# trek 1.2 double or triple



## kingy_88 (13 Sep 2009)

i think i have decided on buying a trek 1.2 but dont know wether the double or triple would be best for me, i will be using it for my commute of 11 miles each way or should i spent a little more as i will be using the bike to work scheme and go for the Trek 1.5 ??


----------



## upsidedown (13 Sep 2009)

Go for the best you can afford, don't see why you would got for a double instead of a triple unless you're a serious racer who wants to save a few grammes.


----------



## Downward (13 Sep 2009)

It depends where your gonna be riding your bike and how fit you are.
I have the 1.5C, I wanted the 1.2C but no stock in my size.

To be honest as soon as I rode the 1.5 I knew I wanted it but had to borrow the extra ££ from the wife so the decision was hers !


----------



## jamesxyz (13 Sep 2009)

Agree with the posts above in terms of bike - get the best you can afford. Last year I got the 1.5 and almost immediately wished I'd stretched myself to get at least the 1.7 or 1.9. The spec is much better - some of the parts on the 1.2 / 1.5 are of questionable quality i.e. unbranded calipers. The QR on both mine broke within a month as they were part plastic - I went back to Evans (sorry I know but I was a beginner!) to see if they could replace the plastic washers but instead upgraded to 105s for free!

Regarding triple or double half depends on how fit / old you are and half depends on where you live / ride most. I got a triple as I live on the edge of the peninnes and there's very little flat around and I'm nearly always climbing or descending but if you live in say Norfolk, a compact is much better, lighter, smoother. After a year on a triple I got a second bike to upgrade and got a compact but I know I would have struggled on this in the beginning until my fitness / bike handling got better.

Good luck


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2009)

Bear in mind that although your riding now may be flattish, you may want to go to try your hand at Alpe d'Huez one day!


----------



## Garz (13 Sep 2009)

Downward said:


> It depends where your gonna be riding your bike and how fit you are.!



+1

If your fit a compact will be perfect, if your not or its (very) hilly around your area then play safe and go triple.


----------



## Downward (13 Sep 2009)

I have been riding for 1 year about 100 miles per month. Average speed is 12-15mph. Steepest hill is a 10% which is 3/4-1 mile long which I can achieve on the 1.5 Compact.
However the 16.7% 3/4 mile hill is a struggle on compact but this is a leisure ride so it's not like i need to go up it everyday.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (13 Sep 2009)

Garz said:


> +1
> 
> If your fit a compact will be perfect, if your not or its (very) hilly around your area then play safe and go triple.



compacts are just a compromise, and are used by people who want the low gears that a triple offers, but who think tripes "uncool". a triple gives the best spread of gears. compact users often find that the 'drop' between chainrings on a triple is a little too much.


----------



## Garz (13 Sep 2009)

I don't think a triple is "uncool" as I didn't get a choice when I bought my boardman! Like many on here, after reading a few posts it seems there's a divide between the two setups but quite frankly I think its childish to argue over it.

As my previous bike was a cross between a MTB and a hybrid which too had awesome granny gears but not a triple, I cant compare it directly. What I have experienced is around where I live that I am able to scale all the hills so far. My only test of endurance was on a charity ride from Lancaster to York which did have two monstrous hills which I barely got up, something if I was in any less condition would have been unable to do.

So again, agreeing with downward, if you dont have access to big hills or are quite fit then theres nothing wrong with a compact..


----------



## MacB (14 Sep 2009)

I've hummed and hawed over this, I have a triple and got to the lowest gear frequently when first riding, It's a 52/42/30 with a 9 speed 12-26 cassette. Using the Sheldon gear calculator, and selecting gear inches as a result, this gives:-

30 ring - 30.3 to 65.7 inches
42 ring - 42.5 to 92 inches
52 ring - 52.6 to 113.9 inches

I've only once used the large ring and that was gear 7 so 97.6 inches. Majority is middle ring and from 65 to 85 inches, beyond that I find that downhills I can often go faster just by tucking down, rather than trying to pedal. The small ring, though rarely used now, is a nice security factor. I'd rather lose the 52 ring than the 30, I can get all the speed I need from a 42x12 combo, this gives 33mph at 120rpm, 27.4mph at 100rpm and 24.6mph at 90rpm. The 52 ring gives only 3 gears higher and I've only used one of them once in 2500 miles.

I originally wanted to get a bike that did everything but have accepted that more than one bike is a better solution. But when I've looked at compact and double setups all my calcs indicate I'd end up with a lot more front shifting than with a triple. Most advice I've received is to go triple, ride the majority in the middle and treat inner and outer as extras to be used as needed. Chainsets where you can replace the rings seperately make sense, ie you'd wear the middle ring before the others.


