Conference noted::bicycle

See also http://www.cannondale.com/html/products/bikes/r400_main.html, if you
have not already.

I have a 1996 Cannondale 2.8 Road Race frame, with carbon forks, which I like. 
It is stiff and therefore harsh for long rides, but it does move when I ask it
to!  I would personally shy away from the RSX stuff and the bike comes with a
7-speed 11x24 cassette with a 36/46 chainring set.  Not ideal either.  BUT, I
like the frame a lot.  It gives you a big gear of 113 inches and small gear of
40 inches.  I would guess the cassette is 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24?  The
standard road gear today is a 53/39 and a 13x23 or 12x21.  53/42 is still fairly
common as well.  The important question is how does the bike feel to you?  Is
the gear range what you want?

Tim

I meant to point out that my forks are carbon, while the R400 lists aluminum. 
The sales folks told me Cannondale switched to carbon fork because the aluminum
ones were unreliable, fwiw

    Tim,
    
     You might want to take a look at something with triples up front also.
    I don't know how much time you have had on the ROAD (for me the best
    place,you can so much faster yeha!),but standard road gearing can be
    kind of restrictive if you're used to triple chain rings on your MTB.
     You might also might want to take a look at something in steel.That
    Al fork on that Al frame might make great crit bike,but it will pound
    the boogers out of you on the long haul.I ride real stiff steel bike
    a Concorde MAX tubed dream,but it's not half as stiff as the C'Dale.
    I have M2000 C'Dale and it climbs like S.O.B.,but I would not be out of
    the woods to long it though.
    
    
                                     With White Line Fever
               
                                        Jack Barter
    

    
    Tim,  
    
     I agree with what's been said. I like you was/am a mountain biker 
     before I turned into road biking. I found the alu...frames the 
     stiffest and not best for long rides, especially if you are not a
     heavy person. I am riding a Kestrel now, however aside from exotic
     frame material, good ol' steel frames are still great. 
     Don't get a bike just because right now you can save a couple of
     hundred dollars. Consider the big picuter on the long run you 
     will be happier. I  road many bikes before I made my decision. 
     and ended up down loading more than I was planning for a used bike 
     than most brand new ones. But I look forward to my rides and love 
     it. 
    
    Shaw

    Regarding gearing, once you earn your 'road legs', you probably won't 
    need a triple chainring.  A range of {38->110} should be sufficient
    for riding on the road.

    re:.5 It really depends upon where you ride, and what type of pain you
    like, and your age.  The average road bike (double) probably has about 
    a 44 inch low gear...a bit higher than 38.
    
    Steve
    

If you're running a 39 in front and 21 or 23 in the rear that 
should be plenty of gear unless you're physically incapble
for some reason or you live in the Andes...

re .7

As .5 said, many people like a wider gear range than a (semi-)professional racer 
would use.  The triples provide that.  Using a triple doesn't make us any less 
of a cyclist than someone who uses a bike that only has 2 chain rings.

Rich

    My feeling is that the triple will give you the encouragement to ride
    where you want, at the speed you want.  The typical macho gears on
    road bikes assume you are in decent shape and not carrying any load.
    One reason for the success of mountain bikes is the lower gearing they
    offer.  I have advised many "casual riders" or "tourists" or "club
    riders" towards triples and no one has come back to complain.  
    
    my $.02
    steve

I'am 44, in good shape, ride somewhere between 30 and 80 miles per 
week on my mountain bike. It's a big tube aluminum frame Marin...

Now, I've been lookin at GT's, Cannondales, and Treks, have 
not ridden many, waiting for frames my size (56cm)..

I am not very familiar with the diff's in the component groups
for road stuff....

How bout some suggestions (I'd like to stay below $800)..

One bike dealer absolutely assured me that the only way to
go was an Italian steel frame custome assembled with 
components of his choosing and that if I used Sachs
downtube shifters I could get close to my price point 
(he meant $1100 which I somehow didn't feel was close to 
$800 but then again I didn't have a calculator with me !!!!)

Bob (wishing it was easy and it took me forever to choose my
MTB) Pace

In my opinion, the double/triple debate is not about range of gears - it's 
about having the gears you need and not having to subject the components to 
mechanical abuse to get them.

