Replacing Ultegra 9 speed triple with 10 speed compact

[rspecker]

Currently have a 2001 Legend with Ultegra 9 speed triple.

Is there enough improvement in shifting performance, stiffness, weight, ergonomics of the 10 speed shift levers, etc. to "justify" replacing with Ultergra SL compact (12-27)?

Of course, I don't NEED to do this--just in the realm of new toys. But if there is not a reasonably significant improvement I won't bother.

[rwsaunders]

I'll go out on a limb and fire the first salvo. I prefer the triple or a double over the compact, in terms of shifting simplicity.

[stevep]

i thk the 10 spd stuff is much more refined than the 9...
whether compact depends on what gears you might need fr yr riding.
i use it on a cross bike that i ride around on...
works about right for that.

when the bike goes on the road in spring i lose the 34 and replace w/ a 39.

for a big ring i use a 46... its enough for the winter.

[3chordwonder]

I have an Ultegra compact on my crossbike and find it oprates seamlessly and reliably. It just works. I have no issues shifting or finding the right gear.

[DarrenCT]

i'm voting for the 10spd compact. u can score the kit for way under 1k and it'll last a lifetime

[Louis]

One way of looking at it:

1) Figure out what your shifting patterns are for the areas where you do most of your riding.

2) Do the math for where your current gears put you.

3) Do the math for what will happen if you go with a compact setup, and how much shifting you will have to do there.

4) Decide if you can live with might end up being more shifting of the f-der. (If you have lots of rolling hills this may happen.)

Good Luck
Louis

[dauwhe]

I'm still worried about ten-speed chains...

Dave the Luddite...

[Louis]

I'm still worried about ten-speed chains...

A "real" 10-speed will solve that concern...

[Ken Robb]

aw heck--all the newish stuff all works great--9 speed-10 speed--regular or compact. I don't think I'd use 10 speed for cross or mtn. bikes but in clean and dry San Diego it's worked fine for reasonable distances.

[thwart]

I like compacts, but...

Biggest issue for me with compacts is the gearing drop when going from the big to small chainring. I need to upshift 2 or 3 (or 4) cogs on my cassette---which of course is not as noticeable on a standard double or triple with much less difference in chainring size.

Clumsy me finds this a real pain to do quickly with Shimano, however, a bit less so with Campy (at least the pre-QS Campy...) where one good thumbstroke will do it.

This is only a big issue in faster pace group rides, to be honest.

So I've kind of come back to triples a bit. There's some long-term wisdom in the way they're laid out... that granny just sits there waiting to bail you on that 18 degree monster, with no gearing compromise elsewhere. I'll spin right by someone doing an out-of-the-saddle slow lug up those steep hills. And whose legs are fresher at the top?

Yep---you're right---it does cost you 150 grams of rotating weight for that kind of help, though.

[dave thompson]

Currently have a 2001 Legend with Ultegra 9 speed triple.

Is there enough improvement in shifting performance, stiffness, weight, ergonomics of the 10 speed shift levers, etc. to "justify" replacing with Ultergra SL compact (12-27)?

Of course, I don't NEED to do this--just in the realm of new toys. But if there is not a reasonably significant improvement I won't bother.
I've used Shimano triples for years and earlier this year changed one bike to a 10-sp compact double. I do like both, but I wouldn't change to the 10-sp outfit again, IMO you spend way too much money for a small return. What I would do (and I've done it) would be to buy the compact crank of your choice and run your 9-sp triple components, it actually works quite well.

10-sp components are fussier about proper set-up and chain life is notoriously short. I bought all new 10-sp components to outfit my bike, so I'm stuck with them, but like I stated earlier, I wouldn't do it again.

[Tobias]

Yep---you're right---it does cost you 150 grams of rotating weight for that kind of help, though.
Maybe meant as sarcasm, but what does “rotating” weight mean here?
I get the 150 grams is a weight penalty, but rotating weight? What does that signify? :confused:

[thwart]

Someone with better memory than mine can probably quote the actual ratio here... but rotating weight (mass) has more effect on your speed than static weight (like a water bottle, for ex). It takes more of your force to move it. The further the rotating weight is from the center of the axis (again---for ex, tires vs hub), the larger its effect.

Therefore the granny gear has fractionally less effect than that big chainwheel. Of course, it's smaller and lighter too. But you still pay a price for it.

