# Change from triple to compact



## Enw.nigel (25 Mar 2012)

Have any of you done this? I am considering changing from a 50/39/30 -12-27 to a 50/34 - 11-28. I know that there is little difference between the high and low gears on both but does the change take a bit of getting used to?
On another thread xpc316e mentioned that he had made the change and 'fallen in love' with compacts as a method of transmission.
Has anyone else an experience that they would like to share?


----------



## Hacienda71 (25 Mar 2012)

I have and there are pros and cons to both setups. The triple will give you smaller jumps in ratios but will weigh a little more. My Carbon road bike has a compact, my steel winter bike has a triple. The options you give will give you a slightly lower gear on the triple. Sram Apex allows a 32 rear which would give you a lower ratio than a triple. Personally I find my triple smoother to ride while with the compact I do seem to find myself looking for the gear I want more often than on the triple.
I am happy to live with both.


----------



## ColinJ (25 Mar 2012)

I've never ridden a compact, but given a choice between a triple and a compact, I'd always go for a triple because a wider range of gears with smaller steps between them makes sense to me.

I'll ask a similar question to run alongside this one... 

How about the switch from a conventional double chainset to a compact - how does that feel in terms of the bigger steps between the rings, and any extra shifts required at the back as a result of changing rings? I have a 53/39 on my Cannondale and find it overgeared for climbing round here. I think it would be cheaper to convert to a compact, so that's what I am considering. What costs are involved? (I have Chorus 10-speed with a medium length rear mech.)


----------



## Dave7 (25 Mar 2012)

Having sold my bike with tripple (I've always had tripple) I decided to go with compact on the new one. Only done 2 rides as yet-a 10 then a 20 miler.......and have not needed to come out of the inner/smaller front cog as yet-----I do live in a flat area but with 2 shortish/steepish hills over motorways.
My reasoning is/was that

I very seldom came out of the middle on the tripple
The compact give me virtually the same range-be it larger increments.
Early days yet but I think I have done the right thing......I'm building up to do the Anglesey permiter this year so that will tell me for certain.


----------



## Poacher (25 Mar 2012)

Bear in mind that front changers differ dependent on whether they're designed for triple or double chainrings.
(See http://sheldonbrown.com/front-derailers.html). I'm running a 34/52 with a 13-26 8-speed cassette on my commuter; the front changer fell apart a few weeks ago and in order to get the bike back on the road quickly I fitted a triple changer from the spares box. Changes down from the 52 to the 34 are quick and reliable, but up changes are anything but smooth.
Generally much less of a problem, but also worth consideration, is that triples _tend_ to need a longer axle for 'perfect' chainline, so fitting a double chainset on a BB optimised for a triple _may_ slightly increase wear of both chain and cassette.


----------



## boydj (25 Mar 2012)

I first got a 'compact' double about 18 months ago after years of riding only triples. I found the big jumps between chainrings and necessary compensating changes at the back a bit of a pain. I also found it difficult to find a comfortable cruising gear - the front chainring was a bit big and the small ring a bit too wee after years of cruising mostly in the 42 middle ring. Eventually, I bought some new chainrings and changed the bike to 48 / 36. Now I don't have a problem switching between the bike with the triple and the bike with the compact. I've got to like the compact and I can cruise comfortably, mostly on the big ring. Switching rings is not such a problem, but does still sometimes require a change at the back as well. I don't have the really low gear for big hills, but I've grown a bit stronger as a result and a cassette with some bigger cogs is always available for really tough rides (as is the 34 ring if necessary).

It takes a bit of getting used to and maybe some customising to find what suits you and the way you ride, but a compact can be a good solution.


----------



## PaulSB (26 Mar 2012)

After a year of thought I moved from a triple to compact double. It took me around 800 miles to get used to the double. On my triple I did virtually all my riding on the middle ring. The breakthrough for me on the double was learning to use the big ring for the majority of my ride, reserving the smaller for hills. 

On the toughest hills I miss the triple and suspect I will find some where I really struggle, but not yet. Overall I don't miss the triple and feel the double has improved my riding and overall performance.


----------



## orkneyblues (26 Mar 2012)

I have a compact on my Giant Defy 2 and a triple on my Dawes Galaxy. I found the compact harder at first untill I got used to it, missing the leg up the hills that the triple offered. Now I really dont mind which bike I am on, although if I have a heavier load on my commute I usually opt for the triple.


