Gears: compact or triple for the Alps
kingtubby
Posts: 45
Hi All
I have been roped into doing some alpine cycling with some mates, having had the last bike pinched am in the market for a new one, but want some advice on gearing. The last time I brought a bike, one always had a triple if you were doing stiff hills however looking around these days it appears as though the compact is all the rage, ie a big difference in in sprockets between the two cogs.
The Focus cayo expert for instance offers standard or compact and in the spec is listed as Front: 50/34 or 53/39 Rear: 12-27. First, pardon the ignorance, I assume the compact is the 50/34 one? Then is this good enough to get me up the mountains, most triples I see offer a 30 on the small one, does the extra make a difference.
Any advice appreciated, other than train harder..
KT
I have been roped into doing some alpine cycling with some mates, having had the last bike pinched am in the market for a new one, but want some advice on gearing. The last time I brought a bike, one always had a triple if you were doing stiff hills however looking around these days it appears as though the compact is all the rage, ie a big difference in in sprockets between the two cogs.
The Focus cayo expert for instance offers standard or compact and in the spec is listed as Front: 50/34 or 53/39 Rear: 12-27. First, pardon the ignorance, I assume the compact is the 50/34 one? Then is this good enough to get me up the mountains, most triples I see offer a 30 on the small one, does the extra make a difference.
Any advice appreciated, other than train harder..
KT
0
Comments
-
If you need a triple then don't even try it!
The compact with 12-27 is more than enough...0 -
you can get as low a gears on the compact as the triple - just not as evenly spread out.
the 50/34 is the compact btw and the 50/34 with 12-27 will be a nice ratio - I think that would be about the same as a 50/40/30 triple with a 12-25.
campag do a 13-29 cassette which is well plenty gearing to go with a 50-34 and you save a little weight with the double, it's much easier to setup and adjust and the q-factor is narrower
I was in the alps in april last year with a triple, but my new bike that I am building will be a compact and I am sure it will also be fine for the alps (centaur with 50/34 - 13-26cassette)0 -
Yes - the 50/34 is a compact chainset.
The beauty of a triple is that you have lots of gears without big jumps in between them. A 52-42-30 triple with a 12-27 cassette will have more options than a 50-34 compact.
The actual bottom gears on both aren't so different (30x27 => 30 inch / 34x27 => 34 inch), but with the triple you have more mid-range gears to chose from.
To be honest, I think a lot of the popularity for compacts is that you can fit one without some smart alec going "Oh, what a wuss, you've got a triple chainring!"
0 -
NapoleonD wrote:If you need a triple then don't even try it!
..
Competely disagree! The Alpes are perfectly manageable with a triple. If that is what you're comfortable with, don't be put off just because of that. However, I agree that a triple is not necessary in most situations.
I did Galibier, Alpe d'Huez and a couple of other cols with a triple and the Ventoux with a compact. I worried a lot about gears when I bought the compact, but I was fine on the Ventoux with 50/34 x 12/27.
The biggest difference was the weight of the bikes. The triple was attached to a Dawes Super Galaxy touring bike, which, even when stripped down, is a heavy bike to persuade up a hill; the compact was on a carbon Roubaix, which dances on the road.
The other key factor is the fitness of the rider. I am not particularly fit, heavier than I should be (5'10 and 15 stone) but I did have enough miles in my legs to know that I can do 100k without stopping and can climb almost anything (even if very slowly!).
Food and water was an issue; I completely underestimated how much of each I would need to keep fuelled when climbing all day in 30 degrees, but that had nothing to do with the gears.
Go for it; you'll love it.0 -
Get a triple, the range of gears is much better and the weight penalty is negligible. There has been many an occasion I have twiddled up a hill past the guy trying to knacker his knees using a double. Don't get talked into trying the ride with too high a low gear. Once you are out there no-one will care that you have a 52/40/30 married to a 12 to 25, or for that matter a 42/32/26 married to a 12 to 29.