I am sick and tired of seeing manufacturers turning out bikes for Joe Public 
with 52 x 12 or 13 as their biggest gear.  Of course the Press doesn't help 
with all the hype when they describe the braquets used by the guys in races - 
this year we had a lame-brained French commentator praising Brochard for 
having 54 x 11 for the final TT in Paris-Nice.  It turned out later that the 
prime reason was to get a better chainline on the gears he really wanted to 
use.  Of course, they also fail to emphasise that Boardman for example was 
cruising at nearly 60 kph during the same event.

Like I've said before, for preference I use a triple with an 8 block, which 
of course means the nerds you meet say "Oh that means you have 24 gears - how 
do you ever know what you are doing?".  Do they realise how close they come 
to finding another use for the 3 x 8 set-up, namely stuffing it down their 
stupid throats!  I use the top 5 with the outer, the middle 6 with the middle 
ring and the bottom 4 with the smallest ring - this gives a 1 tooth 
difference in the range 63 - 103 (40x17 to 50x13) where it's needed and a 
bottom gear low enough to get me twice over the col de Braus, once over the 
Brouis and once over the Vescavo last Sunday in torrential rain and freezing 
cold in a brevet.  I can get away with a standard racing gear for this and 
don't really need the long-armed triple rear mech.

Don't get carried away by the hype, use your brains - if you ride in terrain 
where you do really need an equivalent top of 50 x 13 and an equivalent  
bottom of 30 x 23, then you need a triple set-up.

    I bought a C'dale R500 (triple crank, 2.8# AL frame) and have been 
    very happy with it.  It's been rigged as a touring mule, but it moves well 
    when the panniers are off.
    
    Since taking the winter off, I do appreciate the granny gear for
    those NH inclines.  Makes the frustration of having to get back in
    shape a bit more tolerable.

A tripple is really only necessary for loaded touring.  My rings are 53/39 and I
have two cassettes, both 8-speed.  The 3 rings on MTB are popular with Joe Pulic
because they are not ever going to be in shape.  Anyone who rides 80-100 miles a
week can handle a 53/39 or a 53/42 and a 13x23 or 12x21 (or 12 x 23)

12x21 = 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21

53: 120, 110, 102, 95, 89, 84, 75, 68   [68 not used]
39: 88, 81,  75,  70,  65, 62, 55, 50   [88 not used]

the other

13x23 = 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23

53: 110, 102, 95, 89, 84, 75, 68, 62    [62 not used]
39: 81,  75,  70, 65, 62, 55, 50, 45    [81 not used]

I like the 12x21 because I can ride a 39x13.  On my "easy days", I don't use the
big ring (okay, maybe down the bigger hills) at all and I have all the gears I
want.

Again, if you are in any kind of shape, stay away from the tripple.  You won't
spend much time in the "granny" ring and you will teach yourself to rely on it
too much.

Tim

re . 13

While I agree that a triple is necessary for loaded touring, I won't
agree with you that anyone that rides 80-100 miles a week can do all
the riding that they want to do with a 53/39 and a 13x23.

There are long distance events refered to as "brevets" which tend to
be very hilly, and if you can do one with that type of gearing without
injuring yourself, then you should consider trying a RAAM qualifier.

Now, I'm not talking about the same type of triple that you would find
on a mountain bike, in which your smallest chain ring is smaller than
your largest cog on the cassette (freewheel), but many people doing
hilly long-distance events feel better with a tightly spaced cassette
(such as the 13x23) and a triple.  This gives a wide range of gears,
but also the fine tuning that it necessary for long rides.

Rich

    re: .13
    
    I've been questioning the wisdom of my Trek 1220 purchase as I have
    never used the small chainring in the 2 months I've owned the bike. 
    Last night, there were two times when I was thankful for it.  Both
    times it was uphill directly into a 30+ MPH wind.  I'm no 20+ MPH
    racer, but I object to being told I'm not in "any kind of shape."
    
    Bob

Okay, maybe I was wrong.  There are in a few cases examples where a tripple is
useful.  Butnot really necessary.  I suffered a bit when I first started out,
but not too badly.  I wouldn't attempt Mt. Washington with the gearing I have
either.  99% of the time, a double ring will be fine.

Tim

    	Having read this, and many other notes strings in here, I am amazed
    at these double v triple chain ring arguments, I don't ride 80-100 a
    week (I used to) but I find the ratios on a double to be ample for
    touring. I used to ride 80-100miles every sunday afternoon, on an old
    touring bike with 'basic' sachs, non indexing etc. gearing, panniers
    etc, and never had a trouble with even the really steep inclines this
    part of the UK has to offer, and nor did my friends either, I can just
    assume that they are putting something in your water over there. I can
    just assume you're the sort of riders whose legs are spinning madly up
    the tiniest hill whilst I whizz past on the top ring, and am home for
    scones and tea, by the time you've had your first Gatorade stop. :)
    
    dickie.
    
