change a triple to compact

[steve52]

seek help!!!!!

 

[zigzag]

So, for me, it's a standard double for road, and a standard double plus granny for touring/audax/long distance.

so you would prefer the bike on the left, i take it

 

[e-rider]

gears, tyres, saddles, pedals etc. are personal choice, not sure if anyone can tell/advise you what suits you better. you are an experienced rider and know which gears you tend to use and what you like or don't like about them. in my view the most suitable gears for wide audience would be something like 42/30 in the front and 11-28 in the back. i wonder if those bikes would be easier or harder to sell. i often see bikes (usually hybrid) parked with their big ring squeaky clean while the middle one is worn and oily.

after lots of experiments and calculations my personal choice is single ring in the front for simplicity, reliability and linear gear change. i much prefer bigger steps between the gears as it means less shifting, and i can't be asked to shift too often. i still need to shift twice when climbing seated/standing.

for non-racers the right choice of gears is not about speed, but about convenience i.e. "is the shifting smooth and flawless", "is the drivetrain quiet in all your preferred combinations", "have you ever had a chainsuck", "do steep hills defeat you" etc. (racer would only care "if this bike allows to go as fast as i possibly can")

so, getting back to Yello's question - i'd say leave a triple as it is or build a custom gearing from scratch.

p.s. and don't listen to Aperitif about my fitness or mental state - how can he know?

these might be your opinions but it sounds like nonsense to me; especially:

you prefer big jumps between gears!!!
42T outer ring!!!

 

[Garz]

gears, tyres, saddles, pedals etc. are personal choice, not sure if anyone can tell/advise you what suits you better. you are an experienced rider and know which gears you tend to use and what you like or don't like about them...

...i often see bikes (usually hybrid) parked with their big ring squeaky clean while the middle one is worn and oily.

after lots of experiments and calculations my personal choice is single ring in the front for simplicity, reliability and linear gear change. i much prefer bigger steps between the gears as it means less shifting, and i can't be asked to shift too often. i still need to shift twice when climbing seated/standing.

for non-racers the right choice of gears is not about speed, but about convenience i.e. "is the shifting smooth and flawless", "is the drivetrain quiet in all your preferred combinations"..."do steep hills defeat you" etc.

Very nice post zigzag, I quite agree.

Another vote for a triple. I had thought about doing what you intend but even though I am no mathmatician I worked out that I would not have a " get out of jail gear/s" so I never bothered. I would love to look cool and ride a compact but then a) I would rather ride hills however slowly than walk and B) I have never been cool in my life.

This point is not so clear cut any more, with SRAM offering the apex for example with a 11-32 (or 28) 'get out of jail gear' is right there!


If anything, if I have too many low gears to choose it encourages one to become lazy and spin up hills at a reduced speed, thus not promoting fitness. I can understand winter or early season due to fitness reasons or a particularly hilly sportive or laden touring should be the only reason to require such low gearing.

There's nothing nicer, when travelling fast, than a close ratio block (or cassette for you younger members) so that a click up or down fine-tunes your cadence. I wouldn't put a wide ratio cassette on anything but a commuting/shopping hack or an mtb. And a huge jump between outer and inner rings is equally discombobulating. So, for me, it's a standard double for road, and a standard double plus granny for touring/audax/long distance.

As above, people who complain of the 'big jumps' seem to forget the terrain required a 'jump' in gears to keep the momentum. An example is if I am approaching an incline, say a short 7% hill, then knocking down one cog at the rear wont make any difference. I tend to drop down a few so if I had this close ratio it would only be getting bypassed for the preferred gear.

For me I can only see a win-win scenario since the manufacturers have enabled compacts to allow the get out of jail low end. For people who bang on about proper double's either ride across flat terrain or are fit enough to compete.

There are of course people who ride for the fun of it! So buy what you like, ride what you like, simples!

 

[aberal]

50x11 is exactly the same gear as 53x12!

the whole argument about compacts being crap has nothing to do with the 50T ring - it's all about the completely pointless 34T ring. Unless you live in the Alps; what's the point?

Now that's a statement that could only have been written by someone living in Norwich. Or Holland.

 

[Garz]

Now that's a statement that could only have been written by someone living in Norwich. Or Holland.

Wait till he hears about fixed gears...

 

[zigzag]

you prefer big jumps between gears!!!

yes, works very well for me

42T outer ring!!!

..it's not that big.. but you can always downsize of course, which is what i did. i've got 36t outer (or inner) 'ring on my fast commuter (which is good for long distances as well). works a treat

 

[Will1985]

Now that's a statement that could only have been written by someone living in Norwich. Or Holland.

