Looking to get some help on the hills (understatement calling the hills in Oregon "hills). My options are currently 2.

1) Take my 1998 Lemond Zurich and put a FSA compact double (50-34) with a 12-25 cassette in the rear (currently have a 53-39 with a 12-27 in the rear)

2) New bike! :D Looking at a 2004 Zurich with a triple (52-42-30) and 12-25 in the rear.

Seems like I would be giving up a little bit on the largest gear but gaining some on the smaller end with either option but shouldn't be too much of a loss on the larger end. Obviously, option #1 is cheaper but hey, a new bike is always nice. I could leave the 1998 Zurich as is and ride it for flatter rides and ride the 2004 Zurich for hilly routes. $$$ isn't too much of a concern. Most climbs aren't too bad but routes like Crater Lake, Mt. Hood, etc have some very long steep climbs. Thoughts?

Do you like your riding position on the LeMond? Will a 34x25 or 34x27 be an easy enough ratio for your fitness level? If the answer to both question is "yes", the choice should be a no brainer.

Another option is to just put a triple on the LeMond. Buying a whole new bike just to change the gearing is serious overkill unless you really don't like the bike.

I have been trying out bikes lately and still love the ride of the Lemond. I really like the riding position of the Lemond vs just about everything else I have tried. It just feels more like "home" than any other bikes I have tried. Retro fitting the 1998 Lemond with a triple is a thought as well but the FSA seems a more logical choice than retro fitting a triple. I do notice that the doubles seem to shift a bit better than any triple I have tried. Fitness level is pretty darn good for a 45 year old dude. Again, most of the climbing we do isn't too bad but we are planing on doing some local rides such as Summit to Surf that involve climbing to the Timberline Ski Lodge on Mt Hood. Pushing a 39x25 or even a 39x27 up 10-12 miles of climbs can be rough on the knees. The triple or compact double with a 12-25 would give a bit better climbing range with smaller jumps than the current 12-27 cassettes that I use now. And again, a new bike is never a bad thing, is it? :)

A compact double is pretty cost effective. I bought the octolink version so I didn't need a new bottom bracket. The same derailleurs work so I didn't have to buy anything else. I had to adjust my front derailleur, of course, and shortened my chain by an inch.

pretty cost effective. I do have three different wheelsets with different cassettes on them that I change out according to ride... a 11-23 (used very rarely), 12-25 (used most of the time) and a 12-27. The 12 -27 with the compact in front gives me almost as low a gear as I had on my triple.

That was kind of my thoughts as well. Main expense would be the $300 or so for the FSA cranks. Everything else on my current bike should be able to stay (with the exception of a couple of chain links).

That was kind of my thoughts as well. Main expense would be the $300 or so for the FSA cranks. Everything else on my current bike should be able to stay (with the exception of a couple of chain links).
You can buy an ultegra triple crank,BB and FD for alot less than that.

Looking to get some help on the hills (understatement calling the hills in Oregon "hills). My options are currently 2.

1) Take my 1998 Lemond Zurich and put a FSA compact double (50-34) with a 12-25 cassette in the rear (currently have a 53-39 with a 12-27 in the rear)

2) New bike! :D Looking at a 2004 Zurich with a triple (52-42-30) and 12-25 in the rear.

Seems like I would be giving up a little bit on the largest gear but gaining some on the smaller end with either option but shouldn't be too much of a loss on the larger end. Obviously, option #1 is cheaper but hey, a new bike is always nice. I could leave the 1998 Zurich as is and ride it for flatter rides and ride the 2004 Zurich for hilly routes. $$$ isn't too much of a concern. Most climbs aren't too bad but routes like Crater Lake, Mt. Hood, etc have some very long steep climbs. Thoughts?

you could have a super low gear for 200 bucks buy an ultegra tripple crank set and bb and fd more than ten times cheaper than a new bike and the lowest gear you can get but hey its your money

You can buy an ultegra triple crank,BB and FD for alot less than that.

There's nothing at all wrong with the Ultegra, but it's kind of like the girl that you take home to meet mom. The FSA carbon, on the other hand .....

