Focus Cayo,double or triple

wingknot

Hello to all here,
I've been watching the posts here for a while,the advice,recommendations,pros and cons and so I have decided to go for the Focus Cayo,my first road bike,I've been used to MTB and Hybrid and
to be honest fed up cycling on my own,so after reading all the posts about the Ring of Kerry I decided to make the break get a road bike and get involved in some of the events and get ready for Kerry next year.
I am looking for advice as to which version Double or triple bearing in mind I am new to this and the wrong side of 40,any advice would be very welcome, Thanks.

tomc

I posted the very same question here some months ago and I ended up with a triple. I think the only negative feedback you will get for a triple is 'image' as weight doesn't really come into it as a starter bike.

Hth

TomC

Lumen

If this the last bike you'll ever buy, get a compact double. You will eventually get fit enough to not really need the smallest chainring.

However, I am no longer the slowest person up a hill (but a long way from the fastest) and I still often appreciate having my small chainring, and I also have a 12-27 cassette, which is mountain bike gearing tbh.

On fast days I'll mostly stay in the big ring anyway, so the slightly inferior front shifting doesn't matter.

irishmotorist

For me, I went for the Cayo triple recently. I was debating between the two - weight, better shifting, better image all on the pro side for the compact double. Heavier, (allegedly) poorer shifting, poorer image, but being confident that I'll not be daunted by a hill in the future were things to think about on the triple side. For me, front ring shifting is great on it - really sharp and responsive and no chain mishaps yet. I haven't taken it down to Wicklow yet, just the ROK and I haven't even nearly had to use the small ring on the triple (30 teeth). THe middle ring (39 teeth) has done just fine for me. That said, the next time I try Slieve Maan and Shay Elliott, I think I will need the smaller ring.

My advice to you, bearing in mind what you've said, is to go for the triple. You're just getting into it, so you'll definitely appreciate the easier gears at the start. Don't forget that using the smallest of the triple doesn't necessarily mean that you're using the 27 on the back. As you're stronger, you can still use the 30 on the front and maybe a 23 on the back and then you can move up to climbing on the middle-ring as you get much stronger.

Basically, IMO, unless you are built like a whippet with legs like iron (like many of our esteemed colleagues here!), then you are possibly hindering yourself by getting a compact double. Cycling's there to be enjoyed and you can challenge yourself further by dropping down gears on the hills. It's not so easy to create gears if you limit yourself at the start.

Just my tuppence.

AstraMonti

Lumen wrote: »

If this the last bike you'll ever buy, get a compact double. You will eventually get fit enough to not really need the smallest chainring.

However, I am no longer the slowest person up a hill (but a long way from the fastest) and I still often appreciate having my small chainring, and I also have a 12-27 cassette, which is mountain bike gearing tbh.

On fast days I'll mostly stay in the big ring anyway, so the slightly inferior front shifting doesn't matter.

Offtopic: I think you (and Dirk as well) are seriously understimating yourself(ves) and your power(s).

Ontopic: When i started cycling 7 months ago i really needed the triple for the first 4-5 months, the small ring was a saviour for my non existant climbing skills. Now, i find climbing on the compact much nicer than the triple (well yeah.. there is a huge difference on the bike too) but i don't know if i had a compact from the start how many climbs i would have walked up, or i might had actually pushed my self more to get up. Because i am probably getting you confused, I think i would go for a compact now.

Lumen

AstraMonti wrote: »

Offtopic: I think you (and Dirk as well) are seriously understimating yourself(ves) and your power(s).

Not at all. I have approximately 57% of the power of Bradley Wiggins.

That's the sort of rider for which a standard double is designed. :pac:

ROK ON

Hi - I think that I have a new insight into this that stems from my Ring of Kerry experiences.

I have a trile on my good bike, and nearly everyone I cycled the ROK with has a compact.
I noticed that when they were in the 34 ring, I was in the 39 ring. As a result I was pushing a bigger gear in terms of gear inches than my cycling colleagues on the day. This meant that on the handfull of drags and climbs (on what is a flattish course) that I tired on the climbs quicker.

The climbs did not need a 30 ring on the triple, but a compact 34 ring was better than a 39 ring on the triple.

Now in saying that, I think that if you are a large build/unfit/new to cycling that a triple has advantages. That is the opposite of the compact on a flat/rolling course.
I imagine that on a very hilly course with stiff gradients that a triple allows one to manage the gears easier. That is my opinion anyway.