[PaulE]

I just switched my Legend from a 9 speed Ultegra 53/39 crank to the compact FC 4550 50/34 crank. This is a Shimano "High Grade" component. Shimano says it is specifically designed for 9 speed applications and that it is equivalent to Tiagra grade components. I was a little leery when I read Tiagra but the crank was only $75 new and I wasn't sure if I would like the compact anyway so I decided to get one. Turns out it looks and works fine. Not quite as nice as the FC 700 in looks but still very nice, and the big ring is more traditional looking. With Dura Ace bottom bracket cups, this setup weighed 965 grams vs about 915 grams for the Ultegra crank and bottom bracket I took off. Shifting with the Ultegra 9 speed double front derailleur is still perfect.

I just built my Kirk with 10 speed Dura Ace components and the FC 700 50/34 compact crank. The ergonomics of the Dura Ace brifters are different and maybe better than that of the Ultegra 9 speed ones, but not enough to make me go out and replace the Ultegra 9 speed groups on my two other bikes. The shifting and brakes are also sweeter with the Dura Ace, but again, not enough to make me throw everything away.

My only experience with triples was a couple of weeks with a Legend from the Serotta test fleet that was equipped with a well-worn Shimano Ultegra 9 speed triple setup. The front derailleur didn't trim for beans, even though my shop gave it a very thorough tuneup before they sent me on my way. Serotta Pete who has experience with both the 9 speed and 10 speed Ultegra triples says the difference between the two is like night and day in terms of being able to trim the front and other functions.

As for gearing, a 700 x 23 wheel/tire with a 53 x 12 gear will give you mph speeds of about 27.9, 31.3, 34.8, 38.3 and 41.8 at cadences of 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120 rpm, respectively, vs. corresponding mph speeds of 26.3, 29.6, 32.8, 36.1 and 39.4 with a 50x12 gear. For me, lucky to be using the 53x14, there was no loss of top end and I use the big ring a lot more with my compact cranks. Also, the 16 tooth difference between the front rings on the compact vs the 14 tooth on the 53/39 has not been an issue for me.

[thwart]

16 tooth difference between the front rings on the compact vs the 14 tooth on the 53/39 has not been an issue for me. My triple is a 52/40/30. The compact is 50/34. That 12 vs 16 tooth difference is noticeable for me. YMMV. As I mentioned, I'm clumsy (and slow too :rolleyes: ) but on faster rides I don't appreciate that kind of drop.

[Dave]

In a nutshell, a 50/34 compact requires one more cog shift, after you make the shift from the big ring to the little ring, compared to the common 53/39 (whether on a double or a triple). That's all you need to learn about the shifting pattern.

The other problem that occurs for some people, depending on the terrain, is constantly being either in the big ring and larger cogs or the little ring and smaller cogs. The little ring and two smallest cogs are often not useable, since the chain may rub on the big ring. You may find you've lost one useable gear combo.

A triple has it's limitations too. The middle ring and largest cog may be useable, but it's a pretty extreme angle. I may use this combo briefly, but it's better to shift to the little ring and 2-3 cogs smaller if you really need that ratio. On the other end of the cassette, the middle ring and smallest cog should be useable, unlike doubles or compact.

10 speed chains won't last quite as long as 9 speed, but careful chain wear measurement and management can make up the cost difference. Not many people measure chain wear properly. It's common to change chains and cassette before needed, if they're cheap. With more expensive 10 speed parts more attention to detail will reduce costs.

If you've got good 9 speed parts, there's no push to change to 10 speed, unless you want the extra cog (either the 16 or the 27). On the other hand, if the parts are all getting old, those 9 speed shifters will get harder to find and more expensive as time goes on. At some point, you have to make the switch. I caved in on day one and jumped into Campy 10 back in 2000. I've had no 10 speed related problems at all.

I ride in the mountains and much prefer my 53/39/28 triple, with a 12-25 10 speed cassette. I have two ratios lower than a 34/27 and I don't lose any top gear. In the early season I have one bike setup with a 13-29 cassette and really miss the 53/12 on the descent.

Many riders are not familiar with a Campy triple FD and ergo lever. With Campy you get 7 identical clicks to move the FD cage wherever you need it, so there are no trimming issues.

[Tobias]

Someone with better memory than mine can probably quote the actual ratio here... but rotating weight (mass) has more effect on your speed than static weight (like a water bottle, for ex). It takes more of your force to move it. The further the rotating weight is from the center of the axis (again---for ex, tires vs hub), the larger its effect.