Another assumption is that the trip is intended to be enjoyable and you are not a masochist, if this is right then gear up to enjoy.
D
0 -
Actually the climbs in the Alps/Pyrenees aren't particularly steep - they just seem to go on forever. A triple is useful if you're cycle camping or you're old like me. Most of our cycle camping trips were done on a double set up. I rarely used the 36x28 even on cols like the Tourmalet. IIRC we used to climb at about 6mph so 2 hour slogs were quite common. I actually enjoyed it! I can recall climbing over the Cat and Fiddle on the way home from Manchester Airport on the big ring - probably a howling westerly though
One bike where you really need a triple is a tandem; I guess I got used to that and have a triple as a matter of course nowadays. The weight penalty is minimal. The number of gears is irrelevant - what's important is to have a bottom ratio that you can pedal up hill for a couple of hours. Unless you're racing, the high gears are there for amusement only.
GeoffOld cyclists never die; they just fit smaller chainrings ... and pedal faster0 -
Geoff_SS wrote:Unless you're racing, the high gears are there for amusement only.
I like a higher gear, there's a massive hill (well not really) on my doorstep easy enough to get up in 36/23, but couldn't spin any faster coming down in 50/12, so peaked at a measly 37.7mph, I could really have done with a higher gear. I don't like freewheeling.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Geoff_SS wrote:Unless you're racing, the high gears are there for amusement only.
I like a higher gear, there's a massive hill (well not really) on my doorstep easy enough to get up in 36/23, but couldn't spin any faster coming down in 50/12, so peaked at a measly 37.7mph, I could really have done with a higher gear. I don't like freewheeling.
As I said, the high gears are there for amusement only. It amuses you to pedal downhill - that's your privilege.
When my friend won the National 24hr Championship in 1991 he free wheeled once he was doing over 25 mph. He did 486 miles.
Geoff.Old cyclists never die; they just fit smaller chainrings ... and pedal faster0 -
-
One of the myths that has grown up in the last few years. You do not knacker your knees using high gears, if the gear is too high for the gradient you will just stop. All those who come from the era of 5-speed blocks where 42x21 was the normal bottom gear are still walking round unaided.Diogenes wrote:Get a triple, the range of gears is much better and the weight penalty is negligible. There has been many an occasion I have twiddled up a hill past the guy trying to knacker his knees using a double. Don't get talked into trying the ride with too high a low gear. Once you are out there no-one will care that you have a 52/40/30 married to a 12 to 25, or for that matter a 42/32/26 married to a 12 to 29.
Another assumption is that the trip is intended to be enjoyable and you are not a masochist, if this is right then gear up to enjoy.
D0 -
i bought a compact when i got back into cycling, and being honest on my next bike i would prefer a triple, okay so it weights a bit more, but you always have it! and its cheaper to change it to a compact if you want to save weight, than it is changing to a triple!!!!
You can get lower gears on the tripple, chuck a MTB mech on the back and a large cassette and you loose the closer gearing, but gain that get up any hill without walking!0 -
Done a few Alpine climbs on both, would say I'd prefer a compact unless I'm on a tourer with rack & panniers. You lose quite alot of gears with bad chainlines on a triple, and (not sure if this is just me but) you always seem to find the best climbing gear `inbetween' the small and medium rings, which is a pain.0
-
redddraggon wrote:Probably the foolishness of youth, but if I'm not pedalling I'm not going fast enough.
yep foolishness indeed - downhill in a aero tuck and frewheel you will go much faster then you can pedalling. Also a quiet body helps with respect to taking corners - easier to get the weight distribution right. It may be just me however.0 -
fluff. wrote:Done a few Alpine climbs on both, would say I'd prefer a compact unless I'm on a tourer with rack & panniers. You lose quite alot of gears with bad chainlines on a triple, and (not sure if this is just me but) you always seem to find the best climbing gear `inbetween' the small and medium rings, which is a pain.