----------



## jimboalee (14 Sep 2009)

Ring Sprocket Inches Step "
30 25 32 
30 23 35 3
30 21 38 3
30 19 42 4
30 17 47 5
42 21 53 6
42 19 59 6
42 17 65 6
42 16 70 5
42 15 74 4
42 14 78 4
52 17 81 3
52 16 86 5
52 15 92 6
52 14 98 6
52 13 106 8


----------



## kingy_88 (14 Sep 2009)

i live in nottinghamshire so its quite flat around me but i would eventually like to travel and ride elsewhere. fitness levels, i would say im reasonably fit but nothing i couldn't improve on alot. so i think a triple would be better for me.


----------



## MacB (14 Sep 2009)

kingy_88 said:


> i live in nottinghamshire so its quite flat around me but i would eventually like to travel and ride elsewhere. fitness levels, i would say im reasonably fit but nothing i couldn't improve on alot. so i think a triple would be better for me.




wise, having a granny ring doesn't mean using it but it does give peace of mind. Being able to cycle on up when others have had to get off and walk is also nice


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Sep 2009)

alecstilleyedye said:


> compacts are just a compromise, and are used by people who want the low gears that a triple offers, but who think tripes "uncool". a triple gives the best spread of gears. compact users often find that the 'drop' between chainrings on a *triple* is a little too much.




But I think you meant Compact...
+1


----------



## kingy_88 (14 Sep 2009)

triple it is thank for the advice


----------



## Nickl52 (16 Sep 2009)

I was pondering over the 1.2 and 1.5 (09 model) but there were none in stock. I was then let down by my LBS with a Scott Speedseter and they have now offered me the 2010, 1.5 Trek for £650 instead of £775 due to me being inconvenienced... i pick it up Saturday.... for me it has been worth the hassle, but I probably would have stretched to the full price originally for the newer model due to the better spec.


----------



## jay clock (16 Sep 2009)

I have a 1.2 with a triple and my other road bike is a compact. I use the Trek as a winter bike and love it. The brakes were not great but I have just stuck new ones on and they seem better. The bike only sees action from Oct to March and I really recommend it as a good all rounder. If you do get a double make sure it is a compact chainset (ie 34/50)


----------



## jay clock (16 Sep 2009)

sorry, see here too http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/sh...highlight=trek


----------



## Downward (16 Sep 2009)

Sometimes when your not at your best the Compact is a battle up the hills - But the way I see it is if I want to plod around I can use my hybrid and the Road bike is going to be for fitness.


----------



## jimboalee (17 Sep 2009)

One report I found had the Trek 1.2 at 8.4 kg ?? Confirmation please.

Add pedals and bottles of water and it will increase to about 9.5 ( or 21 lb ).

All wise old sages will tell you a 21 lb bike needs a 48" gear to get up a 10%. 44" inches to get up a 12% and 40" to get up a 14%.

As long as the double 'Compact' has a gear in the thirties, you're laughing.

The triple is for those rare 20% grades known to evil sportive organisers.


----------



## jimboalee (17 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> One report I found had the Trek 1.2 at 8.4 kg ?? Confirmation please.
> 
> Add pedals and bottles of water and it will increase to about 9.5 ( or 21 lb ).
> 
> ...



34 x 26 is 35".

What are you worrying about?


----------



## Banjo (17 Sep 2009)

I have a Trek Valencia Hybrid road bike triple. I use the granny ring less now than I did but now and then when finding a steep bit when legs are tired its a lifesaver.


----------



## rich p (17 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> One report I found had the Trek 1.2 at 8.4 kg ?? Confirmation please.
> 
> Add pedals and bottles of water and it will increase to about 9.5 ( or 21 lb ).
> 
> ...



As usual Jim is making assumptions based either on his own experience or some mythical 'truths'.

I regularly ride up Ditchling Beacon which is an average of 10% with a max of 12% and the most comfortable gearing for me is 30 x 25 (or 30 x 23 on a good day). So for my hips, knees and cadence preference the gear inches I use on a 10% hill is 32" or 35".


----------



## jimboalee (17 Sep 2009)

rich p said:


> As usual Jim is making assumptions based either on his own experience or some mythical 'truths'.
> 
> I regularly ride up Ditchling Beacon which is an average of 10% with a max of 12% and the most comfortable gearing for me is 30 x 25 (or 30 x 23 on a good day). So for my hips, knees and cadence preference the gear inches I use on a 10% hill is 32" or 35".



Is that you in your avatar?
Is that your bike?
Does it weigh 21 lb?