----------



## Arjimlad (26 Mar 2012)

I never used the smallest ring on my triple, but now I have a compact, I find the jump down from the 50 to the 34 rather extreme.

When starting climbing a hill, I can go from feeling that I am in too high a gear on the 50 ring, to spinning my legs round like a demented monkey, at the flick of a switch.

I almost always have to switch to a smaller cog on the back. I hope to get this smoother with time though, and have yet to run out of low gears on a hill climb.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Mar 2012)

Arjimlad said:


> I never used the smallest ring on my triple, but now I have a compact, I find the jump down from the 50 to the 34 rather extreme.
> 
> When starting climbing a hill, I can go from feeling that I am in too high a gear on the 50 ring, to spinning my legs round like a demented monkey, at the flick of a switch.
> 
> I almost always have to switch to a smaller cog on the back.


I think that's how I would feel too.

Like boydj and PaulSB, I spend a lot of time on the middle ring when not climbing or descending so a compact setup wouldn't be my first choice. I might leave my Cannondale gearing alone because I was okay on climbs up to about 17-18% on it when I was fit and hopefully, I will be again by the summer. ()


----------



## Enw.nigel (26 Mar 2012)

Certainly food for thought from a number of your comments. I can see the problems explained by arjimlad and that is one of my worries - learning to double shift on the cassette and chainring to avoid these big jumps. With my triple I tend to ride like you ColinJ and rarely use the small chainring which is what set me thinking about trying a compact. 
The bike I really fancy is only available in a compact (I'm double checking that - just in case) and my next choice which is available in a triple is not available 'til late May (Cube Agree GTC Race). I can't be without a bike for that length of time.
Decisions, decisions.What to do for the best. I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure now.
Thanks for all your comments.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Mar 2012)

E.N. - if you want to change from a triple because you don't use the small ring, then it would make more sense to change to a standard double, but then why not just stick with what you've got, save the money and the hassle, and keep the granny ring in reserve for the odd occasion when you tackle a 20% climb into a headwind at the end of an 80 mile ride, when you will find its charms irresistible!


----------



## DCLane (26 Mar 2012)

I've had three compact doubles in the past year and I've also got a couple of triples as well (erm, went into a bike buying fetish last year  ).

Overall the compact doubles are my favourite; I'm running 50/34 and 11-28/12-25 on the Spesh Sectuer depending upon the wheel setup (11-28 best, 11-25 daily). The Carrera's running a 50/34 12-23 set-up which is OK, but I'd prefer an 12-25 since it's almost exclusively a bad weather and winter commuting bike.

On the triple I use occasionally I find I'm not using the smaller ring and just confuse myself. I'm a simple person at heart. Compacts work easily; big/small. The triple I keep finding myself on the wrong ring


----------



## Hont (27 Mar 2012)

Agree with others that with a compact you need to change the rear gears at the same time as a front change. And I, also, tend to stay on the middle ring for most of the ride on my triple, which means that I'm too often changing front rings on the compact. I did hope that I'd have fewer chain off incidents but this has not proven to be the case. I've not had a problem with great ratio gaps on the cassette or missing a really small gear for steep climbs as I've gone from an 8 cog cassette to a 10 and the bike is much lighter.

For me the only advantage of a compact is weight. I much prefer the triple otherwise. Having said that, ask me again in July when I hope to be riding almost everywhere on the big ring. ;-)


----------



## david k (27 Mar 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> I have and there are pros and cons to both setups. The triple will give you smaller jumps in ratios but will weigh a little more. My Carbon road bike has a compact, my steel winter bike has a triple. The options you give will give you a slightly lower gear on the triple. Sram Apex allows a 32 rear which would give you a lower ratio than a triple. Personally I find my triple smoother to ride while with the compact I do seem to find myself looking for the gear I want more often than on the triple.
> I am happy to live with both.


i concur


----------



## User16625 (27 Mar 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I've never ridden a compact, but given a choice between a triple and a compact, I'd always go for a triple because a wider range of gears with smaller steps between them makes sense to me.
> 
> I'll ask a similar question to run alongside this one...
> 
> How about the switch from a conventional double chainset to a compact - how does that feel in terms of the bigger steps between the rings, and any extra shifts required at the back as a result of changing rings? I have a 53/39 on my Cannondale and find it overgeared for climbing round here. I think it would be cheaper to convert to a compact, so that's what I am considering. What costs are involved? (I have Chorus 10-speed with a medium length rear mech.)