However whether you run a triple or compact, the smallest (easiest/slowest) gear combo on both is not that far away from each other. 30/27 on the triple is 29.5 inches (or thereabouts) while 34/27 on the compact in 30.5 inches.

Hope that helps.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

However whether you run a triple or compact, the smallest (easiest/slowest) gear combo on both is not that far away from each other. 30/27 on the triple is 29.5 inches (or thereabouts) while 34/27 on the compact in 30.5 inches.

Another way of looking at it is that you could run (say) 11-25 with a triple rather than 11-28 with a compact, have the same(ish) overall gearing, but 19,21,23,25 rather than 19,22,25,28 - less gappy.

I have a foot in each camp.

blorg

If you want to climb up hills and do the likes of the Wicklow 200 given your description of your own fitness I think I would get the triple. Front shifting is worse but that doesn't matter that much unless you are racing. Weight difference is negligible- you will appreciate the lower gears more than you would saving a hundred grams or so.

Having said that for the Ring of Kerry you would be fine on a compact double or even a standard, it is pretty flat. I would not advise any cyclist to get a standard however unless they want to race.

Also- there is no shame in easier gearing. One thing I can never understand is people who have a triple and then avoid using the 30 ring, as if it is somehow better to grind up slower in a higher gear. Spinning a low gear works your heart harder but is less taxing to your muscles; spinning up hills is a good technique to get used to. You are far less likely to cramp.

As for whether climbs "need" a 30- when climbing on a triple (extended climb 7%+) I get down into the 30 early and then climb in that ring. You still have 7 or so perfectly usable gears off that 30 so there is plenty of scope to shift on the back if the gradient eases off a bit. If you are tiring on the 39 and you don't have a 34, then, yes, the hill needs your 30! Just use a cog other than your biggest if you feel it is too spinny.

DirkVoodoo

AstraMonti wrote: »

Offtopic: I think you (and Dirk as well) are seriously understimating yourself(ves) and your power(s).

You seem to be mistaking me with someone else. I think I am the greatest and most euro thing since the sliced baguette.

wingknot

Ok lads, many thanks to all who replied to my request for advice,I am of medium build and reasonably fit, so bearing that in mind, all the advice and views from yourselves also some advice from my neighbour who is a cyclist who takes part in a lot of events I have decided to go with the compact double. Thanks see you on the roads soon.

AstraMonti

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

You seem to be mistaking me with someone else. I think I am the greatest and most euro thing since the sliced baguette.

Go out and race!

Krusty_Clown

I'm in the same boat. I exercise around 10-12 hours per week, so would be pretty fit, but only spend around two hours a week on the bike. I currently have a Giant OCR4 on loan, but am loving the bike, so am leaning towards buying myself a Cayo. I've taken the Giant up to Glencree, and had no problems with the hills, and have taken a crappy mtb around the Sugarloaf. I reckon my legs are pretty strong (from running). I know it doesn't necessarily translate to cycling, but would I be better off with the double?

I have no plans to do any pure bike racing, but will probably do some sprint triathlons and duathlons at some point. The idea that the double is more efficient/reliable points me in that direction from an engineering perspective. Any advice please?

triv88

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'm in the same boat. I exercise around 10-12 hours per week, so would be pretty fit, but only spend around two hours a week on the bike. I currently have a Giant OCR4 on loan, but am loving the bike, so am leaning towards buying myself a Cayo. I've taken the Giant up to Glencree, and had no problems with the hills, and have taken a crappy mtb around the Sugarloaf. I reckon my legs are pretty strong (from running). I know it doesn't necessarily translate to cycling, but would I be better off with the double?

I have no plans to do any pure bike racing, but will probably do some sprint triathlons and duathlons at some point. The idea that the double is more efficient/reliable points me in that direction from an engineering perspective. Any advice please?

strong and fit = double up

Lumen

triv88 wrote: »

strong and fit = double up

That doesn't even rhyme. :pac:

How about:

Strong and fit - double it
If you're a cripple - get a triple

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

That doesn't even rhyme. :pac:

How about:

Strong and fit - double it
If you're a cripple - get a triple

If you can climb for a fact,
dont by dumb, get a compact.

I'll get my coat.

