Charley A. writes:
My road bike is a custom Bill Holland steel frame made in late 1992; 53×39 and 12×24 gearing. It has about 70K miles and been well maintained. Do I upgrade or replace? I am not riding the miles I used to and the gearing is getting too long for me. Compact or triple crank if replace? I would like to hear some pro and con on the options.
Any recommendations for Charley? I’d be inclined to keep the Bill Holland and go to a compact crankset, 50×34, maybe add a tooth or two in the rear end as well. But then I never throw anything out. My road and mountain bikes are 15 years old, I have a 26-year-old pickup, and until very recently I still had the second computer I ever owned, a 1993 Apple Quadra 650. Alas, no amount of upgrading could transform that 33MHz beast into a modern machine.
Mad Blog Media 
Upgrade to a new carbon wonder bike. They are fantastic. And find a triple if you still can. I love the tight gearing in the back and the wide range you get up front (hmmm, that could apply to a lot of things). I also use everything past end of life (just sold my ancient Saab with 230k miles on it, it was well past end of life) but sometimes its worth updating. In this case you will enjoy the technolgy and materials leap. It the one benefit you get from hanging onto the old stuff so long. Oh, the new iPhones are way cool too.
“Sir, step away from the triple.” “Honey, think of the kids. How would they ever face their friends at school?” “Charley, we were making such good progress in therapy, and the drugs seemed to be working, but now this.”
What is thing about triples? Just because every Tom, Dick and Harry manufacturer is slapping a triple on a short chainstay bike and calling it a touring bike, does that make it a good idea? The inherent problems of triples have never been overcome and probably never will. 1. Shitty chain life. 2. Crappy shifting up front. 3. Negative impact to shifting on the back because of the long chain required.
Keep it safe and sane and go for 2 smaller rings up front. Blow the bucks to get a nice crankset that will do that for you. Keep the max size on the back at 26t (28 if you must)and keep your bike. I’ve got a bias for a tooth difference up front of no more than 12t and preferably 10t, but maybe I’m overly picky about front shifting quality.
And keep the bike. Getting rid of a custom Bill Holland is like getting a divorce just because.
I love triples…. Of course I live in a very hilly place and I’m not the smallest rider. I’ve never had chain life issues. Part of that is paying attention to whether you or cross chaining or not. Oh and lube helps…. Also running campy helps.
Then again a compact double (50-34) with an 11-28 on the rear works pretty damm good also.
Rush Carter
CS West Bikes
I agree with Rush. Not only do I own and ride triples almost all the time (exception is the compact setup in Italy I posted about previously) we maintain a fleet of Campagnolo Mirage 9-speed rental bikes in Italy, all equipped with triples. No problems as described by Jon Paulos, even with new-to-Campy rental clients on them. After riding the compact setup all summer long and coming home to Iowa where my triple-equipped bikes live, I think the big difference is where you live and where you ride. If you (as we are in Italy) are either going up or down, with little to no flat sections, the compact is the way to go, you can probably get away with buying less parts to make a conversion as well. If you have more flat rides, I find the compact (I tested it extensively here on the plains of Iowa before taking the bike to Italy) to be far less useful/enjoyable than the triple setup. The triple with 52-42-30 with 13-26 in the back gives me a gear for anything (we are not talking loaded touring, OK?) and lots of small steps between the gears. On the flats with the compact 50-34 (13-29 in back) I had the same range more or less, but there was a lot of extra shifting when the big ring was too big and the small ring too small. Just like Goldilocks, for my domestic riding the triple is “just right” though in Italy I’m happy enough with the compact setup. This debate will never end with a clear winner–the best way to choose is based on where you ride and which conversion might cost you less $$$ based on the components you have. Bill Holland is a great guy, I’d keep that bike for sure!
I’m a big fan of the widest triple you can bolt on the bike with a close range cassette in the back, but my current setup is a wide ratio cassette with a double in front. My touring bike (which you can see in my avatar picture) has had more drivetrains than I can count at the moment used to have an 11-34 cassette and now sports 11-25 with the same 24-34-48 triple, because I could never get the right gear on the roads between cities where I would have long miles of flat sections with steady winds (hey, I live in the plains area of TX) with an occasional hill like a short wall. My city bike has 11-34 8 speed and 39-53 double and I hardly ever use the big ring because by the time I have enough speed built up to use the big ring I’m hitting the brakes for a stop sign or red light. I spend all my time going from gear to gear and hardly ever spend any time in a single gear, so a wide ratio cassette with a single would suit me fine.
So the first question is where will the bike be ridden most, and what style of rider will be riding?
Hey Charley,
In my humble opinion, I’d keep the sweet bike and go for a compact crank. Although I have in my mechanical roamings seen and ridden triples that work just fine, they do tend to have problems more often than doubles. Doubles just shift better, and of course they are more simple, which is always a good thing in my book. If you get a 50/34×12-27, you will have a much lower bailout gear, while keeping the simplicity of the double. I believe Shimano may make an 11-27 cassette, which would give you about the same top end you have currently.
Best wishes, whatever you decide!
Does the ’92 take a standard 130 mm spacing rear hub? If not and it cannot be stretched, this could be a limiting issue for upgrades.
The simplest thing is to bolt on a compact and save the money on converting to triple front shifting. If the bike is a 7 speed, you will have to re-dish the rear wheel when you replace the cassette freewheeling mount or whatever that thing is called with the newer one. Not sure this can be done on a Campy hub going from 8 speed to 9/10.
I have medium cage rear derailleurs on both Cannondales so the bikes have a lot of wrapup capacity for wide range cassettes combined with the big differences in front ring size. I can run a 12-28 or 13-29 on the back and 50-34 on the front on the 20 speed Cannonball with more or less smooth shifting, as the Chorus derailleur is designed to handle the 13-29.