 

Thought they were the same thing. Whats the difference between a normal double and a compact? Im assuming by its name that a compact has shorter ratios.


----------



## Hacienda71 (27 Mar 2012)

Your inner ring on a compact is either a 34 or 36t while a double would be a 38 or a 40t inner ring.


----------



## Thomk (27 Mar 2012)

orkneyblues said:


> I have a compact on my Giant Defy 2 and a triple on my Dawes Galaxy. I found the compact harder at first untill I got used to it, missing the leg up the hills that the triple offered. Now I really dont mind which bike I am on, although if I have a heavier load on my commute I usually opt for the triple.


I also have the Defy 2. When loaded with 8kg of pannier I puff and pant up steep hills and almost prefer my Charge Mixer with an 8 gear Alfine hub even though it's 7 or 8 Kg heavier!


----------



## totallyfixed (27 Mar 2012)

Took out a club rider today who like most newish riders [she had been riding for just over a year] had a compact. I was supposed to be teaching her how to climb hills but the compact was a nightmare to deal with, as someone else has said you go from a slightly too slow a cadence to a manic spin, this completely ruined any rhythm she had. In my humble opinion compacts are a very poor compromise between standard doubles and triples and seem to have appeared about the same time as sportives, I'm assuming to aid the newbie mamils in getting up 5% hills whilst still looking like they didn't need a triple. Weight saving??? Anyone actually picked up a granny ring? Can't be more than 30 or 40 grammes.....oops starting to rant.


----------



## Enw.nigel (27 Mar 2012)

ColinJ said:


> E.N. - if you want to change from a triple because you don't use the small ring, then it would make more sense to change to a standard double, but then why not just stick with what you've got, save the money and the hassle, and keep the granny ring in reserve for the odd occasion when you tackle a 20% climb into a headwind at the end of an 80 mile ride, when you will find its charms irresistible!


I would have stuck with what I had but someone pinched my Cayo triple 10 days ago. I am now looking around for another bike to purchase quickly (when the insurance is settled) as I am hoping to do the London-Paris in June and I need a replacement soon to keep on training.
Most suppliers don't stock triples but many stock compacts. After reading the comments here though I think I will stick with a triple -I don't think I want to learn the technique of double shifting regularly with a compact and just hope I can find a triple quickly in the bike of my choice.


----------



## ColinJ (27 Mar 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Took out a club rider today who like most newish riders [she had been riding for just over a year] had a compact. I was supposed to be teaching her how to climb hills but the compact was a nightmare to deal with, as someone else has said you go from a slightly too slow a cadence to a manic spin, this completely ruined any rhythm she had. In my humble opinion compacts are a very poor compromise between standard doubles and triples


Well, that has convinced me - my Cannondale will stay as a conventional double - 53/39! It's my fair-weather bike anyway so most of my rides will still be done on my triple-equipped Basso. I can choose less hilly routes for the Cannondale, such as our century forum ride on Sunday. When I'm fit, I get by quite happily on its 39/29 on all but longish stretches at 20%+ gradient.


Enw.nigel said:


> I would have stuck with what I had but someone pinched my Cayo triple 10 days ago. I am now looking around for another bike to purchase quickly (when the insurance is settled) as I am hoping to do the London-Paris in June and I need a replacement soon to keep on training.
> 
> Most suppliers don't stock triples but many stock compacts. After reading the comments here though I think I will stick with a triple -I don't think I want to learn the technique of double shifting regularly with a compact and just hope I can find a triple quickly in the bike of my choice.


Ah, I see - that's bad luck! I had a quick look just now and you are right - compacts are definitely flavour of the month in the stores!


----------



## PatrickPending (27 Mar 2012)

I went for a stronglight 50/34 on my winter commuter - liked it so much thast I put it on my (now main) other commuter. It was a specialized allez triple - i found i never used the granny ring and always found the front mech a bit of a pain to set up. The compact gives me all the range i need (think ie got 13/27 on the back) - bear in mind its leicester/warwickshgire on my commute so i dont encounter more than a 9% gradient


----------



## ColinJ (27 Mar 2012)

PatrickPending said:


> I went for a stronglight 50/34 on my winter commuter - liked it so much thast I put it on my (now main) other commuter. It was a specialized allez triple - i found i never used the granny ring and always found the front mech a bit of a pain to set up. The compact gives me all the range i need (think ie got 13/27 on the back) - bear in mind its leicester/warwickshgire on my commute so i dont encounter more than a 9% gradient


A standard double would probably have been fine for you living there!