Therefore the granny gear has fractionally less effect than that big chainwheel. Of course, it's smaller and lighter too. But you still pay a price for it.
Thanks thwart; that’s what I thought you may have been referring to.
The thing is, not all rotating weight is the same. Some quoted ratios are nonsense.
There is no one correct ratio to quote (even beyond diameter, etc.).
Treating all rotating weight equally leads to huge mistakes.

[davids]

I replaced the triple setup on my Axiom (52/42/30 - 11-23) with a compact double (50/34 - 12/25). I agree with Thwart. I'm mostly happy with it, but think it's too big a drop from the big to little ring - Lots of rear shifting required simultaneously to avoid too big a gear change. I think a more ideal setup for me would be a 50/36 crank with a 12-27 cassette.

BTW, I set this up for the steep rolling hills of Maine. The 34-25 is a good low gear there, and I never felt like I was spinning too fast in the 50-12, even on 40 mph downhills. When I took this bike to nearly-flat Ohio a few weeks back, I found that I almost never shifted out of the big ring, and spent a lot of time cross-chaining. Not a big deal, but it's not the ideal setup for the flatlands (or even greater Boston), at least for me.

[palincss]

Someone with better memory than mine can probably quote the actual ratio here... but rotating weight (mass) has more effect on your speed than static weight (like a water bottle, for ex). It takes more of your force to move it. The further the rotating weight is from the center of the axis (again---for ex, tires vs hub), the larger its effect.

Therefore the granny gear has fractionally less effect than that big chainwheel. Of course, it's smaller and lighter too. But you still pay a price for it.

From the Wikipedia:

rotating weight

Weight that is rotating while the bike is moving, particularly referring to the wheels. Weight near the perimeter of a wheel has about twice the stored energy of non-rotating weight on a bicycle when moving. Rotation of cranks, wheel hubs, and other parts are of little significance because the radius and speed of rotation are small. Rotating weight resists acceleration (or deceleration), so lighter wheel rims, spoke nipples, and tires allow slightly quicker acceleration. There is no significant difference between rotating and non-rotating weight when at steady speeds or for hill climbing.


Regardless of your position on "rotating weight" (some feel the whole thing is bogus) it does not apply to cranksets or granny chain rings.

There are many valid reasons one might choose doubles (regardless of the bolt circle diameter) vs. triples, or vice versa. I think it terribly unlikely that the weight of a granny ring and an extra few mm of bottom bracket spindle would be such a reason.

[Tobias]

I replaced the triple setup on my Axiom (52/42/30 - 11-23) with a compact double (50/34 - 12/25). I agree with Thwart. I'm mostly happy with it, but think it's too big a drop from the big to little ring - Lots of rear shifting required simultaneously to avoid too big a gear change.
Knowing what you know today, would you switch from Triple 9 to Compact?

I'm curious what your original goals were; to save weight, improve Q-factor, improve shifting, etc.? From a pure gearing standpoint going from triple to compact seems like a step backwards.

[Tobias]

From the Wikipedia:

Regardless of your position on "rotating weight" (some feel the whole thing is bogus) it does not apply to cranksets or granny chain rings.

There are many valid reasons one might choose doubles (regardless of the bolt circle diameter) vs. triples, or vice versa. I think it terribly unlikely that the weight of a granny ring and an extra few mm of bottom bracket spindle would be such a reason.+1

It's real -- not bogus -- just highly overstated. It would be possible to make rotating weight important, but we'd have to go out of our way to do so.

For climbing I like the benefits.

[davids]

Knowing what you know today, would you switch from Triple 9 to Compact?

I'm curious what your original goals were; to save weight, improve Q-factor, improve shifting, etc.? From a pure gearing standpoint going from triple to compact seems like a step backwards.
Improve shifting, and shed superfluous gearing. With the triple, the granny gear was truly a bail-out, and almost never got used. 27 gears was way too many for a road bike.

Also, I think the old Ultegra triple crank looks chunky and awkward. Aesthetic considerations are alway part of the equation for me.

I'd definitely do it again. The only thing that's an issue is the jump between the large and small rings, and I can remedy that pretty easily if I so choose.

[palincss]

Improve shifting, and shed superfluous gearing. With the triple, the granny gear was truly a bail-out, and almost never got used. 27 gears was way too many for a road bike.

If once in a while you need a bail-out, it can be a good thing to have. The alternative if you didn't have it and needed it would be what?

And if what you have in reality is 9X2 with a bailout, how is that "too many for a road bike" compared with 10X2?

[sg8357]

There is another option, compact triple.
Tighter cassette and a larger 2nd ring, with a smaller granny. Probably a Campy or friction only option.