----------



## nmcgann (17 Sep 2009)

I'd always recommend a triple to beginners, there are no compromises with ratios and steps between front chainrings and there will be a gear for just about every situation. The "triple is heavier" argument is pretty laughable (usually under 100g difference to have the inner ring) and IMO it's down to appearance and fashion rather than any practical reason.

The main advantage of a compact is that it is harder for other riders to tell you are using very low gears 

Neil


----------



## jimboalee (17 Sep 2009)

OP.

Is the '88' in your membername a reference to your year of birth?

If yes, you'll be 21 this year. Congrats on that. 

Question... Do you think you could be HALF as good cyclist as a professional?

If yes, the Compact is OK for you.

[The mysterious gear calculator is aimed at the cyclist who is beginning but WANTS to be average]


----------



## Garz (17 Sep 2009)

Hehe a unique way to look at it jim but very apt.


----------



## johnnyb (17 Sep 2009)

I have just had a 2010 Trek 1.2 compact - I ordered a triple but evans couldn't deliver, so it was the compact. I am not the fittest but have ridden 90+ miles on it since friday and all I can say is it is a superb bike. I've hit one or two hills but nothing that I couldn't ascend!


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Is that you in your avatar?
> Is that your bike?
> Does it weigh 21 lb?



OK Jimbo.
I also ride Ditchling regularly. My fave gear is similar to rich P's at 30x25.
I used to climb it on a heavier bike, a fixie of 42x15. That's quite a gearing difference.
Go figure mumbo-jimbo!


----------



## MacB (17 Sep 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> OK Jimbo.
> I also ride Ditchling regularly. My fave gear is similar to rich P's at 30x25.
> I used to climb it on a heavier bike, a fixie of 42x15. That's quite a gearing difference.
> Go figure mumbo-jimbo!



Noooooo.......you and RichP are way out of line......this is like unveiling the Wizard of Oz.......you take all the magic out of things!


----------



## Downward (17 Sep 2009)

Trek 1.5 comes in at about 10kg Jimbo and the 1.2 is heavier.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Sep 2009)

A 12 1/2 stone cyclist riding a 11 kg bike with some kit might total 92 kg total vehicle.

According to the CTC's 'PowerCalc'.xls, their 'Tourist' bike of 92kg total weight riding up a 10% gradient requires 299 Watts at a speed of 10kmh ( 6.25 mph ). I would agree with this.

Let's analyse this 12 ½ stone cyclist.
He's 175lb which is 79.5kg or 780 Newtons total.

His crank length is 0.17m so he can produce 132 Nm max ( without pulling up the backstroke ).
He pedals at 50 rpm, and using the 9459.3 constant, is generating 701 Watts peak.

Wow, that's over double what the CTC says he needs.

6.25 mph at 50 rpm is a 42" gear, which to the witchcraft is applicable to a 24lb bike ( 11kg ).

The rider is 79.5kg, the bike is 11kg, his kit is 1.5kg totalling 92kg.

Now I ask you, standing up on the pedal can get 700 Watts; and it needs 300 to *climb a 10 % at 6.25 mph on a 42" gear*, can YOU do that or not?


----------



## jimboalee (18 Sep 2009)

Look at it another way. Sit down and apply pressure on the pedal equivalent to a THIRD of your bodyweight and spin at 80 rpm.
This gives 380 Watts, which is plenty enough to get up that 10%.

In this scenario, you will be pedaling 80 rpm at 7.75 mph which is a 32" gear. 

--- 30 x 25 ---

Well what do you know????

This gear happens to be the lowest on your bike, so what happens when you arrive at a 12% or a 14%, or even an 18% ?

Pedal slower.


----------



## kingy_88 (18 Sep 2009)

this is all getting abit complicated for me lol, i am goin to mt LBS 2morrow and i will get them to explain everything to me. 

Jimbo, yeah im 21 and no i dont think i would be half as good as a pro, i think better lol only jesting.


----------



## Downward (18 Sep 2009)

At 21 if your not totally unfit and lets face it at 21 even if you have been slobbing since 16 you should be than go for the 1.5 Compact.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Sep 2009)

kingy_88 said:


> this is all getting abit complicated for me lol, i am *goin to mt LBS 2morrow and i will get them to explain everything to me*.
> 
> Jimbo, yeah im 21 and no i dont think i would be half as good as a pro, i think better lol only jesting.



Don't bank on it.

£5 says they couldn't quote the kW = ( Nm x RPM ) / 9459.3 equation


----------



## jimboalee (21 Sep 2009)

kingy_88 said:


> this is all getting abit complicated for me lol, i am goin to mt LBS 2morrow and i will get them to explain everything to me.
> 
> Jimbo, yeah im 21 and no i* dont think i would be half as good as a pro, i think better* lol only jesting.



Good for you....

"Don't be a Noddy, be a Big Gears".


----------

