Re: "That in the end is much cheaper than putting on a triple, and much more functional than putting a 12-32 mtb cassette on."

-------------------------------------

So back to my question from earlier- is the argument against the triple only cost-based? If I was to buy a new tri bike and spec'ed it with a triple so I only paid the delta cost from a double it would actually be cheaper than going with the FSA compact double (or maybe a wash). I still don't get the advantage of the compact double over a triple. What am I missing? (I'm not bashing or trolling- I really think I'm missing something here).

The number one advantage to me is Q-factor. I don't walk like a duck, so I don't want to ride like a duck. The narrower I can put my feet the happier I am.

Other advantages would be weight, and further down the list aerodynamics and ease of shifting.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

The advantage to me is also Q-factor, ease of use, weight ie shifting. Why does one need a triple anyway? Do you use the 30 on the triple much? You have to ask yourself the question if the 34 on the compact is plent of gear for you with a 23 or even a 25 on the back cassette. With the 34 on the FSA compact and a 23 or even a 25 on the back I can climb just about anything, and as for the flats I can cruize with all the gearing I need with the 50 chainring. As for the downhill thing in terms of spinning out the 50/11, I get in a tuck so that is not a problem for me...

---

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take" - Wayne Gretzky

Gerard- Regarding Q factor: wouldn't it be logical to assume that larger people would require a larger Q factor? It's accepted practice to go with wider handlebars based on shoulder width (at least for road bars), but I've never heard anyone recommend a wider Q based on hip width. I don't understand why the narrowest possible Q factor is the best for all riders. Also, if I'm already used to the Q factor on the triple on my road bike, what do I gain by going with a narrower Q factor on my tri bike? Is there any data that correlates narrower Q to increased power or anything else along those lines? (besides the obvious aero benefit of having the legs a little closer together- but we're talking millimeters).

As for the effect on Q, I think it's about 10% wider with a triple. As for what Q is ideal, I don't know of any good studies but when you walk your footsteps overlap a bit. So you walk with a negative Q. Not saying that would be ideal for riding (aside from the technical issues) but it would be feasible that the ideal Q is narrower than we would ever be able to achieve, regardless of hip width. But I don't have scientific data to back that up in a general sense, I know that for myself narrower is better.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

"The advantage to me is also Q-factor, ease of use, weight ie shifting. Why does one need a triple anyway? Do you use the 30 on the triple much? You have to ask yourself the question if the 34 on the compact is plent of gear for you with a 23 or even a 25 on the back cassette. With the 34 on the FSA compact and a 23 or even a 25 on the back I can climb just about anything, and as for the flats I can cruize with all the gearing I need with the 50 chainring. As for the downhill thing in terms of spinning out the 50/11, I get in a tuck so that is not a problem for me... "

-----------------------------------------

I don't know if I have more hills where I live than most people (San Jose, CA) but I use the 30 quite a bit when climbing- typically anything over 7-8% grade. Just plugging in a few examples into the analyticcycling.com model, the difference in cadence between the 30x23 and 34x23 at "climbing" speed is about 10rpm. The real reason I like the triple (as Julian has also pointed out) is the 42, which is where I do 95% of my riding. The triple is far easier for me to use because I hardly ever have to double shift. Also, for the 18-20mph IM rider, you're going to be mildly/moderately cross-chained with the 50/34 most of the time, whereas with the 42 I'm right in the middle of the cluster.

Gerald,

I was just curious why you went with the FSA compact over the triple or FSA triple, I just did not have a need for the 30 in the triple. I dont know that I will miss the 42 until I do more real world ridding here.

---

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take" - Wayne Gretzky

I spoke to a rep at FSA today about the compact, and asked him in his mind what the advantage is if someone was setting up a new tri bike and was toying with going with the FSA compact or the FSA triple. He told me that there is alot of overlaping gears with a traditional 53/42 or 53/39, and that weight is also an issue, as well as the deraillers being different for the triple. He said the 50 chainring on the compact will cover about as many gears as the 53/42 unless you are really cranking on the flats pushing over 30 (MPH). and the 34 is great for the hills, so you have the best of both worlds without the derailler issue, the weight, the added Q-factor, and additional shifting of the triple. He said they are selling alot of these compact cranks and they are proving to be very popular. As I see it thats what makes a horse race, some will chose to go with the triple and some will chose the compact. I am happy with the compact cranks and I think if you triple riders chose to try them you would be also. As for a regular 53/42 or 53/39 I think the FSA compact wins hand down.....

---

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take" - Wayne Gretzky

Where in San Jose are you? I'm an Almaden. There are definitely some mighty hills around here where a 30 ring is a life saver.
Anyways, I have a triple on my road bike, I love it for the hills, but I wouldn't even consider putting a triple on my tri -bike. On my road bike, I also spend 95% of my riding in the middle 42 ring, I spend ~4.9% of my time in the 30, and I almost NEVER use the 53. My point is that if your only using 2 of the rings anyways, why haul around the 3rd ring? That is the bueaty of the 50/34 setup, it lets you get the low gears with out lugging around a 53 ring when your not going to use it anyways. The triple came on the road bike so it stays, but I don't think I'd buy a triple otherwise.

I ride a double on my tri-bike with 50/38 on standard cranks and a 12-23 in the back. Let me tell you, for all you SJ locals around here, Hicks Rd with a 38-23 is a royal pain in the rear, atleast for me who relies on cadence for speed. The lower 2 and upper 2 gears on the cassette when crossed over are tough to use already. I can only imagine that with such short chain stays a triple would shift like crap. And again, I use a 53 about 0.1% of the time.

Why not sacrifice that lets say 1% of the time when you would use a 53 to rest your legs (Assuming your going downhill anyways), save the weight of the 53 you only use 1% of the time, and keep the lower q-factor.

I guess the question isn't do you use the 30, you live in SJ you definitely use the 30, the question is where you use the 53 and you want to carry it around?

I'm in the Santa Clara Univ. area. I'm sure we ride a lot of the same hills (Hwy 9, Tunitas Creek, Alpine Rd.) yes, the 30 is a lifesaver. Like you, I need to spin to have a prayer of keeping up with the mashers. Yep, 95% of the time is in the 42. I might be more inclined to agree with your assessment of ditching the unused 3rd chainring if the FSA was a 42/30 combo, but a 34/50 straddles the usable range for me, but puts the transition between the two rings right smack in the middle of where I do nearly all my riding. A 34 would probably pass as a suitable alternative to a 30 with a slightly larger cassette, but the big issue in my mind is still all the double shifting and cross-chaining right where I would be 95% of the time.

As far as the shifting goes, with a tri bike with short chainstays, you'd have to resign yourself to losing the two (maybe three) crossed cogs when in the 30 or 52, but this still gives you the full cassette when in the 42 and you still have the meaningful gears when in the 30 and 52 (after all, who rides the 30x11 anyway?)

I guess my question is being answered, in that it seems like it's more a matter of personal preference than anything else between the FSA and a triple. For me, the overriding factor is the 42 in front to minimize double shifting, and the only realistic way to get it without losing a lot of top end or low end is with a triple. To each their own :-)