----------



## Banjo (28 Mar 2012)

I have a triple Scott Speedster road bike. 99% of the time I only use the middle 39 or big 52 chain ring. Which change quite smoothly between the two.

Now and then on an extra big hill or when tired the 30 tooth granny ring is worth every gram of its weight.

I know you can get compact doubles with wide range of ratios buit the downside is the big jump in size between the two chainrings.


----------



## Cubist (28 Mar 2012)

Late to the debate, but here's my experience. I had a compact double Boardman, with 50/36 and an 11-32 cassette. I tried a 34 inner ring, but there were so many huge gaps in the gearing that on occasions I had to triple shift to maintain cadence. It felt very wrong so I put the 36 back on. Even then it began to annoy me that I had to double shift, and I was determined to have a triple on the next bike. Bliss. Current triple has 50/39/30 and a 12-38 cassette. Very much smoother and more civilised, and about 100 grams heavier than the compact. Meh.!


----------



## ColinJ (28 Mar 2012)

Cubist said:


> Current triple has 50/39/30 and a 12-38 cassette. Very much smoother and more civilised, and about 100 grams heavier than the compact. Meh.!


12-*28* cassette, methinks!


----------



## Cubist (28 Mar 2012)

ColinJ said:


> 12-*28* cassette, methinks!


Typo's are so important. I asked someone the other day whether the frame I was buying took a 60.9mm seatpost. Not much flex there/ 

MTB cassettes have already reached 11-36 in 10 speed and 12-36 in 9 speed, we'll have 38s soon enough!


----------



## PaulSB (28 Mar 2012)

Cubist said:


> ........ there were so many huge gaps in the gearing that on occasions I had to triple shift to maintain cadence. It felt very wrong so I put the 36 back on. Even then it began to annoy me that I had to double shift.......



Could someone expand on this? It's been mentioned a few times and I'm not sure I'm grasping it. 

Is a double shift having to change both front and rear at the same time or one immediately after the other?

I don't do / experience a need for this so would like to understand more.


----------



## Hacienda71 (28 Mar 2012)

PaulSB said:


> Could someone expand on this? It's been mentioned a few times and I'm not sure I'm grasping it.
> 
> Is a double shift having to change both front and rear at the same time or one immediately after the other?
> 
> I don't do / experience a need for this so would like to understand more.


 
Yes you have it. The jump between the front rings on a compact is so big (in teeth terms) you need to change the rear as well to maintain a similar cadence. Otherwise you end up spinning wildly and losing momentum when you change to the small inner.


----------



## totallyfixed (28 Mar 2012)

Just to make the point, last year one of the top duathlon ladies approached me to ask if I thought her gearing was what she really needed, she had a compact. To cut a long story short I fitted her bike with a regular 52/42 set up, she had previously only ever had a compact, after her first ride on the new double her reaction was wow! How much easier and smoother was that! On the back she had a 12-25 cassette, easily good enough to get a strong rider up most hills.
Another interesting thing I have noticed is that big chain rings on new bikes seem to have jumped up a tooth to 53 instead of what had always been as far as I can remember 52. Are people getting stronger? Think it might be a bit of willy waving




plus it makes the drop on to an inner compact even worse.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Mar 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Another interesting thing I have noticed is that big chain rings on new bikes seem to have jumped up a tooth to 53 instead of what had always been as far as I can remember 52. Are people getting stronger? Think it might be a bit of willy waving
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My Cannondale has 53/39 rings and when I bought the groupset I specified a 13-29 cassette instead of the 12-25 that was offered me. I knew that I didn't have any need for a 53-12 gear and that a 39-25 wasn't low enough for me. A 53-13 top gear is more sensible, and a 39-29 bottom gear more usable.

My Basso has a 52/39/30 chainset and originally had a 12-23 cassette which I replaced with a 13-26 when it wore out, and now I use a 14-28! Mostly, that is because I've piled the weight on and lost fitness, but partly it is because I can pedal to 35 mph in a 52-14 gear anyway (downhill with a tailwind!) so why do I need higher gears? On long descents, I can freewheel from 35 mph to 55 mph which is about as fast as I dare go. The 30-28 granny gear gets plenty of use on the more monstrous climbs round here.