The 52-42-30 is NOT the way to go. I've followed lots of riders with that triple setup and the 42 just puts you in "no man's land" as you start climbing hills - too hard to spin, then a huge change of over 3 gears in the back to get you close to where you were when you get on the 30 - loss of momentum, etc.

Can't for the life of me understand why they stick to that stupid setup - most riders being introduced to the sport would love it with a 48-38-30 or a 50-34 double as standard - leave the 53/39 as an OPTION, and get rid of the 52-42-30 thing may it RIP (fat chance...)

The 52-42-30 is NOT the way to go. I've followed lots of riders with that triple setup and the 42 just puts you in "no man's land" as you start climbing hills - too hard to spin, then a huge change of over 3 gears in the back to get you close to where you were when you get on the 30 - loss of momentum, etc.

Can't for the life of me understand why they stick to that stupid setup - most riders being introduced to the sport would love it with a 48-38-30 or a 50-34 double as standard - leave the 53/39 as an OPTION, and get rid of the 52-42-30 thing may it RIP (fat chance...)

a tripple offers you all the gear ratios you could ever want its got it all youre just dumb

That was kind of my thoughts as well. Main expense would be the $300 or so for the FSA cranks. Everything else on my current bike should be able to stay (with the exception of a couple of chain links).

$160 from William @ www.wisecyclebuys.com.
IMO, doubles are better than triples unless you are real OLD, or you are touring and need the gearing to get 90 lbs of bike and gear up the Ventoux!!
What I have noticed since I began riding a Compact this summer, is that correct chain length and chain management are really important.

Although the triple offers more gears, a 53/42/30 is a poor gearing pattern. With a triple, the middle ring and largest cog is really not useable, since the middle ring is positioned about 6mm further to the right. It's almost as severe as the big ring/largest cog on a double. Combine the loss of the middle ring/largest cog positoin with a 42 ring and you'll be using the little ring more often than necessary.

A 53/39/30 produces a uniform gearing progression, but you still lose the use of the largest cog/middle ring. Ideally, you should use a cassette with the one larger cog to have the same lowest gear ratio of a double, before shifting to the little ring.

I use a 53/39/28 with a 12-25 cassette and it's nearly a perfect setup, but if Campy offered a 12-27, it would be even better. With the 12-25, the lowest I can go is a 39/23 before shifting to the little ring. Double riders can often get by with the 39/25, which I have, but shouldn't use due to the extreme chainline.

my 52-42-30 works great.

Besides, ALL gear options are some kind of compromise.

I use a FSA 50/34 w/ either a 12-25 or 12-27. Am 56 YO, have climbed Stevens Pass, 10+ mile climbing 2,700 feet, did the Tour de Blast (Mt. St. Helens) and will be doing the RAMROD in a couple of weeks, all w/ the compact crank. On Stevens, I climbed the last ten miles in the 25 cassette, but was glad the 27 was there in case.
I am just a recreational rider, but have been doing a lot of hills this year to train for the RAMROD. This is the first year I have done this kind of climbing, and could only do so due to lots of training. If I were to do these hills w/o putting in the miles I have, I would have to use a triple, and even then they would be very difficult. So, from my perspective, you can climb w/ the 34/25 or 27, but you need to be in reasonably good shape to do so. You are younger so it might be easire w/o as much training.

Although the triple offers more gears, a 53/42/30 is a poor gearing pattern. (Snip, snip for brevity)

I've been riding a 53/39 with a 12/25 DuraAce with FSA crank. Love it, great gearing, snappy shifts and very quiet. But, at 47 years-old it's not the best for big mountain climbs. Debated the compact set-up and finally went with an Ultegra Triple (got a good deal on a new bike with the triple).

At first I thought I made a HUGE mistake. the 53/42/30 with 12/27 felt really odd. The shifting was not nearly as nice, chain ring shifting took some thought and finesse and there was a huge gap when dropping to the smallest ring.

Some weeks later, I've almost completely adapted and imagine that I'd now struggle a bit finding the right gears on the 53/39. I'm guessing that there would have been a similar adaptation period for the Compact set-up as well as there are some large gaps unless you put a corn-cob on the rear - which would defeat the purpose of getting a Compact for added range.