I have a 48/36/24 Zephyr with a 12-27 in back, so the granny is a bail out
for the O s**t climbs. The drop from 48 to 36 is only +1 gear up, easy on Campy.

Scott G.

[Ken Robb]

as I said I have or had all the combos discussed. My favorite is a TA` Zephyr with 48-38-28 rings and a 13-29 cassette. Zephyrs are no longer available but nice Suginos with 110mm rings can be had for no more than $110. They typically come with 48-36-26 but other combos are available. I have a 26 and a 24 granny in my stash so I could go to a 12-23 cassette for more top gear and still have my stump-puller low/low.

This is one case where both Shimano and Campy have limited our choice of rings for no good reason for users. :butt:

[davids]

If once in a while you need a bail-out, it can be a good thing to have. The alternative if you didn't have it and needed it would be what?

And if what you have in reality is 9X2 with a bailout, how is that "too many for a road bike" compared with 10X2?
The lowest gear is my bail out. 34x25 is pretty close to the 30x23 I used to have.

The compact works well for me when riding steep, rolling hills. A 50-36/12-27 may work even better than the 50-34/12-25 does.

You don't have to do what I did. It's OK if you want a triple. I didn't.

[thwart]

Have to throw in two more cents...

First of all, it's important to know that I live in an area with lots of steep and short hills. And I hate getting off my bike to walk, or going up with a cadence less than 20... :no:

One of my bikes has a Campy 9 spd drive train with a FSA compact crank, 50/34.

For the heck of it, I put together a 12/29 9 spd Campy cassette. The resulting 34-29 is pretty close to the traditional triple 30-25 bailout. With a medium length Centaur RD it works amazingly well. Shifts well even under load.

And the Centaur Ergo's manage that 50 to 34 front drop with one thumbstroke, unlike you-know-who.

Still prefer the triple for the the really hilly rides, however...

[93legendti]

Q factor issues makes me prefer a compact. Just the thought of a week in the mountains on a triple crank when I am used to a double makes my IT band twinge.

[palincss]

The lowest gear is my bail out. 34x25 is pretty close to the 30x23 I used to have.

The compact works well for me when riding steep, rolling hills. A 50-36/12-27 may work even better than the 50-34/12-25 does.

You don't have to do what I did. It's OK if you want a triple. I didn't.


It's OK for you to want a 10x2, too.

But I've got to say, in my book 30x23 isn't a bail-out gear, and both 30T granny rings and 23T large rear sprockets are jokes. 24x30, now that's a bail-out gear.

My gearing is basically a 36x48 compact double with either a 24T or a 26T granny, and a 13-30 9-speed cassette. 95% of my usage is as a compact double. I get on the granny ring on the steepest terrain in the mountains, and on dirt roads, where you often encounter short sections with insanely steep grades.

[davids]

It's OK for you to want a 10x2, too.

But I've got to say, in my book 30x23 isn't a bail-out gear, and both 30T granny rings and 23T large rear sprockets are jokes. 24x30, now that's a bail-out gear.

My gearing is basically a 36x48 compact double with either a 24T or a 26T granny, and a 13-30 9-speed cassette. 95% of my usage is as a compact double. I get on the granny ring on the steepest terrain in the mountains, and on dirt roads, where you often encounter short sections with insanely steep grades.
I just don't ride anything steep enough to require gearing like that. There's a "pass" between two valleys in central Maine that is about the toughest thing I regularly ride. I can grind over it in my 34X25 in about 10 minutes.

If I rode in, say, Colorado I don't think this would work as a bail-out...

[Tobias]

Improve shifting, and shed superfluous gearing. With the triple, the granny gear was truly a bail-out, and almost never got used. 27 gears was way too many for a road bike.I wouldn't have a problem with too many gears unless it caused other problems. If nothing else, chainline angle is improved much of the time with a triple, which offsets the weight penalty to some degree. May also reduce chain wear.

Too many gear options is not a bad problem to have, but even if I was comparing similar numbers, I'm not sure a 3X7 wouldn't work just as well or better for me than a 2X10 (provided similar top and bottom gears).
Also, I think the old Ultegra triple crank looks chunky and awkward. Aesthetic considerations are alway part of the equation for me.davids, the black Ritchey cranks do look nice on your bike. For me chunky is as chunky does to some degree. If the triple shifted as well as the double, the extra ring on the inside wouldn't bother my aesthetic sensibilities. The Ultegra triple and double look much the same to me; whether comparing them in the older 9 or newer 10-speed. Everything else being close to equal I'd probably take the extra gears and then figure out how to best use them.