30 speeds really necassary?

rmlarson647 said:

Hello: I'm in the process of buying a Tommaso road bike from over the internet - it's the only was Tommaso's are available. Still the prices seem right and I understand the bikes are very nice.

Buying site unseen always poses risks, you can probably gauge components to a certain degree, but will the bike fit you correctly, as stated sizes from different manufactures can vary greatly. BTW I know nothing about Tommaso bikes.

rmlarson647 said:

I don't race - just looking for vigorous, an hour a day maybe riding around local lakes.

How many hills & how steep are they?

rmlarson647 said:

...... the Mondial, a partial carbon fiber frame and New Shimano 105 30 speed group,.... the Trascinare, a little lighter w/all carbon fiber frame and slightly better components - for $500 more. The more expensive bike has New Shimano 20 speed componentry. Are 30 speeds really necassary?

Riding fitness [& age] & terrain [how hilly it is] would typically determine what number of gears you feel comfortable with

rmlarson647 said:

Why less speeds on a more expensive machine?

It is assumed that a "better" [stronger] rider would buy a dearer bike hence needing less gears. There is a saying that "the more you pay, the less you get",

rmlarson647 said:

Personaly I'm attracted to the 20 speed group bike for simplicity's sake. Less maintenance? Maybe that's why the Trascinare is a little lighter?

Weight difference between 20 speeds & 30 speeds is around 150 grams, & my 30 speed shifts flawlessly [hylight my signature to see what I ride]

7 & a triple (on both my bikes) seems like plenty. & we have some fairly steep hills. At a certain point it's more dignified to get off & walk it anyway, than to crawl close to toppling.

To answer your question:

Most better road bikes don't have a triple crank. SO, in most cases 20 speed is more than adequate. Having said that, I'm sold on the benefit of compact cranksets ... With a compact crankset, you can accomplish most of what a triple may provide (depending upon the topography and appropriate cassette size), without the downside (weight, extra cross chain issues, and prejudice) of a triple. I believe my compact cranks have made me a stronger rider in the hills.

Thom_y said:

......(weight, extra cross chain issues, and prejudice) of a triple.

Weight.. Negligible.[06 105 about 150 grams] but a few more mm of Q factor which some riders may find a little less efficient. Triples can be ridden with less cross chaining than any double. Prejudice, only if u let it worry u.

Thom_y said:

I believe my compact cranks have made me a stronger rider in the hills.

I started not using anything lower than 30/19 = 39/25 regardless of the grade & yes that quickly makes u stronger on hills 🙂

RHI said:

7 & a triple (on both my bikes) seems like plenty. & we have some fairly steep hills. At a certain point it's more dignified to get off & walk it anyway, than to crawl close to toppling.

I thought that as well with 24 speeds, till I got my 30 speed which I basically use as a 20 speed. So far haven't had to resort to 'walking' except first attempt at a 20% grade which I have since 'mastered'

I'm sure it a personal matter, but I recently rented two different road bikes on a trip to Girona, SP. One was a Campy triple-equiped Eddy Mercx and the other was an Orbea with Shimano 105 (06) with FSA compact crankset.

On the triple I found it felt like there was added friction riding the chain from the small ring on the front to the upper cogs on the rear cassette (or the large ring and lower cogs in the rear). Plus, I found I often had to double shift as the step up were often too small. On the compact crankset equipped bike which had an 12-25 on the rear and 50/34 upfront, I had more than enough on the low side (I didn't need the 25 for the hills I rode) and the 50-12 combo was enough of a big gear for me, except for big descents or killer tailwinds. I found I didn't need to shift as much with the compacts compared to the triple or on my old bike with 53/39 and 11/23.

As a result, my new bike has a FSA compact crankset (50/34) with an 11-23 on the back. If I want to go into the real mountains, a 12-25 (or 12-27) will probably still spare me the need for a triple crank. And for me, when I spent a lot to get a frame under 900g, I don't want to add unecessary weight back with a triple. Just my opinion.

I thought Albert gave some really good advice and have to agree with most of what he had to say. The number of hills, style of riding, and personal preference determine more than anything else what you need. You may find that not all combination of gears are usable. You may pick up some vibrations if you put the chain on your smallest chainring and the smallest rear cog or when you put the chain on the largest chainring and the largest rear cog. It's not good to ride in that combination of gears as it puts a lot of stress on the chain.

You also didn't mention the range of gears, which I think is as least as important as the number of gears. I have a 2-year-old touring bike with a triple crankset and an 8-speed rear cog that goes from 11-28 teeth. It gives me a combination of 24 different gears, although I only use about 13 of them. After two years of riding, and doing some loaded touring, I've decided that the highest gear ratio (52-11) is too strong for me, and it would be nice to have a slightly lower granny gear (currently: 30-28). As a result, I've bought a new rear cassette with the same speeds, but a combination of 32-12. The effect is the same number of gears, but a lower gear ratio. Again, that was just my own personal preference. Your mileage may vary.
Best, WKB.