The short of it for me, at least at this moment in time, is that the double is snappier and requires less thought. But, after a short adjustment period shifting the triple has become pretty automatic and the range/gap issues are not really noticable.

Even though the triple (with the 42) is not academically perfrect, the benefits of the triple are pretty large. Often, I'll just go out the door and ride. I have a general direction but tend to go where the ride takes me. Without the triple I had to go around the big mountains (it's easy to have thousands of feet of climbing where I live on even short rides). Now, I can just go where I want and know that I've got the gears if I need them.

I suppose that a 53/39/30 would have made the transition easier than the 53/42/30. However, I recall looking at a gear-chart some months back and think that the 42 middle ring actually results in less duplication - I could be wrong on this. Perhaps someone can validate.

Anyway ... that's been my experience. Just thought I'd share it as another data point for those struggling with the triple v.s. compact issue.

Although the triple offers more gears, a 53/42/30 is a poor gearing pattern. With a triple, the middle ring and largest cog is really not useable, since the middle ring is positioned about 6mm further to the right. It's almost as severe as the big ring/largest cog on a double. Combine the loss of the middle ring/largest cog positoin with a 42 ring and you'll be using the little ring more often than necessary.
.

Do you know if you can swap the 42 for a 39 on a Ultegra Triple ?

Thanks for all the replies! scopestuff2, I do have to agree with you in that on the limited test rides I had on a Lemond Zurich and Trek 5200 triple I noticed that the shifting wasn't as crisp as it is on my '98 Lemond Zurich with an Ultegra double. It sounds like temoore and I are looking at some of the same kinds of rides in the same area. We wanted to to Tour de Blast but schedule conflicts got in the way. :mad: I have noticed that the jump between the 42 and the 30 seems pretty large both on paper and on test rides. A 39 middle ring may make more sense. I asked my LBS mech about it and he thought it could work. Still undecided though. But hey, isn't the research on new bike stuff half the fun? :)

A 53/42/30 and 53/39/30 have have the same number of distinctly different gear ratios (16 for a 9 speed and 17 for a 10 speed (both three more than a double). The difference is the 39 provides one lower ratio on the middle ring, and requires a 2-cog shift after the middle to little ring shift, while the 42 requires a 3-cog shift. Not a huge difference, but it does cause the little ring to be used more often. Changing to a 28T low will increase the number of ratios by one and require a 3-cog shift after the shift to the little ring.

All triples suffer from a bit sluggish upshift from the little to middle ring, but other than that, a campy 10 triple will shift virtually identical to a double.

Was not having a nice time with the triple today. I thought the shifting had become pretty automatic, but today I was missing the double. I just couldn't get the upshift from 30->42 smooth, 42->30 is a big gap, and was kind of in a no-man's-land with gearing and chain-line bouncing between the two. I think this is what C-40 was referring to.

The bright side was that, thinking about this dialog while riding, is that the cadence delta with 53->42 shift is a bit nicer than the 53->39. So, you pay wit the 39/30 but you benefit with 53->42. I find that I'm most typically on the large or middle ring.

Still, would probably be nice to have a 53/39/30.

Just another data point for those considering double/triple/compact/mtb-rear

A 53/42/30 and 53/39/30 have have the same number of distinctly different gear ratios (16 for a 9 speed and 17 for a 10 speed (both three more than a double). The difference is the 39 provides one lower ratio on the middle ring, and requires a 2-cog shift after the middle to little ring shift, while the 42 requires a 3-cog shift. Not a huge difference, but it does cause the little ring to be used more often. Changing to a 28T low will increase the number of ratios by one and require a 3-cog shift after the shift to the little ring.

All triples suffer from a bit sluggish upshift from the little to middle ring, but other than that, a campy 10 triple will shift virtually identical to a double.

Before taking the hit of swapping out for a compact rig, buy an FSA 38 tooth ring in the 130 pattern (assuming you're running D/A) and give that a try with your 27. This would give you a 37 inch gear and might make all the difference, be it ever so slight. If it isn't enough gear for you, then plop down the dosh for a new crankset. I know what you mean about Oregon climbing though... Ughh...