you people out there riding double or tripple? - Page 3

Triple on my road bike and triple on my mtb.

Triple withut a doubt.
If serious about cycling then a triple is a must nowadays.

Rider
-------------------------------------------

A triple! Goes without saying.
Why have a double when you can have a triple!

Rider
----------------------------------------------

You said it. Ypu're too old now. Give it up.

Rider.
---------------------------------------

OUCH

__________________
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

A triple! Goes without saying.
Why have a double when you can have a triple!

Rider

Why? Because you can have all the benefits of a triple with a compact double without the extra cost and weight and extra width. I can't think of any other reasons.

Gordon

Saw a quad when I was riding in Iowa (who knew Iowa was so hilly). BTW the EC stands for East Coast which may explain the single speed. Hopefully all of this dialog was helpful for you, but you should get what works for you. Don't trash your knees to ride a double or get a triple just because you can - evaluate your riding situation and (to quote F. Mercury) "get on your bikes and ride".

Possibly,.... but weight is certainly not a reason to go double. Most riders have 107 grammes extra haging about their belly anyway!

...and I challenge anyone to feel the difference in weight while riding, between a triple and a double.

Rider

the way I see it, the gearing depends on your own cadence. What works for me may be wrong for you. It's like a car: a high revving engine that develops maximum torque higher in the rev range will need different gearing that a car that develops maximum torque early in the rev range. This means that there is no 'right gear range' on a range that is right for you, depending on your cadence and torque (leg strength)

__________________
Regards Michael

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

I ride a triple but have never used the granny ring - it came with the bike and am embarassed by it! It would have to be a very steep and very long hill to need it!

Don't throw the granny ring away just yet - spend the next 20 years drinking beer and eating pizza (like I did) and you might need it!

A compact double is less wide, thus a more natural spinning action.

A compact double can be built with a close ratio set that approximates a triple, (eg, a 2.3 gain ratio with a 34X29 rather than 2.1 on 39X26) with 15 or 16 usable ratios.

People's weight is a moot point. The game for most people is to build the lightest, most safe, efficient and relaible, and aerodynamic bike.

A compact double built the way mine is has those characteristics. My 58cm steel/ carbon frame and components weighs 6444gms or 14.02#. I got there by understanding the safest/lightest/most aerodnamic way to evaluate and select each component.

I looked at triples and doubles, having ridden both. I ride where there is only one real flat ride. Every ride is over hills and mountains, so gain ratios are important. My conclusion after studying the issue, was the following:
A triple ring is heavier. It has a less efficient spinning action. It is less aerodynamic. A compact double has the advantage in the 3 areas most important in bikes: weight, efficiency and aerodynamics. A compact double can approximate a triple so closely, in terms of gain ratios, that the cycling costs of the triple do not make it a sensible choice for me.

Perhaps you have other criteria you find more important than efficiency, weight and aerodynamics.

G

Try riding the mountains in Europe during July and August , the Ventoux and the Angliru for example , even the pros used the 30 for the latter and the former killed Tommy Simpson ( pray it´s not a hot day ) .
¿ Ever hear the expresion ' all mouth and no trousers `?

__________________
' too old to rock 'n' roll : too young to die '

If compact doubles are so good, why Campagnolo and Shimano bother to produce triple version for their Record and DuraAce crankset ?

For a same gear ratio, a chain runs through the chain rings and cogs of a compact system at a smaller radius, i.e. further away from a straight line which has the greatest radius (a radius of infinity). Which system do you think is more efficient ?

And a chainline which is parallel to the bike is the most efficient. Isn't the chainline of the lowest gear of a triple system closer to parallel than the chainline of the lowest gear of a double system ?

How about durability ? Isn't a compact system with fewer teeth to spread the load and with the chain having to swivel more around its rivets wears faster ?

And talking about aerodynamics why not consider installing smaller wheels which has more significant effect than the chainrings ?

And afterall why not consider a triple system being better than a double system ? When more and more gears are put into the rear and most people consider this as an upgrade, why not one more chainring at the front not an upgrade ? Isn't it the way to go to reduce the chainline angle increased by having more cogs in the rear ? Is it because having one more chainring means having greater chance of making error in shifting ?

Like to hear the thoughts from others.

L.B.

Great questions. I would like to hear from others also, with hard data and good questions. I don't think this setup will go away. It's just too sweet.

RE 1. This is a marketing issue. They will respond if the market is there.

Re 2. This answer can be derived mathematically. I'm a scientist by professsion, so I'd want to see the math. IMHO I don't think the difference here is a difference that makes a difference. But, there is an answer.

Re 3 I don't know that any differences, either way here , would make much difference. Without going outside to look at my bikes and trying to measure them (is someone willing to do this and then do the math) to show that that the difference, if it exists, makes a difference.

Re 4. IMHO not a difference that makes a difference, to many other variable effect this.

Re 5 Questioned and answered hundreds of times in favor of 700s unless your frame calls for 650s.

Re 6 Going to 10's is considered by many a marketing issue, a race between S & C, not a performance issue. Fewer errors in shifting IMHO come with fewer options.

I don't KNOW which is best. I did my homework and got the compact double. I'll alert FSA to this thread and let them answer the questions we develop, if they will.

Send in the questions and hard data.

G

Assuming
1) that the drivetrains are designed so that the mid-point of the most-separated chainrings is aligned with the middle of the freewheel and
2) that in a given system (C or S) any 9-speed chainrings/cogs are uniformly separated (i.e. distance from 1-2 and 2-3 on a triple is identical and equivalent to the distance from 1-2 on a double, and freewheel cogs. let's call this W), you can see that the inner ring on a triple (1*W) is further inboard vs. the double (0.5*W) compared to the mid-point of the most separated chainrings.

Given that the innermost cog on the free-wheel is 4 cogs from the center (4*W) and further inboard than either inner chainring, the straightest resulting chainline will be the one that minimizes the difference between the outer cog and the outer ring.

For the double this difference is 3.5*W and for the triple 3*W, so the triple's inner*inner comob is closer to parallel, the difference being equivalent to the differenct chainlines by shifting 0.5 cogs on the freewheel.

I don't have a study in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that it's been shown that with equivalent use the inner (smaller) chainrings and inner cogs on a freewheel will wear faster than the outer ones.