Raam

ROK ON wrote: »

If you can climb for a fact,
dont by dumb, get a compact.

I'll get my coat.

hand over all your bicycles, please.

ArraMusha

One day in the saddle, one day in the bog,
and a bit of eatin proper you're as fit as a butcher's dog.



What inspired this amorous rhyme?
Two parts vodka, one part lime.

scottreynolds

Let me make this easier

If you need a double you don't need to ask this question

If you want to get stronger get a compact.

If you don't care and just want to ride get a triple and let us laugh at you.

Lumen

scottreynolds wrote: »

If you don't care and just want to ride get a triple and let us laugh at you.

Perhaps if you used your lung capacity for breathing rather than laughing you would be faster up the hills.

07Lapierre

When I first started cycling there was no such thing as a compact or a triple chainset. I had a Giant Cadex with "lemond/Scott" handlebars which was fitted with a campag 42/53 chainset and an 8 speed, 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 block ( wern't called cassettes). Back then I climbed up to Sally gap on this. This year on the W200 I had a triple with a 10 speed cassette (25-11) and I needed it! Oh the shame!

blorg

If you can sustain 18km/h+ up an extended climb by all means get a standard double.

If you can sustain 14km/h get a compact.

If you would be struggling to sustain over 10km/h you may be better off with a triple.

Thing is, the pros can sustain 22km/h+, that is why they ride doubles.

The stuff about strength is bullshít, if you can spin to the top of a climb on a triple in less time than someone mashing up (and likely ruining their knees) in a higher gear than you are the stronger climber, end of.

07Lapierre

blorg wrote: »

If you can sustain 18km/h+ up an extended climb by all means get a standard double.

If you can sustain 14km/h get a compact.

If you would be struggling to sustain over 10km/h you may be better off with a triple.

Thing is, the pros can sustain 22km/h+, that is why they ride doubles.

The stuff about strength is bullshít, if you can spin to the top of a climb on a triple in less time than someone mashing up (and likely ruining their knees) in a higher gear than you are the stronger climber, end of.

Very true. The point i was making was that I was a stronger climber a few years ago ( 20 years actually). I personally choose a triple as it suits my current fitness level. I also had knee troulble a few years ago which was attributed to cycling, so spinning up a hill is the way to go. Compact/triple..its a personal choice..there's no "right " answer to this.

DirkVoodoo

I'm pretty sure I could have beaten myself up the Sally Gap today on a 34-25, unfortunately I was limited to 34-19 and I'm not really much of a grinder. Even on the flat I notice my speed go up by 1 or 2 km/hr if I shift down and up my cadence.

I think some people have a mental barrier that says "The harder the gear and the more it hurts, the faster I must be going". I think if you showed them the actual numbers they might be surprised.

ROK ON

Given that this debate is a regular one on this site, please find a link to the following calculaot.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

It will allow you to input all manner of combinations - which may help in deciding what gear combination that you may want.

In moving from a triple to a compact, one loses the lowest gearing on the triple. So if you can make it up a climb in thw 2nd largest cog on the back casette and in the smallest (30 tooth) cog on the front, then you will be effectively riding the same gearing as a compact. If you can regulalry get up a climb in the middle ring of a triple, then maybe should use a double, as the gearing is the same.

Raam

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Even on the flat I notice my speed go up by 1 or 2 km/hr if I shift down and up my cadence.

Indeed. I've read elsewhere: don't pedal harder, pedal faster.

blorg

ROK ON wrote: »

If you can regulalry get up a climb in the middle ring of a triple, then maybe should use a double, as the gearing is the same.

If you can regularly get up an extended climb in the middle ring of a triple you are probably climbing sub-optimally at a low cadence.

Incidentally there were a fair few triple riders on the Marmotte, some of whom (from reading other forums) achieved gold classifications. I had a compact with a 27 on the back but I would have taken a lower gear on the Galibier and at the start of Alpe d'Huez.

The sort of cycling you will be doing is relevant though and you have to make compromises. I will be swapping back my road bike to a standard double now I am done with the Marmotte as it shifts better for racing and in races if you are cycling fast enough to be competitive you do not need the lower gears.

Similarly if 90% of your cycling is flat/rolling but only the occasional extended hill you can just put up with the lower efficiency on the small number of occasions you go up the hill. If you do 90% in Wicklow and don't race on the other hand you would be better off choosing your gearing appropriately.