Once, a bunch of lads overtook me at the foot of the steep Quernmore climb on the Pendle Pedal sportive. As they passed, they poked fun at my triple chainset. A couple of minutes later I span past them as they dismounted and walked their overgeared bikes up the hill!


----------



## VamP (29 Mar 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Just to make the point, last year one of the top duathlon ladies approached me to ask if I thought her gearing was what she really needed, she had a compact. To cut a long story short I fitted her bike with a regular 52/42 set up, she had previously only ever had a compact, after her first ride on the new double her reaction was wow! How much easier and smoother was that! On the back she had a 12-25 cassette, easily good enough to get a strong rider up most hills.
> Another interesting thing I have noticed is that big chain rings on new bikes seem to have jumped up a tooth to 53 instead of what had always been as far as I can remember 52. Are people getting stronger? Think it might be a bit of willy waving
> 
> 
> ...


 

42-25 is quite a low gear to have as your lowest to push around hilly terrain. I'm not sure I'd fancy that.

Personally, I don't find the compact combination of 50/36 difficult to use at all. Sure, there's times when you need trim out the sprockets following a chainring change, but it's pretty easy to anticipate.


----------



## rich p (29 Mar 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Just to make the point, last year one of the top duathlon ladies approached me to ask if I thought her gearing was what she really needed, she had a compact. To cut a long story short I fitted her bike with a regular 52/42 set up, she had previously only ever had a compact, after her first ride on the new double her reaction was wow! How much easier and smoother was that! On the back she had a 12-25 cassette, easily good enough to get a strong rider up most hills.
> Another interesting thing I have noticed is that big chain rings on new bikes seem to have jumped up a tooth to 53 instead of what had always been as far as I can remember 52. Are people getting stronger? Think it might be a bit of willy waving
> 
> 
> ...


 There's not a snowball chance in hell of me getting up a long hill of 10% plus on a 42/25. It's horses for courses. My local hill climb of 11% is about a mile long and I get up it quickest spinning on 30/25 although I could struggle up it slower on a slightly higher gear.


----------



## Holdsworth (29 Mar 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Took out a club rider today who like most newish riders [she had been riding for just over a year] had a compact. I was supposed to be teaching her how to climb hills but the compact was a nightmare to deal with, as someone else has said you go from a slightly too slow a cadence to a manic spin, this completely ruined any rhythm she had. In my humble opinion compacts are a very poor compromise between standard doubles and triples and seem to have appeared about the same time as sportives, I'm assuming to aid the newbie mamils in getting up 5% hills whilst still looking like they didn't need a triple. Weight saving??? Anyone actually picked up a granny ring? Can't be more than 30 or 40 grammes.....oops starting to rant.


 
I'll agree with that. I find that the difference between the inner and big rings on my 50/34 compact is just too great. As soon as I am spinning up past 15mph I will change up to the big ring, and at the same time drop a gear on the rear, I will begin to grind and struggle. I much prefer triple on my touring bike for the smaller steps between the rings which allows me to keep a good rhythm. I do most of my riding in the middle, 38t, ring and it is only after 20mph that I move onto the big, 48t, ring. I allow myself to spin up beforehand and make sure that I will be able to keep up the speed before changing up. There is still that jump but it is more comfortable and requires no double-shifting. I think that I will invest in a triple when I eventually buy a new road bike.


----------



## david k (29 Mar 2012)

i have both and prefer my triple, that said ill get used to the compact


----------



## monnet (30 Mar 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Another interesting thing I have noticed is that big chain rings on new bikes seem to have jumped up a tooth to 53 instead of what had always been as far as I can remember 52. Are people getting stronger? Think it might be a bit of willy waving
> 
> 
> 
> plus it makes the drop on to an inner compact even worse.


 
Getting stronger - based on no research whatsoever, I'd say no.

Standard double is now 53-39 vice 52-42 (and has been for about 10 years now). The reason being mainly advancing technology. With 10 sprockets at the back, 53-39 allows a wide range of ratios but with very small jumps. On balance 52 or 53 makes little real difference 52x11 is bigger than 53x12 but both are virtually impossible to pedal at any meaningful cadence. As someone who races, I find 53x39 great (though the 39 rarely gets a look in in most races) and in the odd tailwind sprint or downhill the 53x11 does get used. 

