Specilized Allez 16 or 24 ?

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 05 Oct 2010 16:57

After test riding a Giant defy and the Specialized Allez ive decided on the later, but i'm being offered two variants, the 16 or 24.

I read a review saying the 24 is more for beginners to make hills etc easier, whats everyones comments ?

Philip Whiteman · Post by **Philip Whiteman** » 05 Oct 2010 17:25

I think that both types could be regard as beginner's models and there is probably little between them.

I have never owned a Defy or an Allez but I can speak highly of Giants generally. I have owned both a TCR and and OCR, the latter of which still scores as my favourite. However, I note that Allez 16/24 & Defy 4 have an odd mix within the groupset whilst the Allez Sport and Defy 3 at least use Shimano Sora.

Make sure that they can fit you to the bike, which may involve the exchange of a few components such as the handlebar stem, handlebar or cranks. Off the peg bikes do not always best match the cyclist's dimensions resulting in uncomfortable rides and reduced efficiency.

In terms of making hills easier you will probably need to consider (i) a lighter model which will invariably be more expensive and in excess of £900; (ii) remember that the weight to rider's ability to climb hills is contingent upon personal weight (no personal comment inferred here of course). In addition to making hills easier, there is of course the old chestnut of having to train to climb hills irrespective of the bike or personal features. That involves riding lots of hills with structured sessions.

----EDIT----

As Andy points out below, the triple will be better. The double chainset sounds is set on a racing ratio and will be tough on climbs.

Andy Terry · Post by **Andy Terry** » 05 Oct 2010 17:29

Get the one with the triple chainset (the Allez 24), the lowest gear 30 x 25 will come in handy one day.

AlanW · Post by **AlanW** » 05 Oct 2010 17:40

As Andy said, go for the triple.

I am "assuming" that the triple is 30/39/52?

If so, and as a suggestion, ask the shop to replace the inner 30T ring for a 28T, and also replace the cassette for one terminating in a 23 rather than a 25.

They should be able to do this FOC, maybe not the 28T inner ring though, but certainly do it at cost

You will then have a lovely evenly spaced ratio across the whole range.

Post by **CakeStop** » 05 Oct 2010 20:23

I think both come with 12-25 cassettes so the 16 gives bottom gear of 39x25 and the triple 30x25. If it was a compact double offering say 34x25 it might be more debatable but as it is I'd go for the triple unless you only plan on very local rides or you're too macho to want to use a triple.

I don't have to use my inner chain wheel much on everyday rides round here, maybe just towards the end of a longer ride if I'm getting tired. I am trying to make myself use it more though to increase my cadence up hills. However if I go a bit further afield on our local audaxes or even on some club runs I'm really grateful for it - I might not go up hills very fast but I never end up walking up any.

If you have it you don't have to use it but you'll be pleased it's there when you need it and you will need it sometime unless you're not very adventurous. If you find you want the option of an even lower gear in due course you'd probably be OK using a 12-28 cassette with the 2300 derailleur even though officially it has a max of 26.

George · Post by **George** » 05 Oct 2010 22:27

I start every single ride from home on the granny ring ... I couldn't get up the drive without it!

AlanW · Post by **AlanW** » 06 Oct 2010 06:18

CakeStop wrote:If you have it you don't have to use it but you'll be pleased it's there when you need it ......

Agreed

David Cole · Post by **David Cole** » 06 Oct 2010 08:19

I bought a new winter bike about four years ago and the biggest mistake I made was only having a double 39/52 chainset. Which meant I had to buy a similar bike later - but this time having a triple

Dave

George · Post by **George** » 06 Oct 2010 09:43

David Cole wrote:... which meant I had to buy a similar bike later ...

I am trying to picture the scene in the Cole family living room when you ran the technical explanation for the purchase of a whole new bike past Ann.

George · Post by **George** » 06 Oct 2010 10:12

On a slightly more serious note, a lot of anti-triplists point to the extra weight. However, if you compare chainsets on a like-for-like basis (i.e. same make and model, double vs. triple), the extra weight is piffling: not enough to matter under 'normal' riding conditions.

The only significant drawback with a triple in my view is that you sacrifice a bit of positivity in your shifting. A double will usually give you a cleaner, quicker change between rings. But that only really matters when racing. And, on the up side, a triple gives a better selection of gears (a wide range without wide spacing between sprockets). You can get a similar range with a compact, but on rolling English roads compact users spend most of their time on big ring + biggish cog, or little ring + little-ish cog, which always looks inefficient to me.

Of the two bikes being considered, I'd definitely go for the one with the triple, because the double isn't a compact and, unless you replaced the cassette and derailleur, it wouldn't give you a wide enough range.