07Lapierre

blorg wrote: »

If you can regularly get up an extended climb in the middle ring of a triple you are probably climbing sub-optimally at a low cadence.

Incidentally there were a fair few triple riders on the Marmotte, some of whom (from reading other forums) achieved gold classifications. I had a compact with a 27 on the back but I would have taken a lower gear on the Galibier and at the start of Alpe d'Huez.

The sort of cycling you will be doing is relevant though and you have to make compromises. I will be swapping back my road bike to a standard double now I am done with the Marmotte as it shifts better for racing and in races if you are cycling fast enough to be competitive you do not need the lower gears.

Similarly if 90% of your cycling is flat/rolling but only the occasional extended hill you can just put up with the lower efficiency on the small number of occasions you go up the hill. If you do 90% in Wicklow and don't race on the other hand you would be better off choosing your gearing appropriately.

Blog..slightly off subject..do you know the address for the official Marmotte website?

blorg

07Lapierre wrote: »

Blog..slightly off subject..do you know the address for the official Marmotte website?

http://www.sportcommunication.info/GT/index.php?langue=2

copacetic

I ended up with a std double as it was all I could get, the bike wasn't available with a compact or a triple. I'm happy enough with it, I struggle on some hills with lack of fitness but I run out of ability to breath not turn the pedals.

I was happy enough in the end because it has up to 27 at the back which means it's nearly as good as a compact with a 25 for the hills. If not near a triple.

scottreynolds

Raam wrote: »

Indeed. I've read elsewhere: don't pedal harder, pedal faster.

To a point... if you spinning at 90rpm already hen shifting down and pushing harder might be a better option. My coach said to me said if you want to go faster push harder but I'm soft.

Ryaner

copacetic wrote: »

I was happy enough in the end because it has up to 27 at the back which means it's nearly as good as a compact with a 25 for the hills. If not near a triple.

My bike has a compact and a 28 on the back. Gives a ratio of 2.4. At 25 on the back, the ratio only drops to 2.7. Compared to a std with 27 at 2.9. Its a fair leap so fair dues.

copacetic

Ryaner wrote: »

My bike has a compact and a 28 on the back. Gives a ratio of 2.4. At 25 on the back, the ratio only drops to 2.7. Compared to a std with 27 at 2.9. Its a fair leap so fair dues.

Sorry, I should have said, my bike is an 07 model. It's surprising how much things have changed even since then, most higher end bikes weren't available with more that a compact with 25 on the back and a double with 27.

At the time the 'easiest' ratio available on my bike was a 27 on the back and I went with it. There was a triple available but it didn't seem to be available in the uk. Would have prefered a compact but have never found that it's pushing the gear thats a problem, I always run out of fitness long before I have any trouble spinning along!

blorg

Shimano only started producing groupset compact chainsets in I think 2008 (and Dura Ace only with 7900 in 2009) - probably had something to do with it. They had a non-group compact in 2006 that worked with 105/Ultegra/DA but if you wanted a complete group their preferred lower gear option up to that point was the triple. They were a bit late to the game, Campagnolo did it before them and a lot of third parties produced Shimano-compatible cranksets that were very popular in the marketplace.

Lumen

Finally got around to watching stage 9 TDF Eurosport coverage, and heard this...

Sean Kelly wrote:

A lot of people talk about how you can climb, what gear you can climb in, but it doesn't mean anything. You can be climbing the big ring at 2mph and almost falling over, so the gear you use on a climb doesn't give any indication of how your fitness is, it's at what rate you can climb

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Finally got around to watching stage 9 TDF Eurosport coverage, and heard this...

Makes perfect sense to me. Was there ever any question over it?

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Makes perfect sense to me. Was there ever any question over it?

The other commentator (David? forget his name) was going on about how one of his colleagues was so fit he never got out of the big ring.

Sean then waded in with that....

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

The other commentator (David? forget his name) was going on about how one of his colleagues was so fit he never got out of the big ring.

Sean then waded in with that....

Ah right. I remember hearing Sean talking about that, but don't remember what David (Harmon) was saying before hand.

blorg

Raam wrote: »

Makes perfect sense to me. Was there ever any question over it?