Haha very true. I have a 50/36 compact with 12-23 and very rarely need the small ring in Norfolk.

 

[MacB]

these might be your opinions but it sounds like nonsense to me; especially:

you prefer big jumps between gears!!!
42T outer ring!!!

if you think about it, then it's pretty similar to just running a hub gear, ditch the front shifting and base your selection on the top and bottom gear you want. Granted it may not meet with your aesthetics, or suit your riding style, but there are plenty of people running hub gears or 1x6 through to 1x10 setups.
36t up front and 11-34 at the back would make a pretty usefull all rounder.

 

[rockyraccoon]

when you guy talk about big jumps between gears, what do you really mean? I've used sheldon brown website to calculate the hear ratios but I still cannot understand the numbers. Less ratio means easier to ride, is that right? What ratio do you consider unideal ?

 

[montage]

when you guy talk about big jumps between gears, what do you really mean? I've used sheldon brown website to calculate the hear ratios but I still cannot understand the numbers. Less ratio means easier to ride, is that right? What ratio do you consider unideal ?

Imagine your rear cassette. If the smallest sprocket was put next to the largest sprocet, i.e. a 12 tooth next to an 27 tooth.....that would be a huge jump.

For racing, so that you can maintain the same cadence, gears are pack closely together, i.e. 11,12,13,15,17 etc etc. For bikes with a larger range such as a 14-36 cassette, there is a greater difference of number of teeth between one sprocket an the next i.e. 14,16,17,21,25 etc etc

 

[AlanW]

I have to admit, I keep looking at replacing my triple for a compact, and for the exact same reason as the orignal OP.

But that said, I just love the ratio that I have with my triple, 28/39/52 and a 10sp 12/23 cassette. Its gives me everything, close ratios, low gears and high gears and with lots of options in the middle.

Now I have been riding bikes for more years than I care to recall, and having a close ratio cassette works very well for me, with any more than a two teeth jump differance upsets my cadence to be honest. So in truth, I just cannot see how I could cope with a compact and the big jump in gears?

But would still like to try a compact set up, even if its just to say that I don't like it!

Remember those old days, and the normal set up was 42/52 and a 5 speed block, and we still got up everything, oh to be young again...........

 

[MacB]

I have to admit, I keep looking at replacing my triple for a compact, and for the exact same reason as the orignal OP.

But that said, I just love the ratio that I have with my triple, 28/39/52 and a 10sp 12/23 cassette. Its gives me everything, close ratios, low gears and high gears and with lots of options in the middle.

This is really the heart of it, people want just two rings up front, whether for appearance or simplicity doesn't really matter. They also want low enough gears, high enough gears and close spacing at the rear. That's where it becomes a sort of, pick any two of the last three, thing. As you mention, your triple works well and Yello was the same. Spend most of the time in the middle ring with an inner ring for climbing and big ring for descending.

Currently a move to a compact tends to mean sacrificing low gears for a close ratio or accepting bigger gear steps and using more front shifting to ameliorate this. Going to extremes with rear cassettes and compacts you can have 34x36 which is the equivalent of a 28x30, but generally the best on offer for road is 34x32 which would be 28x26.

Yet, unless you spend more dosh or make up your own chainset, the other option isn't generally available. That of sacrificing the high end in order to keep the closer ratio, or a super compact setup as it can be described. This could be done in a variety of ways but something like a 28/44 compact up front would work pretty well. A 44x11 is only smaller than 50x11 and 50x12, gears that a heck of a lot of people rarely, if ever, use. A lot of people would be well served by 28/44 with a 12-25 block, close ratios, few front changes and a big enough top end that you can reach 30mph at 100rpm.

 

[raindog]

Remember those old days, and the normal set up was 42/52 and a 5 speed block, and we still got up everything, oh to be young again...........

+1
looking back, I can't believe I used to get up those Derbyshire hills with that set-up, but I did.
Couldn't now though.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Good observations well said MacB. I wonder if you meant having a 11-25 block rather than 12-25 cassette?

I think one should normally try to have a 11T at the back. The reason is there is a ~9% jump between 12T to 11T, and it takes a whole lot more T (and a BIG ring, e.g. 34T from 31T) to achieve such range at the other end. The implication is that not having a 11T will usually mean either carrying unncessary weight or forgoing available range or both. The only reason why one might not want one is because one CAN'T stand such a range change between 11T and 12T, but then it is not so different to 12T from 13T is it?

Remember those old days, and the normal set up was 42/52 and a 5 speed block, and we still got up everything, oh to be young again...........

+1, sigh, and with freewheels one can't have cogs smaller than 13T, iirc.