Post by **CakeStop** » 06 Oct 2010 10:39

George wrote: A double will usually give you a cleaner, quicker change between rings. But that only really matters when racing.

Why's that George? The jumps on a triple (in terms of difference between the rings) are about the same as a double, less compared with a compact double.

Missiles · Post by **Missiles** » 06 Oct 2010 13:25

I don't know whether it helps the discussion but it's a complete mystery to me why compact chainsets are so popular. I would never consider having one on a road bike - they give such an appalling range of gears for general road use - massive great big jumps between the gears where you want small differences to choose exactly the gear you want. Jumps of c. 10" between consecutive gears right in the range I use most are absolutely awful. And I'd never use the small ring on my usual roads.

When I've ridden in the Alps etc I've had a triple and I've never felt the need for those kind of gears in the UK. Admittedly I don't seek out hills in the UK, but if I did I would without question have a triple and not a compact.

Ruth

Andy Terry · Post by **Andy Terry** » 06 Oct 2010 13:47

Missiles wrote:it's a complete mystery to me why compact chainsets are so popular.

Hear, hear! Inefficient chain lines, and the gears that you'd use most (at least in our area) are where the 'missing' middle ring would be.

I suspect there's a hangover to the days when a triple was considered only for tourists i.e. not proper roadies.

Neil Compton · Post by **Neil Compton** » 06 Oct 2010 15:06

It's horses for courses really. I've found a double to be more than sufficient for my road bike and for going up hills but thats not carrying any loads.

Now my touring bike has arrived today and it has a triple which i think will be a godsend when travelling with full panniers. It's at my dads at the moment so i havn't seen it yet so full report later.

.

George · Post by **George** » 07 Oct 2010 19:44

CakeStop wrote:
George wrote: A double will usually give you a cleaner, quicker change between rings. But that only really matters when racing.
Why's that George? The jumps on a triple (in terms of difference between the rings) are about the same as a double, less compared with a compact double.

I'm not sure why, Steve. But it is definitely my experience. At the risk of being laughed at by someone who can remember their geometry: could it be that, as the rings get bigger, a given increase in the number of teeth means a smaller increase in diameter? (So 30 to 40 is a more awkward shift than 42 to 52?) Or maybe it's because the derailleur has to be a less efficient shape or something.

George · Post by **George** » 07 Oct 2010 19:48

Andy Terry wrote:
Missiles wrote:it's a complete mystery to me why compact chainsets are so popular.
Hear, hear! Inefficient chain lines, and the gears that you'd use most (at least in our area) are where the 'missing' middle ring would be.

I suspect there's a hangover to the days when a triple was considered only for tourists i.e. not proper roadies.

I'm largely with you on that, certainly in the UK. However, when I've ridden mountainous sportives on the continent on a triple, I have found that instead of being on the middle ring 75% of the time, as I am at home, I was on it about 25% of the time. Then a compact starts to look less silly.

Post by **CakeStop** » 07 Oct 2010 20:09

George wrote:could it be that, as the rings get bigger, a given increase in the number of teeth means a smaller increase in diameter? (So 30 to 40 is a more awkward shift than 42 to 52?) Or maybe it's because the derailleur has to be a less efficient shape or something.

Double on the Allez is 39-52, my triple is 30-39-52 so I don't see why a change from a 39-52 on a triple (which for most purposes is the change you'll be making >95% of the time) should feel any different to the same change on a double. Nor do I see why anything should be different about the derailleur to make that particular change. This all assumes that one compares like with like, same brand & model for everything so the only difference is double on one and triple on the other.

George · Post by **George** » 07 Oct 2010 20:55

I cannot offer a plausible explanation for my observation ... but I stand by my observation nonetheless.

Andy Terry · Post by **Andy Terry** » 07 Oct 2010 21:25

Sorry, George. The difference in diameter is directly proportional to the difference in number of teeth. The difference in radius is the amount the chain has to jump from one ring to the another.

difference in radius = difference in teeth / (4 x pi) inches

So, it's 0.8" for a 10-teeth difference and for the typical compact (50/34) it's a 1.3" jump - half an inch more.

Andy Terry · Post by **Andy Terry** » 07 Oct 2010 21:35

CakeStop wrote:Double on the Allez is 39-52, my triple is 30-39-52 so I don't see why a change from a 39-52 on a triple (which for most purposes is the change you'll be making >95% of the time) should feel any different to the same change on a double.

It's the same 1.03" step both times. And if you removed the inner ring from your triple would the change feel any different? I thought not.