People go on about big ringing climbs all the time, refusing to use their granny ring if they have one, how you are a wimp if you use a compact or triple, etc etc. One of my personal bugbears. Good to see Sean agrees

Raam

blorg wrote: »

People go on about big ringing climbs all the time, refusing to use their granny ring if they have one, how you are a wimp if you use a compact or triple, etc etc. One of my personal bugbears. Good to see Sean agrees

Who did this? Where are they?

lukester

Lumen wrote: »

Finally got around to watching stage 9 TDF Eurosport coverage, and heard this...

Heard him say that too, although in your transcription you left out about 10 certainlys.

In addition to commenting about another colleague, Harmon was saying how he himself could get up a certain climb in the big ring when fit.

Sean ever so gently deflated his balloon.

Kelly, the man, the myth, the legend.

Raam

On the TOI in 2008, one chap looked at me in scorn when I told him I was using a 27 at the back. He was on a 25 and had just seriously struggled to get up Keeper Hill. Apparantly it's better to grind yourself into the ground rather than sell your soul to the lords of larger cassette sprockets.

lukester

Raam wrote: »

Apparantly it's better to grind yourself into the ground rather than sell your soul to the lords of larger cassette sprockets.

It's also much better to grind away knee cartilage and develop a raft of knee problems.

Like a twat (albeit an uninformed twat) I decided to "strengthen my legs" last year by going up as many hills as possible in the highest gear I could without falling over.

That decision coincided with my first ever visit to a physio. Funny that.

Spin FTW.

Raam

lukester wrote: »

It's also much better to grind away knee cartilage and develop a raft of knee problems.

Like a twat (albeit an uninformed twat) I decided to "strengthen my legs" last year by going up as many hills as possible in the highest gear I could without falling over.

That decision coincided with my first ever visit to a physio. Funny that.

Spin FTW.

There is certainly a need to develop leg strength at some point. I guess you just over did it.

ednwireland

lukester wrote: »

It's also much better to grind away knee cartilage and develop a raft of knee problems.

Like a twat (albeit an uninformed twat) I decided to "strengthen my legs" last year by going up as many hills as possible in the highest gear I could without falling over.

That decision coincided with my first ever visit to a physio. Funny that.

Spin FTW.

nah your just getting old

blorg

Raam wrote: »

There is certainly a need to develop leg strength at some point. I guess you just over did it.

Yes, there is worth in developing this too, although it does risk the knee problems. There are situations where you want to have the leg strength to power over something, or starting a sprint.

Fixie up the mountains helped in my case.

lukester

Raam wrote: »

There is certainly a need to develop leg strength at some point. I guess you just over did it.

Totally. Have read up a bit on it since and realised I got it asswise. All the training advice I've read suggests building up leg strength progressively, so starting at lower gradients and working upwards from there. And only after a proper base period.

I on the other hand just found the steepest hills I could and ground my way up. Slowly.

SHROPSHIREDUB

lukester wrote: »

Totally. Have read up a bit on it since and realised I got it asswise. All the training advice I've read suggests building up leg strength progressively, so starting at lower gradients and working upwards from there. And only after a proper base period.

I on the other hand just found the steepest hills I could and ground my way up. Slowly.

HI A FIRST TIME POSTER AND NEW TO CYCLING AM I BEST TO START WITH SOME EASIER CLIMBS LIKE DEVILS ELBOW AND TRY TO GO UP FASTER BEFORE TACKLING SOME MORE DIFFICULT CLIMBS
TRIED AND FAILED MISERABLY ON DEVILS GLEN

blorg

Just throw yourself in and take it easy, I think you are better figuring out how to get up the longest climb in Wicklow slowly before thinking about speed work. (AND STOP SHOUTING, it will leave you out of breath.)

ROK ON

Glad this thread is back. Have spent more time over the past few weeks comparing my bikes with triple versus compact.

On the hills the compact does the job. But on the descents and flat the triple is better.

Fastest gearing on compact is 50/12 versus 52/12 on the triple.
Now I can probably get as fast on the compact by superior cadence or installing a casette with an 11tooth small ring. But just wanted to let folk know.
If you want to go up hills and then be able to go fast down them, then it is hard to beat the flexibility of the triple.

blorg

50-11 is a significantly bigger gear than 52-12 so yes, you can get it on the compact with an 11T on your cassette. If you want to get fast down hills you will get faster by working on your position, getting more aero.