That's true. I find that the middle ring allows you to use the whole block and the big and little rings are used at their appropriate ends of the block. Of course that was when a 6 block was the norm. I'm looking forward to discovering what happens with 9 sprockets.
Until last year, when I tried to relive my fit middle age by revisiting a few Pyrenean climbs originally done with camping gear, I always coped with a double set up. Hopefully the Pecos de Europa will provide us with some new challenges.
I'm no longer too proud to use a triple - I'm just happy to be there at all.
My new bike will have a 44/32/22 chain set with a 13/25 block. I have tentative plans for a circuit involving the Aspen in May, from St Marie de Campan. Then, weather and legs permitting, up and down the Tourmalet - gently, of course, as befits an elderly gentleman and his consort
GeoffOld cyclists never die; they just fit smaller chainrings ... and pedal faster0 -
Don't get hooked up on this 'weight saving' nonsense re compacts over triples
- the chainset weighs 100g or so more, hardly a lot
(e.g. Ultegra 6500 9sp double chainset 643g, Ultegra 6503 9sp triple chainset 760g)
But on the other hand, how much does a cassette with bigger cogs weigh ?
(e.g. consider that a 27 cog on the back of 50/34 compact is the equivalent of a 23 cog on the back of 52/42/30 : how much more does a 12-27 cassette weigh than a 12-23 ?
- I reckon it'll be about 117g !)
So a triple with a smaller cassette is about the same weight as a compact with a bigger cassette...0 -
thanks Guys, it seems reading it, is that the compact would be good enough, but triples are ok too, if you don't mind the "looks" at the start. Being 43, I can say as long as I get up & down in the July sun I will be happy...0
-
People laugh at my triple bikes, until they come back after a week of riding in Tenerife and make a point of thanking me for speccing them that way. Does that answer your question?
If you aren't sure, go with the triple, as there's nothing worse than running out of low-end gears. Also as mentioned, the spacing of the cassette can be slightly closer while you still have the same low gear ratio.0 -
I rode last year's Etape with two mates, two of us were on compacts (lowest gear 34-27) and the third on a triple. The chap on the triple was the least fit and we'd been consistently faster than him on UK rides. Come the Port de Bales the two of us on compacts were barely able to move forward whilst triple man twiddled away and finished in better shape than us 15 minutes ahead.
This year the same group will be on La Marmotte with exactly the same setup but I'm planning on being way fitter!0 -
I did Ventoux last year and would never have made it without a triple. Come the end the cumulative effect was so huge that i was on my lowest gear and just about still moving forward. I personally won't attempt any serious Cols with anything else. Psychologically it makes a big difference too knowing you have a granny gearRobert Millar for knighthood0
-
andy_wrx wrote:......how much more does a 12-27 cassette weigh than a 12-23 ?
- I reckon it'll be about 117g !)
Err, I hate to be a Weight Weenie spod, but my @nal job leads me to have weighed most components, just for the fun of it! :shock:
The Campag. Veloce 13-29 cassette with spacers and without lockring weights 259g, compared to the advertised weight for an "average" cassette being 250g.
There's little difference.
Campag. triples are allegedly less refined than Shimano triples.
Possibly part of the reason why compacts get recommended.
The Campag. triple requires a standard bottom bracket, and a long cage derailleur, against a medium cage for the 13-29 cassette on a compact, and short cage for anything below.
When you add up the weight of all the b.b (and long cage), it's a few more grams.
However - It wouldn't put me off a triple at all. I'd rather spin than walk.
As Geoff points out - European climbs tend to be long shallower grinds that wear you down with no let-up, plus the benefit of wind! UK hills tend to be short sharp efforts.
Am considering the Ventoux this year, and have been collecting triple components, but for the UK I have compacts on both bikes.