Missiles · Post by **Missiles** » 07 Oct 2010 21:53

Without really having a clue what I'm talking about, I'd always imagined the more sluggish changing of a triple was to do with the greater range or variation in the chain length requirements and hence in the range of work the derailleur has to do - and it's length. Surely it's not so easy to have a nicely taught chain over the wider range of chainring sizes?

Ruth

George · Post by **George** » 08 Oct 2010 00:01

Missiles wrote:... I'd always imagined the more sluggish changing of a triple ... Ruth

Am I to read into this that at least one other person does think that a triple changes less positively than a double?!

George · Post by **George** » 08 Oct 2010 00:03

Andy Terry wrote:Sorry, George. The difference in diameter is directly proportional to the difference in number of teeth. The difference in radius is the amount the chain has to jump from one ring to the another.

difference in radius = difference in teeth / (4 x pi) inches

So, it's 0.8" for a 10-teeth difference and for the typical compact (50/34) it's a 1.3" jump - half an inch more.

But the relative difference in diameter between a 30 and a 40 must be greater than that between a 40 and a 50.

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 08 Oct 2010 00:07

What have I started ?

George · Post by **George** » 08 Oct 2010 00:11

CakeStop wrote:Nor do I see why anything should be different about the derailleur to make that particular change.

A triple derailleur is an altogether more complex shape with a bigger cage, whose little ins and outs have to be precisely right for the particular combination of rings in order to change smoothly.

Mind you, I must concede I was only floating a speculative stab at an explanation for a phenomenon I'm convinced exists. What Ruth suggests is at least as plausible; probably more so.

Missiles · Post by **Missiles** » 08 Oct 2010 00:37

George wrote:A triple derailleur is an altogether more complex shape with a bigger cage, whose little ins and outs have to be precisely right for the particular combination of rings in order to change smoothly.

Is it more complex? I thought it was exactly the same only that it has a longer arm (i.e. reach) because it's got to take in more slack to go from, say, a 50 chainring to a 30 chainring. It will be much easier for a double derailleur to achieve a consistent chain tension for the much smaller range of required chain lengths. I don't usually reckon I'm very mechanically minded but isn't this very obvious?

Ruth

George · Post by **George** » 08 Oct 2010 08:52

I was talking about the front one, Ruth, and about shifting between rings. However, your suggestion about the back one influencing shifting between rings as well as shifting between sprockets seems plausible to me (at least as a partial explanation ... there may be several factors).

Post by **CakeStop** » 08 Oct 2010 09:30

George wrote:Am I to read into this that at least one other person does think that a triple changes less positively than a double?!

Actually George I'm sure you're right - just wanted to explore why, in case it was an urban myth or the result of people not comparing like with like. It may have something to do with response to chain slack because I find changes between inner and middle to be slightly more hesitant than between middle and outer. I don't have a double to compare with but on Ultegra changes between middle & outer are hardly noticeable - so much so, sometimes I glance down thinking it didn't happen although it always has. On the lower end Sora changes between rings are less seamless. There are other variations of course, age of components, how well adjusted etc.

Andy Terry · Post by **Andy Terry** » 08 Oct 2010 09:38

George wrote:But the relative difference in diameter between a 30 and a 40 must be greater than that between a 40 and a 50.

The step up (or down) is always the same. Are you saying that step feels more (or less) depending on the start point. In other words a change down from 50 to 40 feels different to a change down from 40 to 30, even though the chain has to move the same distance?

You could be right - the distance the chain has to move may not be the only factor. The chain not only has to jump down to the new ring diameter, it also has to wrap around it - and there are more teeth to engage in a 50 to 40 change than a 40 to 30.

I suppose the 'feel' of a change might also have something to do with the pedalling cadence at the time of the gear change.

chalkie · Post by **chalkie** » 08 Oct 2010 16:35

here's a math analytical site for cyclists: http://www.analyticcycling.com/

AlanW · Post by **AlanW** » 08 Oct 2010 17:34

PatBoySlim wrote:What have I started ?

Serves you right for asking..............

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 09 Oct 2010 20:35

AlanW wrote:As Andy said, go for the triple.

I am "assuming" that the triple is 30/39/52?

If so, and as a suggestion, ask the shop to replace the inner 30T ring for a 28T, and also replace the cassette for one terminating in a 23 rather than a 25.

They should be able to do this FOC, maybe not the 28T inner ring though, but certainly do it at cost

You will then have a lovely evenly spaced ratio across the whole range.

I'm going to be ordering the Allez 24 on Monday from Evans cycles in Birmingham and they are pricematching it for me so getting it £30 cheaper, do you think they'll replace the rings for free after the discount ?

AlanW · Post by **AlanW** » 10 Oct 2010 07:16

PatBoySlim wrote:
AlanW wrote:As Andy said, go for the triple.

I am "assuming" that the triple is 30/39/52?