In answer to the OP, in summer I train and race on a standard double. For everything else I ride triples. My winter training bike has a 52-39-30 whilst the commuter/hack has 50-39-30. I've never tried a compact but what I see of people using them is that they often end up running a lot of chain cross over. A triple offers the best of a double (choose standard 53 or 52 outer, or go lower 50 or 48), a middle ring that you can ride comfortably with the get out clause of a granny.


----------



## Enw.nigel (9 Apr 2012)

I started this thread off because, after having my Focus Cayo triple stolen, I was finding it very difficult to buy a triple 'off the shelf'. More choice with compacts so I thought I might give them a go. However, after reading the comments on this thread, my gut instinct told me that it's a triple I should stick to having ridden one for many years.
I had been looking at the Izalco Pro4 because it has the same geometry frame as the Cayo and I wanted to treat myself after losing my 1st pride and joy.They also do them in race, compact and triple. I downloaded all the Focus Suppliers in the UK from their website and telephoned/emailed 25 of them asking for a triple. Lots of helpful replies with people willing to order a triple but not one in stock until I had an email reply from a LBS in Norwich who had one in stock. 
The rest is history. I am now the proud owner of an Izalco Pro 4 TRIPLE which looks much too good for me. The paint finish is superb unlike the natural carbon finish on my previous Cayo. What does it ride like? Time will tell as I'm still getting my riding legs back after being out of the saddle for 3 weeks.
One thing is for sure and that is I am glad I started this thread off, took note of all your replies, and stuck with a TRIPLE. Thanks to you all.


----------



## totallyfixed (9 Apr 2012)

Enw.nigel said:


> I started this thread off because, after having my Focus Cayo triple stolen, I was finding it very difficult to buy a triple 'off the shelf'. More choice with compacts so I thought I might give them a go. However, after reading the comments on this thread, my gut instinct told me that it's a triple I should stick to having ridden one for many years.
> I had been looking at the Izalco Pro4 because it has the same geometry frame as the Cayo and I wanted to treat myself after losing my 1st pride and joy.They also do them in race, compact and triple. I downloaded all the Focus Suppliers in the UK from their website and telephoned/emailed 25 of them asking for a triple. Lots of helpful replies with people willing to order a triple but not one in stock until I had an email reply from a LBS in Norwich who had one in stock.
> The rest is history. I am now the proud owner of an Izalco Pro 4 TRIPLE which looks much too good for me. The paint finish is superb unlike the natural carbon finish on my previous Cayo. What does it ride like? Time will tell as I'm still getting my riding legs back after being out of the saddle for 3 weeks.
> One thing is for sure and that is I am glad I started this thread off, took note of all your replies, and stuck with a TRIPLE. Thanks to you all.


Good luck with that IMO you have made the right choice. To add to what I said earlier, these days when I am out riding in a group it used to be a mechanically silent affair, nowadays when we get to a hill I hear multiple clunking noises from all the compacts. Long live standard doubles, triples and fixed.


----------



## ianrauk (9 Apr 2012)

Pictures of the new steed please Nigel...


----------



## ColinJ (9 Apr 2012)

Sounds like a nice bike. Just be careful where you leave it ...!


----------



## Enw.nigel (9 Apr 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Pictures of the new steed please Nigel...





ColinJ said:


> Sounds like a nice bike. Just be careful where you leave it ...!


----------



## ColinJ (9 Apr 2012)

No comment!


----------



## Enw.nigel (9 Apr 2012)

Meant to add 'once bitten .................' Colin and will post pics Ianrauk.


----------



## Enw.nigel (10 Apr 2012)

Photos of my new pride and joy - Focus Izalco Pro 4 TRIPLE. Not sure on the bottle cage colour as that was a Christmas gift to go on my late Focus Cayo. Might change it to black and white.
I have a new set of Fulcrum Racing 5's with black/white Ultremo zx's which were going to be my summer wheels to go on the Cayo. I will swap these over with the DT Swiss R1850's in a couple of weeks.
I can't find the spec. for the R1850's only RR1850's and they are definitely a different wheel - spoke count to start with. I'll run the R1850's for a couple of weeks to see what they are like.


----------



## ColinJ (10 Apr 2012)

_Mmmmm ...!_ 

Just one piece of advice from someone who has a white saddle on his bike - watch out for the oily handprints on your bar tape!


----------



## MattHB (10 Apr 2012)

Now That's a sexy chain set! 


My god.. I don't believe I just typed that  ok, I'm addicted huh


----------