Agree regarding flat areas vs. mountains. The triple allows you to have closer ratio shifting when motoring the flats while still having a bailout granny gear. How much fiddling does one want to do?
Not many flat rides around Bibleburg. Even if you head east, there is up and down to be had.
As a cyclo-crosser, I was riding “compact” gearing way before all the cool kids. My standard setup back in the day was a Shimano 600 or 105 crankset with 48/38 rings and a 13-26 cassette. Lately I like a 46/34 up front and something with a 28-tooth cog in back, ’cause I get a yen to ride some single-track now and then.
And frankly, there are days where I miss my titanium Voodoo Loa, which had a Ritchey crankset with 46/34 rings, an XT rear derailleur and (if memory serves) an 11-32 cassette. Sucker had a one-off Marzocchi suspension fork, too, but it weighed more than Rush Limbaugh so I replaced it with a steel fork. Still have the Marzocchi, though, and it would be amusing to have someone build a lightweight ‘cross frame around it some day.
I have a Mac+ and an SE/30 in my Mac Museum.
No experience with compacts, but I’ve been thinking one will go on the next bike in that museum. The 10 Speed Chorus Triple on my steel Lemond works just fine. I suspect I’ll be making good use of it next week in Oregon. Quite the switch from the “flat lands” of Iowa.
Charley; if aesthetics are important to you go with the double-compact, man I hate seeing a beautiful steel frame (lugged or not) with a triple, dwelling on “shifting issues” is important–I guess, If any of you are like me… you stare at your bikes like you/they were in the Louvre, sorry a triple on a road bike is anti-art!
Before I offer my two cents about whether or not you should keep the Holland….what size is it?
Okay, seriously. Everyone’s advice above seems well thought out and worthy of consideration, but I have (of course) a couple more thoughts of my own to toss in. First, in my experience, triples have an annoyingly large Q factor: it’s 9mm wider than a double. So if you don’t like to straddle your cranks like a horse, then that’s one more factor in favor of the compact.
On the other side, I have heard that some older frames have difficulty with clearance between the chainstay and the 34t or 36t chainring. For example, my ’09 Gunnar has the chainstay notched for this clearance, but the older ones do not. So before you lay out the cash, make sure it’s going to work.
If you’re actually thinking about getting rid of the Holland, here’s something else to think about: A couple months back I called Bill Holland to ask him about building me a custom steel. Bad news all you other steel road bike fans, he does not currently work with steel. His business is doing so well with titanium that he doesn’t have the time. You’ll be hard pressed to find a bike built today that rides as well as that steel Holland.
So no matter what you decide, for god’s sake, keep the Holland!! Have JB put a new paint job on it if that’s what it takes to make you still want to ride it, but definitely keep it!
Triples are getting a bad rap here and I wonder why? No doubt I am biased but a lot of the Shimano road triples I troubleshoot are a pain-in-the-you-know-what…they just don’t work very well which is strange since their MTB stuff works just great. Could that be the reason for the anti-triple sentiments? Campagnolo triple setups, on my personal bikes, the rental fleet I maintain AND the ones our clients bring to Italy all seem to work fine. I don’t feel any ill-effects from the increased Q factor, but I’m a guy who doesn’t feel any effects switching back and forth among 170, 172.5 and 175 crankarms either. The “slow shifting in the back” is just a myth, there’s no difference in shifting “quickness” at least with Campagnolo stuff. One thing that might tempt the fellow to go with the compact is that triples seem to be going the way of the dodo in favor of compact setups these days. I wonder how much longer Campagnolo will offer them as the choices get narrower every year. What size was that Holland, anyway?
Thanks to everyone for the Info. The rear will accept a 130mm cassette. The bike is not going any where and yeah Joe Bell may see it again. I will let you know my decision by Christmas (hint hint).
Charley,
Part it out to some old geez who finds ’92 era product “cool”, take the ducats you earn from those sales and buy yourself a new bike. Keep the Holland as a momento – heck have it framed and put on the mantle – but don’t get rid of it.
As for your new bike, where do you ride? What type of terrain? Do you need more than a sinle gear (front, back or both)? From the sound of your original inquiry you seem to be wanting to find a justification for keeping it. I hear someone who wants a new toy. You can have both, but you just need to decide “what you need” is “what you want.”
Triples on road bikes seem silly in my opinion. I know of someone who had one and insisted that in pan flat SacTown Left Coast that he “might need it for a ride.” Which seemed silly since he never went and tried the Death Ride after conquering it. And he only rode around town on it! Now – of course – he has a custom Seven with a 14-gear Rohloff hub…because he “might need all these gears someday.”
That being said if you are touring long distances than I can see their need. As for gearing – whatever floats your boat. There is no MAGIC combination. There are mashers and there are spinners. Which is your pleasure? Since you don’t say, I still stick to my original advice: part the bike out, take the cash and buy yourself a new ride. You’ll feel better about it in the long run.
Triples were invented back in the days of five speed cogsets (often set up with wide range 5 speeds and half-step plus granny up front) but I don’t think they are by any means obsolete.
Perhaps triples are silly for the weekend warrior who is only carting his or her own butt around town and country, but for those serious credit card tourists who want a good all-around bike, or who actually load front and rear panniers, or who are old and feeble and live where 8-10% grades are common, the triple crank is fine.
I think cycling has gotten way too arrogant and posh in an age of overpaid yuppies. Shit, I don’t even read the Colorado Cyclist catalog any more. Seems they cater to the rich.
People should just ride what they want to ride.