In fact, I only ride the "race bike" for sportives, and do everything else on my "comfortable shoes" steel bike with pannier, guards, and occasional ballast! Makes for a nice surprise on sportive day, as you can pretty much literally "drop the anchor"!0 -
I rode the Raid Alpine a few years ago with a 26/38/46 triple. If I had taken a crate of them with me I could have sold the lot.
Which is more important to you, your image or your knees.
Also it is more fun when your eyes arent popping out of our head :shock:0 -
Does anybody here actually ride a double for sportive events, or are they just the preserve of the pros?0
-
Err yes, I'm no pro and I choose to ride a double - 53/39. Sportives included.
Looking around at events, I don't think it's a particularly exclusive club either.0 -
willbevan wrote:i bought a compact when i got back into cycling, and being honest on my next bike i would prefer a triple, okay so it weights a bit more, but you always have it! and its cheaper to change it to a compact if you want to save weight, than it is changing to a triple!!!!
You can get lower gears on the tripple, chuck a MTB mech on the back and a large cassette and you loose the closer gearing, but gain that get up any hill without walking!
Triple for me too, MTB rear set up for alps means I can climb all day, day after day. Hubby with a compact (but slightly fitter /lighter) was fine first day but increasingly knackered as week went on. Coming frfom a touring on adapted MTB background I can't even imagine doing Aple Dhuez without my 32/32!0 -
Whilst we're on the subject, I've got a compact 34/50 11/25. I think I need a smaller gear for what I want to do.
If I fit a 12/27 will I need a longer chain or will the mech be able to absorb it?
Its on a Giant SCR1.0 -
SteveNcp wrote:Err yes, I'm no pro and I choose to ride a double - 53/39. Sportives included.
Looking around at events, I don't think it's a particularly exclusive club either.
Is a Double that bad. i find i do struggle on hills but that may be down to my level of fitness (48 yrs old and only been cycling for 3 months) but I have noticed an improvment in that where I was on the last gear and can now do the same hills on a couple of gears up. i plan to do one of the French Cols in July\August, can they be done on a double?0 -
ram038 wrote:i plan to do one of the French Cols in July\August, can they be done on a double?
Yes, of course they can. But neither I nor anyone else can advise you as to whether you can do an unspecified French col on a double, or not.
If you need a lower gear than a double can provide then it's a compact or triple for you. No rocket science involved. 0 -
I did a week in Haut Provence, Mont Ventoux, Southern Alps last year, using 50/36 compact and 12-27
- that 36 x 27 is roughly the equivalent of 30 x 22.5 on a triple...
I'll happily do UK sportives with this gearing, but the Continental climbs were so long by comparison and were day after day, even though the slopes were far easier than in the UK, perhaps 8% to 12%.
The difference was that unlike here in the UK where a hill is just a short thing, and a lot of climbing is actually bits of uphill separated by bits of flat or even downhill you can recover on, Alpine climbs do just go on uphill literally for miles - the only flat bits are if you cut across a hairpin bend !
For instance, one day was 5m in valley, 15m uphill (col de Bonette), 15m down then 20 along valley, 11m up (col de Couillole), 5m down.
I found that with 36 x 27 I was having to climb faster than some of the others who had triples. They could twiddle round in their low gears and spin up the hill slowly - if I rode that slowly, I was pushing a higher gear at a lower cadence and I couldn't do it. To get a comfortable cadence I was forced to climb faster - and to climb like that for a couple of hours... which I found bl**dy hard !
I'm toying with the idea of the Route des Grandes Alpes this Summer but will definitely get lower geared. The sort of gears I can use in a 100m one-day UK sportive are too high for the Alps, for me.0 -
One of the advantages of a triple is that you can happily ride on the two big rings, secure in the knowledge that the 30 is there if/when I need it. I have to say that my favorite is an older Campy Record in 52/42/30 - the 42 is excellent for general riding around - but the wide range is there when I need it on the hills!!
Ed0
