Fat boys - Compact or Triple??

[Willo]

Steve - get a triple!


Triple = will suit you now, might be able to cope without later
Compact = won't suit you now, might be able to cope with later

With very limited knowledge of road bikes, that was my logic and a few months later I would say it's good advice. I'm sure a double or compact would've been fine for me, but the cons of a triple don't materially impact me (e.g. the weight is negligible) enough to offset the flexibility, and I do find myself still using the granny ring on steep hills every now and then.

 

[Steve H]

Thanks all. Good to hear lots of opinions.

For you, I'd say:

Triple = will suit you now, might be able to cope without later
Compact = won't suit you now, might be able to cope with later

Thanks Colin - yes, I think this pretty much sums in up. Better to get something now that is right for now. If in a year or two I find my body replaced with a slim, muscular one, I can always upgrade.

Right onto bikes...

Anyone got an opinion on the Trek 2.1 Triple?? Think it comes with a 12-27 10sp cassette.

 

[jimboalee]

Steve - get a triple!


Triple = will suit you now, might be able to cope without later
Compact = won't suit you now, might be able to cope with later

Triple = will suit you now, you will get too used to it and never want to lose it.
Compact = might suit you now, will be able to cope with later.
53/39 = No choice but to develop enormous legs.

 

[Banjo]

I have a triple Scott Speedster, largest rear cog is 25 tooth smallest granny ring is 30 tooth.

That combination gets used quite a lot on long hills or short steeper ones.



The extra weight is negligible compared to the help it gives when you need it most.

 

[ColinJ]

Triple = will suit you now, you will get too used to it and never want to lose it.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a triple on one of my road bikes and currently have 30/42/52 rings and a 14-28 cassette on but when I got really fit about 8 years ago my set-up was 30/39/52 and 12-23. I spent a whole summer without using the granny ring so I don't agree with that.

Compact = might suit you now, will be able to cope with later.

Jimbo - Steve lives in Brighouse, surrounded by big, steep Pennine hills. He is new to cycling and is HEAVY. A compact isn't going to get him up some of the local nasties like Scapegoat Hill and Wessenden Head, trust me! I come from the Midlands and it was a real shock to discover how lumpy it is up here!

I think the best way to keep Steve cycling and get him fit enough to consider a compact later is for him to start off with the most helpful range of gears he can lay his hands on and that is provided by a triple.

53/39 = No choice but to develop enormous legs.

Wrong - he'd have the choice of getting really discouraged and giving up cycling altogether because it feels like it is killing him every time he has to go up a big hill.

I've a feeling that in 2 or 3 years time Steve will be starting a thread telling us that he has dropped to 13 stone, has legs like tree trunks and is about to buy a new bike with a compact chainset, but for now I reckon he'd do better with a triple.

Put it this way - if he gets a compact and it really doesn't suit him - that's a problem. If he buys a bike with a triple chainset, it will have all the gears that the compact would have had plus some extras. He doesn't have to use them if he doesn't want to, but they could save him if/when he hits a long 10% climb into a headwind after 70 miles riding round the Pennines!

 

[John the Monkey]

Wrong - he'd have the choice of getting really discouraged and giving up cycling altogether because it feels like it is killing him every time he has to go up a big hill.

Not kind to the knees either.

Go Triple.

 

[GrasB]

ColinJ, looking at 34/50 v's 30/39/50 or 30/42/52 with a 12-27 cassette, the gearing ratio difference between a compact & a triple is 1 gear lower plus 1 higher if you use a 52t chainring. In terms of ratio holes assuming 700x23c tyres far more gears in the 50-60" range, the sole reason for this is all 3 chainrings overlap at that point but to access them you'd need to double shift like a mad man.

So the user difference comes down to how well does the OP double shift & does he need that extra gear?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Triple.
Better shifting pattern.
Sl. lower gearing.

Just spent the last 3 days in the Dorset hills, I'm a fat bloke but a pretty reasonable climber and I'd have struggled and walked more hills with any less bottom gearing.