    PS good conference!

Hey, I just love these gearing debates!!

39/53 and 12-21 for me would mean using the 53 ring about 2% of the time, the 
13-23 block would be a little better, but with such a double, the only block 
for me is 14-26.

I think I am fairly fit for an old 'un, covering 250km/week and down to 75 kg 
which is my lightest for 15 years.  Most of my colleagues who have tried 
changing to triples would NEVER go back to a double unless they moved out of 
the area.

    But I have a triple, on my MTB, and it's fine for off road, on road,
    yawn!
    
    dickie.

Tim, you weren't wrong. Triples are not necessary if
someone is in any kind of shape except bad.

There is such a wide range of rider out there. If
some one is going to jump on a bike every other
Saturday they need to get a cross or mountain
bike with tiny gears. 

Tim is right on when he says tiny gears are like
heroin. You get very dependent on them. There are
lots of times I'd like to have a 24 or 26 or 30 
in the back, but I'm glad I don't because that's
not what I'm after. I'm not a hard core racer any-
more. I don't buy that silly argument anyway about
racers don't need them, but recreational cyclists
or folks trying to get to some level of fitness
needs a 3rd ring. It's silly and there's no 
justification for that position (we're talking
road here). I know if I went to a 3rd ring my
fitness would fall off at some point which really
isn't the goal.

Hey Robin, I hope you don't mind, but I'll have a 
bicycle with only two chainrings for you visit. We
just don't allow triples at our TT :-) !!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, fire away (but in will be in vain, I assure you).

Chip

It's OK, Chip, I did manage to get round a UK 12 hour TT last year with only 
2 chainrings (39/50 by 13-21).  The 336 km I did wasn't earth-shattering but 
for my first event in 12+ years and my first "12" for 30 years, I was pretty 
content.  Mind you, I used 39 by 14 a lot, and only got onto the 50 ring on 
the speedy parts of the main A12 coast road.

Don't worry too much about the bike if I get to ride your event, as someone 
who has done his best rides on a single fixed cog of 52 or 53 x 17, a track 
bike with those gears (or smaller) would be just fine - after all I'm saving 
myself for the post-race pizza(s)...

Ratholing, I should tell you about "100-inch Harry", a well-known London 
racer in the 60's who rode the afore-mentioned gear (52 x 14) in everything 
from 12 hours to hill-climbs.  Then of course there was the Mad Welshman, 
Alan Wedlake, who used 116" fixed and had the ambition to ride in every RTTC 
District in the book - I met him at the Bath Road Hilly "50" and was amazed 
to find he had the physique of an under-nourished chicken .....

perhaps I should sign off as Hundred-rpm Hemmings?

I'm a poor climber anyway. Everything is pretty 
relative in this sport as you well know.

For some reason I can bury guys on Mt. Washington
that normally bury me on club ride climbs.

I'm a masher by nature anyway. When the season
is peaking I'll run a 54-42 with 12/21 in the
rear for the TT with 180mm cranks. The TT 
would be considered rolling. There are a 
couple good climbs, but some nice flat
stretches which is where I make my time.

I think the bike I have lined up for you
is running a 52-42 with 13x23 in the back.

Chip

>>> I think the bike I have lined up for you
>>> is running a 52-42 with 13x23 in the back.

Parfait, I just hope I don't look too foolish, please make sure there is a 
prize for the fastest Englishman who lives in the South of France, rides for 
the CC Antibes and is over 50 (I put the last in because would you believe 
there is another Robin who qualifies for the first 3 but is a swift 25 year 
old!).

Before coming to the Alpes-Maritimes I classed myself as follows:

Good climber
Good Descender
Good rouleur

6 years on:
Average climber
Poor descender
Above average rouleur

This explains why the club likes to have me on long rides - I can be relied 
on for the long hard stretches into the wind after 100 km have been covered.

Don't feel bad... My riding buddies use that way.

In fact, I've pulled a 2-3 miles and get off the front
only to find the new lead ramping up the speed 4-5
mph and finding myself not having the legs to hook on
and hang. 

I always thank them very much, yes I do.

Chip

-1 that's supposed to be use "me" that way... :-)