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> As I keep repeating... Compacts are for riders who can't pull a 39 x 25.
> 
> What they have to consider is "Am I submitting to my PRESENT physical capability, or shall I fit a chainset for my FUTURE capability; and work hard to get to a capability enough to pull the 39 x 25".
> 
> ...




Mumbo-jimbo!

If I'm on my "RACE BIKE" but I'm trying to get up a steep gradient pulling extra load with panniers.. I think a compact would be a justified gear choice.


----------



## jimboalee (14 Nov 2010)

What do you call a man with cooking vessels on the side of his head?

Panniers.


----------



## Banjo (14 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> What do you call a man with cooking vessels on the side of his head?
> 
> Panniers.



  Dont give up your day job


----------



## jimboalee (14 Nov 2010)

What do you call a man who puts panniers on his RACE BIKE?

Pan ears.....


----------



## TheDoctor (14 Nov 2010)

.


----------



## cyberknight (14 Nov 2010)

OK who p***ed of Jim?

I think it comes down to that some folk will want a triple , a compact or as he calls it a proper race double.

If you can do the route you want at the pace you want on the bike you want who cares?


----------



## Shaun (14 Nov 2010)

I think that with any "advice" question, you have to give an answer based on your knowledge and experience and leave it at that.

Let the person asking sift through the various bits of advice and decide for themselves what to try.

Make the advice simple and digestible for beginners, and if they ask for a more in-depth information then provide it; don't throw complex long-winded explanations at people who are just starting out or just getting back in to cycling.

Jim, I've spoken to you privately about overdoing the "advice" - please don't troll. Just offer your advice - simply - then wait for a request for more. If there isn't one, then don't post twaddle all over threads for the sake of seeing your theories in print.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## jimboalee (14 Nov 2010)

Choosing bicycle gearing is a bit too complicated to give advice over an internet forum.

Someone who knows what they are doing, an experienced racer and is a qualified fitness instructor needs to see the person who's asking, see the bike, get a brief of the countryside the person is intending to ride, and above all, get a good idea of the person's capabilities.

This, I'm afraid is beyond a ten page thread on CycleChat.

If the OP knows a LBS where the owner is an ex racer and coaches young cyclists, he should go and chat there.


----------



## Randochap (14 Nov 2010)

I like triples. As I've explained before, I like the closer spacing available on wide-range gearing.


----------



## Garz (14 Nov 2010)

Jim I forgot to add a saddle bag and two full bottles in cages for the race bike weight.. still ok on a standard double up a 20% ?


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Nov 2010)

Jim please try and note the difference between, 'Beginners' and 'Know How'.
You opinions of riders and their personal choices aside.

At the end of the day no amount of percentages, output, wattage and technical talk can help some one simply get started.
I couldn't tell you what gearing half of my bikes have had and neither did that bother me or spoil cycling for me.

If it is, by your own admission, too complicated to explain on CC then please don't.

Keep your posts out of 'Beginners'.


----------



## Garz (14 Nov 2010)

I feel a bit sorry for ol' jimbo, he entertains me and rarely gets my back up but that's because I have thick forum skin!






Let's get back on topic..


----------



## jimboalee (15 Nov 2010)

Have another read of Staffordshire Mamil's first post.

He tells us his age. He says he's 'getting back into road cycling'.
He tells us precisely the teeth numbers on the bikes he had and the bike he wishes to purchase.

I, for one, don't take Staffordshire Mamil to be a dunce.

Am I to assume that OPs in 'Beginners' haven't got a brain?


Now read my first reply. I talk to the guy like he's got some intelligence and is capable of understanding what its like riding up a hill, ( because he's 'getting back into road cycling' ).

Then I make a suggestion about a small inner chainring for the Peak District.

Does anyone have a problem with this?


----------



## asterix (15 Nov 2010)

Not at all. The OP walked straight into this one and has only himself to blame. I trust he will know better in future before asking for our opinion even more controversial matters .


----------



## 007fair (15 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> It has been mentioned on here that choice of low gear is dependant on the rider’s ability.
> 
> Yes of course it is when the rider is sat on the saddle using the muscles in his legs to produce the power.
> 
> ...



Jim you are absolutely right here	My recent experience on a 40 mile run with 1 guy on a double and the other on a single speed (me on a triple and way behind on the hills) got me thinking about the speed in which I was taking the hills. The slower you go up the more time you are on it and the more momentum you lose I was using the inner ring just because it was there but this means I am on the hill alot longer .. which is energy sapping 

So my run yesterday I decided to attack the hills get out of the saddle when required and NEVER use the inner ring. So my lowest gear was 39x27 It worked a treat .. a hilly ride but i did it faster than normal, I was able to keep the same pace on the return run and also had more energy left at the end	This will be my rule from now on for these types of runs! 

I am still glad to have the triple for light touring or really long runs when after a tiring day in the saddle the last thing you want to do is attack a hill out of a saddle 

So my advice Get a triple but don't use the inner ring! (unless you are touring)


----------



## pubrunner (15 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Now for us people in England, there aren’t many hills that are 7.5% for 10km, *so why would anyone need a Compact chainset on a race bike?
> *



If you were to come to where I live in the foothills of the Berwyns, I could show you why many cyclists would appreciate a Compact chainset.

There are very few flat areas around here, after cycling for a few hours & feeling a bit of fatigue, I really appreciate a Compact. So would you, if you were to cycle from Llangynog to Bala (for example), along the B4391; the longest part of *continuous* climb, is *330m* over just *6.26km*. (1082ft of climb, in just 3.89 miles).

Compacts are ideal - for where I live.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Nov 2010)

pubrunner said:


> If you were to come to where I live in the foothills of the Berwyns, I could show you why many cyclists would appreciate a Compact chainset.
> 
> There are very few flat areas around here, after cycling for a few hours & feeling a bit of fatigue, I really appreciate a Compact. So would you, if you were to cycle from Llangynog to Bala (for example), along the B4391; the longest part of *continuous* climb, is *330m* over just *6.26km*. (1082ft of climb, in just 3.89 miles).
> 
> Compacts are ideal - for where I live.



I'm the lad who rode from Llangollen to the top of the Horse Shoe pass on a brand spanking new sparkly Peugeot PX10 Roadrace bike in 1975.
The bike had a 52/38 with a 14 to 25 five speed screw-on. Perfect for a schoolboy.

"What's a Compact?"  replied the LBS man when I told him that in 2010, cyclists need really small chainrings to climb up Welsh hills.


----------



## TheDoctor (15 Nov 2010)

Well, bully for you. I did it on a Brommie.
Shall we have a pissing competition?


----------



## Garz (15 Nov 2010)

Be careful the wind blows westwards today!


----------



## jimboalee (15 Nov 2010)

No. Let's toss for it.

First one to fill a bucket.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> No. Let's toss for it.
> 
> First one to fill a bucket.



I conceed. You win. You're much quicker than me.


----------



## Tynan (15 Nov 2010)

maybe the riders having to do big hills in this country have further to go than the coffee machine afterwards?

and maybe not everyone is at Delgado's level?

I do enjoy your posts jimbo, in a good way


----------



## Shaun (15 Nov 2010)

Sorry, but this is just getting stupid. Wind your necks in and stop spoiling threads.

Apologies to the OP - I assume there's enough "advice" here for you to digest for the moment. Please feel free to start another thread if you have any more specific questions.

I'm locking the thread.


----------