If so, and as a suggestion, ask the shop to replace the inner 30T ring for a 28T, and also replace the cassette for one terminating in a 23 rather than a 25.

They should be able to do this FOC, maybe not the 28T inner ring though, but certainly do it at cost

You will then have a lovely evenly spaced ratio across the whole range.
I'm going to be ordering the Allez 24 on Monday from Evans cycles in Birmingham and they are pricematching it for me so getting it £30 cheaper, do you think they'll replace the rings for free after the discount ?

I would have thought that they would exchange the cassette FOC, as they can still sell the OE one as brand new.

The inner ring, may be a little different as Shimano do not make a 28T one, but at the very least they should do it you at cost and also fit it for free, its a very quick job to swap them over.

Of course all the above depends on your negotiating skills.....

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 15 Oct 2010 15:34

Collecting my Allez 24 tommorrow, booked in for a custom fitting, they wouldnt swop the cassette FOC.

See you all on the 7th of November ! I'm trying the intro ride before the C Ride.

AlanW · Post by **AlanW** » 15 Oct 2010 16:16

PatBoySlim wrote:Collecting my Allez 24 tommorrow, booked in for a custom fitting, they wouldnt swop the cassette FOC.

Its not the end of world at the end of the day, and there is plenty of time to change it when the other one wears out.

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 20 Oct 2010 13:56

Collected the bike on saturday and rode it back (from the train station) and its really nice to ride, but I dont like the pedals so started looking for alternatives as Ive already bought some shoes.
I have been looking for some SPD's, any suggestions for around the £50 mark ? Maybe I should start a new topic !

Andy Terry · Post by **Andy Terry** » 20 Oct 2010 14:26

I don't think you need to spend £50. Shimano M520 or M540 would do.

Did you really mean SPDs, or clipless pedals in general?

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 20 Oct 2010 14:37

Andy Terry wrote:Did you really mean SPDs, or clipless pedals in general?

Thanks Andy,

I have been looking at SPD's but clipless pedals in general is what im after.

Are the 520/40's not MTB pedals ?

Post by **CakeStop** » 20 Oct 2010 15:29

I have M520s on both my road bikes. SPD's are good for MTBing because the cleats are recessed and they don't get clogged up with muck. Doesn't stop you using them on the road and many people do - the fact they're recessed means you can walk around fairly normally eg in cafes. SPD's are also easy to clip in and out of.

Since you already have the shoes you need to make sure they take the cleats that the pedals you buy need. If you've got SPD shoes you need SPD pedals (the shoes will have been supplied with the cleats). Some shoes take more than one type of cleat. Which shoes have you got?

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 20 Oct 2010 16:01

Ive bought a pair of Exustar E-SR930 for a bargain price !

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 0677064673

Post by **CakeStop** » 20 Oct 2010 16:24

Looks like you've gotta buy the cleats separately. The good news is you can choose your pedals and matching cleats from any of those listed as compatible with the shoe. The bad news is this is the most expensive way of buying cleats - you wouldn't believe how much a simple bit of metal can cost, I think the ones on ebay which are probably not genuine shimano or whatever brand are ok though. If you buy SPD cleats make sure you go for the double release types not the single release (well that's my preference anyway) - they look identical but there's a digit difference in the product code.

Alternatively you could get your pedals and cleats from a friendly local bike shop and hope for a bit of discount.

AlanW · Post by **AlanW** » 20 Oct 2010 16:31

For general riding and touring SPDs are perfect, if you do a search on Google and you can get the M520's for less than £20 a pair.

However, for longer distances you may feel the need to go for a more road type cleat, Look, Time, SPD SL, Mavic etc etc.

Only because they offer a much larger area under the ball of your foot, which helps transmit the force of your leg on to the pedal. Of course the downside is that they are terrible to walk in, unless you use cleat covers.

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 20 Oct 2010 16:48

Ive found the Shimano 520's for £13.95
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Shimano-M520-Silv ... 3f034ac452

and with cleats for £19.95,
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Shimano-PD-M520-S ... 51928746f1

But I may just buy pedals and better quality cleats.
Cant seam to find double release cleats on eBay.

Post by **CakeStop** » 20 Oct 2010 17:53

Looks a good deal for pedals & cleats together. Sorry I got my cleats mixed up - I meant the other way round, my preference is for single release. I think multi release is for MTBing so you unclip easier if you fall but for road use I thought it might be easier to pull foot out accidentally just when you least want to. I've just checked mine are SM-SH51 which is what is shown in the photo.

PatBoySlim · Post by **PatBoySlim** » 20 Oct 2010 23:19

Thanks Guys !

Just ordered these.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... K:MEWNX:IT