A few weeks ago I rode my umpteent L2B. There were a lot of flash bikes being pushed up Ditchling Beacon, whilst a lot of ladies on 'City Bikes' glided over the top by virtue of lower gearing.

When you're a stick-thin racing-snake, then have whatever gearing you want, up to then I recommend a triple. If you need lower, a 27T casette and a 28T chainring can be fitted to give virtually a 1:1 ratio.

 

[hotmetal]

Mine's got 39/53 up front and 11-23 rear. I think the previous owner must have been a time triallist. It is very hard work going up some of the hills! But I just thought 'what the hell, I want to get fit anyway and that's what the bike I lust after comes with.' You need not apply the same warped logic as I did though! That said, I'm rarely out of the saddle, but once or twice other club members have given me a little push from behind to help me up!

But don't forget, mountain bikes are a lot harder work than road bikes. I've got 2 MTBs and I double-shift everywhere, only using the granny ring on steep loose climbs. To be fair, I'm not sure how I'd fare on Ditchling Beacon – last time I did the L2B it was before I had the road bike.

 

[Steve H]

Mine's got 39/53 up front and 11-23 rear.

Real man's gearing!

Not sure I'll ever get to this level (not sure I really want to! )


Had a look at quite a few bikes now and currently hankering after the Trek Pilot - either the 2.0 or 2.1. I was looking on the AllTerrainCycles website yesterday and I popped round the shop for a look at the Trek range. Mmmm shiny! Think I could get carried away here.

 

[John the Monkey]

Real man's gearing!

Not sure I'll ever get to this level (not sure I really want to! )

I had something similar on my first bike. It was BRILLIANT on the flat, and downhill.

Less so in all other circumstances!

 

[steve52]

hind sight is wounderful, go triple!!! i didnt and well sob sob pant bloddy hills!!!

 

[jimboalee]

Triple.
Better shifting pattern.
Sl. lower gearing.

Just spent the last 3 days in the Dorset hills, I'm a fat bloke but a pretty reasonable climber and I'd have struggled and walked more hills with any less bottom gearing.

A few weeks ago I rode my umpteent L2B. There were a lot of flash bikes being pushed up Ditchling Beacon, whilst a lot of ladies on 'City Bikes' glided over the top by virtue of lower gearing.

When you're a stick-thin racing-snake, then have whatever gearing you want, up to then I recommend a triple. If you need lower, a 27T casette and a 28T chainring can be fitted to give virtually a 1:1 ratio.

I've been back through my records.

The TdeF went up Ditchling. Reports at the time said Jacky Durrand and others packed a 37 chainring and 27 sprocket just for that day.
Confirmation required.

 

[raindog]

Mine's got 39/53 up front and 11-23 rear.

That's standard race gearing, if you don't race and you ride hills, then it's always going to be a struggle.
As jimboalee says, even the pros change their gearing for certain stages. Most used 52/34 for the Zoncolan during this year's Giro.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/05/road/gearing-for-monte-zoncolan_118163
I've got 50/39 11-23 on one of my bikes and it's fine for most things, but if I know I'm going to be doing any insane climbs I take my other bike which has a triple. Just makes life easier, that's all.

 

[jimboalee]

That's standard race gearing, if you don't race and you ride hills, then it's always going to be a struggle.
As jimboalee says, even the pros change their gearing for certain stages. Most used 52/34 for the Zoncolan during this year's Giro.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/05/road/gearing-for-monte-zoncolan_118163
I've got 50/39 11-23 on one of my bikes and it's fine for most things, but if I know I'm going to be doing any insane climbs I take my other bike which has a triple. Just makes life easier, that's all.

Sometimes there is 'gamesmanship' involved.

A rider will have trained on such gradients ( or steeper climbs ) and know he can keep a good competative pace on 34/25.
He will pack a 27 or even a 29 sprocket so his opponents might think "lummy, he's packing low gears, he'll be slow".

Surprise, surprise