Triple vs Double? - Page 2

Agreed! Cheers!

Seems I touched a nerve.

Seriously... I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't ride. If one wants to ride a $5K race bike while wearing team kit and use their cell phone when they flat, I say knock yourself out. It's my prerogative to then refer to said individual as a poseur. Just as it's their prerogative to refer to me as a "Fred" or a "Dork" (or whatever they call me) when I ride by on my fendered and bagged touring bike wearing regular cloths.

Now let me grab my $12 can of foam and go for a ride!

Oh and to the OP: I didn't mean for the thread to go on such a tangent. Just get the triple if you do any hill riding. If all of your riding is pretty flat, you'd probably be fine with a double (or a compact double) unless you have knee problems, you plan on doing loaded touring (which you should), or you're really out of shape. Unless you know the rider and where they ride it's really hard to say which is "better".

__________________
Rebellion with no point or purpose is worse than conformity.

So, oh ye wise one, is it ok if I don't use a seat bag and instead put the stuff in my jersey pocket? Do people as sagacious as you realize that seatbags do abrade and cause damage to the shorts of some folks? Surely, with your vast experience, you must realize such small details, right?

Please, hurry back with a response, because us peons live off every blessed word that escapes your holy mouth.

No nerves touched. It should be pointed out, however, when someone such as yourself goes to the effort of reaching deep into the souls of other riders to find out what their true natures and intents are.

That's really kind of you to do that. Really. Honest. I'm sure your vast experience backs up your wise words with miles of fact and truth.

You really are a remarkable person, at least to yourself.

Wow! We're really worked up aren't we?

I most sagaciously decree that if you want to carry your $12 can of foam and cell phone in the pocket of your snug, brightly-colored jersey because a seatbag would abrade your ill-fitting, lycra plum-smugglers, you are hereby free to do so. Go forth now and ride thine tubular shod racing bicycle and prosper.

__________________
Rebellion with no point or purpose is worse than conformity.

Didn't I tell you to go ride your bike?

__________________
Rebellion with no point or purpose is worse than conformity.

From CNN:

Attached Thumbnails

 

I did not mean for my simple question to turn into a hate-athon... Why are you causing such a ruckus with trying to decide how the rest of us should ride...perhaps we all are not out to look like d-bags racing around trying to look better than we are. Maybe if you could squirm your head far enough out of your ass and past the crack that you could realize that there are different things to do on a road bike like long distances or whatever the hell i want to do.. OK ****wad? and I agree with the last comment on the first page!

__________________
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place." -Lance Armstrong

Not true, John. You climb at a speed dependent on the wattage you choose to put out. If you can keep your cadence 90-105, then you expend that wattage most efficiently and with minimal joint strain. Choosing a triple is all about being able to keep your cadence where you want it. If you are fit enough to keep your cadence up on a standard double, more power to you.

__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..."

+1. I like my triple, but then I'm gettin old.

__________________
One life, one chance. Don't waste it!

+2

The key is actually riding enough to know what your needs are, and being able to adapt your bike to them. In general though , if you have tough hills in your area and aren't in pretty good shape (also subjective) -- get a triple. What are the gears in your old bike, and do you think you need lower or higher gears ?

I have both triples and doubles-- and I have come to like my triples as well as doubles depending on how I feel and where I am riding. 'Tis truly a cadence and fitness thing (and maybe age). It's all about gear-inches and physics. For every turn of the cranks you make, you get to move the circumference of your rear tire along the ground just so far in each gear and this moves you and your bike a certain distance and change in elevation (or to put it simply, each turn produces a certain amount of work). Smaller gears in front allow you to turn the pedals/crankset a full revolution and incrementally produce a smaller amount of work (moving you and the bike a shorter distance along the ground and up or down hill), making it feel easier to pedal.

Every rider has preferences as to how far that gear-inch range & resultant distance should be; or how much work they can comfortably do per unit of time (the cadence part). There surely are optimum ranges for fitness and stress on joints as mentioned, but which also may vary based on individual characteristics of the rider.

And all this other crap flying around --- With what tools you get there should be a personal choice that is not judged either - double chain rings, compact chain rings, triple chain rings, 11-21 or 14-32 rear cassettes are nothing more than a means to an end. For quality components even the way these things work and how much they weigh are 6 of one/half dozen of the other. You'll create more difference in weight by eating a meal or carrying a water bottle.
You WILL be able to travel faster with taller gears in front (bigger rings) given the same rear cassette and cadence-- so if you race, these things do become important, but most triples come with a 52 or 53 tooth big ring so it's not like you are loosing the top end, you just gain a lower bottom end.

Anyhow. Choose what is right for you based on your own ability and personal needs. When you are happily riding your bike that is set up for your optimum enjoyment and training you can smile smuggly at anyone struggling to be "cool" riding their form over function choices.


George

There's truth in that statement, but it's the kind of truth that can be misleading. The problem is that you have to have the leg power to turn the crank and maintain the same cadence with the taller gear. Lots of people get confused about the power requirement.

Look at it this way. You can't make a Yugo go 150 MPH simply by installing a Ferrari transmission in it.

Well, I do not need any lower gears....but larger ones would be nice....the ferrari engine is against the point haha although I would like it...So I probably should get a double? I am in pretty good shape...a little over weight but I am 16...so everything is still working well.

__________________
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place." -Lance Armstrong

RG: Exactly what I was thinking. My wife's minivan should go 150 mph at redline as well. Perhaps the limitations of horsepower and aero drag come into play at some point?

IME, I WILL go faster on a long climb when I have low enough gears to sustain optimum power cadence....somewhere around 90-100 rpm. For the really steep hills, my 30/25 low gear is well short of this goal, but everything is a compromise. I've got about half the power-to-weight ratio of the top pro's, and climb at about half their speed, so about half their gearing should be right for me

Really ? I'll bet on a good downhill or a really flat road you can get awfully close. Not sure what HP's you need to overcome the aerodynamics though -- which I think really starts to matter over 60 MPH and gets worse the faster you go. Especially in a Yugo (bet no one ever studied it).
I have a friend that used to race go-karts that had 3.5HP 46cc chainsaw engines that went 60MPH. The gearing made huge differences in the top speeds they were able to obtain (the high revs of the engines made a difference too -- a 4 cycle 3.5 engine has to be much bigger and weighs more, and wasn't as fast). Since they were single speeds, you totally lost low end torque gearing too high, so you couldn't start them on their own power (had to push).
So it's not just horsepower, but the ability to keep up a good pace/cadence (fitness) plus horsepower that probably wins the race. And of course the fitness and HP of the engine (aka rider) on a bike will definately determine the ability to overcome resistances like weight, elevation, wind and friction and make the bike go faster at given gear ratios. HP/weight ratio + fitness + the right equipment, sounds like the formula. My only real point in the statement was that with a triple you gain the low end w/o losing the top end, all other things being equal.

George

How much? How much are you willing to bet?

I used to own a Ford Ranger pick up that had an overdrive 5th gear. That truck would actually go faster in 4th than it would in 5th because, in overdrive, the wind resistance would hold it back before the engine could rev high enough to reach it's horsepower peak. Incidentally, that's not uncommon.

The same thing happens with bicycles. If you never find yourself spun out in your highest gear ratio, installing a larger front chainring isn't going to make you go any faster.