2 or 3 chaining road bike?

[Zilla]

Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

--
- Zilla (Remove XSPAM)

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

Zilla wrote:
>
> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
> bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.
>
> --
> - Zilla (Remove XSPAM)

I've had both, and I prefer the triple. I wouldn't call it a fad, but personal preference.

Barry

 

[Suzy Jackson]

Zilla wrote...

> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad,

They're to cater for the mountain bike crowd who can't cope unless they have gears where they'd
walk faster.

If you're overweight (either through obesity or luggage) get a triple, otherwise a normal double is
quite adequate.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email protected] http://www.suzyj.net

 

[Paul Kopit]

Most riders would benefit from 3 rings but I like 2.

Here in SoCal, stores that have road bicycles, have few triples in stock and frequently in small
frame sizes to sell to ladies. People that ride triples seem the need to justify why they have a
triple. They apologize for having the small ring. They struggle not to use the small ring and
need to tell people they didn't use the granny. The practical, would have 3 rings and gear to
use them all.

I happen not to like triples on my single bicycles because the shifting of the front derailleur is
better on doubles. I'm not such a smooth spinner that I can notice that much difference between
jumps in cogs.

On new bicycles, I recommend long cage rear derailleurs and cassettes with big cogs. I particularly
like the 13/30 or 32 that Sheldon Brown makes up.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:38:21 -0500, "Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
>bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Suzy Jackson wrote:
>
>
> If you're overweight (either through obesity or luggage) get a triple, otherwise a normal double
> is quite adequate.

Depends on terrain, no? Within ten miles of here, I can find hills that almost nobody can climb
without a triple. Or, more specifically, without a gear well below, say, 35 inches. I suppose you
can get that with a double, but most people would be better served with a triple in such terrain.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
>bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

It's generally better to have three chainrings and a nice, tight cluster of 9 or 10 cogs in back
than to have two chainrings and a cluster with large jumps between gears.

Mind you, this is becoming less and less of a problem as the cogs multiply.

For example, if you go Campy 10-speed, you can have...

12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25

or...

13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[David Storm]

Whether to go 2 or 3 chainrings depends very much on your conditioning, age, type of riding you do,
and overall riding philosophy. I'm a 63 year old who likes to do a lot of mountain riding from
5k-10k feet of climbing per ride. I'm slow. Those low gears are a necessity especially towards the
end of a long ride. Also I've seen some very steep grades (25%+) that even many strong riders can't
cope with on a double that I can handle on my granny (30 chainring/32 dinnerplate cassette). Some
fast, young whipper snapper racing types riding 16 lb bikes claim a triple slows them down and they
can tell the weight difference, but for slow sweepers like me carrying ***** packs, 100 oz camel
backs, and large lunches the difference is minimal.

"Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
> bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.
>
> --
> - Zilla (Remove XSPAM)
>

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
> bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

Depends where you look. We sell well over 90% triples. There's just not that much downside to having
three chainrings, especially if you dream of climbing nasty hills. If you live in Florida and don't
plan a trip outside the state... then I'd stick with the double.

We've got an article on our website that might help you decide. It can be found at

http://www.chainreaction.com/triples.htm

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Jeff]

San Francisco = 3-ring. Kansas = 2-ring.

Other locations, you decide.

"Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of the
> bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.
>
> --
> - Zilla (Remove XSPAM)
>

 

[Pete Biggs]

Suzy Jackson wrote:

>> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad,
>
> They're to cater for the mountain bike crowd who can't cope unless they have gears where they'd
> walk faster.
>
> If you're overweight (either through obesity or luggage) get a triple, otherwise a normal double
> is quite adequate.

Bollocks. Triples can be great for normal road cycling in hilly areas whether you're
overweight or not.

You need to realise that busting your guts (or legs) out all the time is not everyone's idea of good
cycling, and that triple users are not inferior beings (or fat American mountain bikers! just
because of that. (...And also that different people ride with different cadences, and have different
anaerobic/aerobic thresholds, etc).

~PB - with a triple; never much been into mountain biking; underweight; slow up hills but still
always climb faster than can walk, fast on flat & downhills

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Depends where you look. We sell well over 90% triples.
There's just not
> that much downside to having three chainrings, especially
if you dream of
> climbing nasty hills.

I'm glad to hear that. It's high time product managers stopped pushing the racer image of two big
chainrings and a corncob cluster. And it's great to see that it doesn't matter to customers anymore,
that they're not afraid useful gearing might make them look like a dork. However, Paul's comment
suggests this prejudice is alive and well:

> Here in SoCal, stores that have road bicycles, have few
triples in
> stock and frequently in small frame sizes to sell to
ladies. People
> that ride triples seem the need to justify why they have a
triple.
> They apologize for having the small ring. They struggle
not to use the
> small ring and need to tell people they didn't use the
granny.

Gee, people in CA worried about how they might appear to others -- imagine that!

> The practical, would have 3 rings and gear to use them all.

Absolutely!

Matt O.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I'm glad to hear that. It's high time product managers stopped pushing the racer image of two big
> chainrings and a corncob cluster. And it's great to see that it doesn't matter to customers
> anymore, that they're not afraid useful gearing might make them look like a dork. However, Paul's
> comment suggests this prejudice is alive and well:

Keep in mind that many of the current crop of road bike buyers had been riding mountain bikes, and
almost nobody would consider a mountain bike without a triple. Thus they expect to see one on their
new road bike. The mountain bike era provided a natural break from the past, a way for more
progressive shops to dispense with all the myth and lore associated with the old-school of road
biking and move on. In other words, the new road bike customer carried no past baggage with him/her.
They didn't know they were supposed to be uncomfortable, or ride the way someone else suggested,
rather than how they might like to.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of
>> the bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

Mike J wrote:

>Depends where you look. We sell well over 90% triples. There's just not that much downside to
>having three chainrings, especially if you dream of climbing nasty hills. If you live in Florida
>and don't plan a trip outside the state... then I'd stick with the double.

I think the switch over the last 10 years to triple chain rings on road bikes has been a real
advance. The down sides to triples are relatively small and the upsides are pretty big. A triple
crank gives a bike more capabilities, the ability to climb steeper hills, the ability to haul
heavier loads. A triple makes a bike more of an all arounder and less of a racing specific
"macho-studly" machine.

So, if one is wondering whether to get a double or triple, a triple can't really hurt you.

In my case, I road bikes with mostly doubles and a couple of triples. But it is very rare that I
ever use the smallest ring, only on a long ride on a long climb where I am trying to conserve my
energy do I use the small ring.

Triples seem to normally have higher Q factors than double cranks, and in this day of High Q factor
"Low Profile" Cranks, a triple will spread the pedals even further. So for me that high Qfactor is a
problem and I prefer old style cranks like the 7400 series DA cranks. For a triple, I think the old,
Sugino AT's are nice and seem to have a lower Qfactor than modern cranks.

But then, in my view, there are lots of other changes to the "modern" road bike that could make it
more useful without diminishing it performance. Primarily I would like to see most road bike switch
back to "normal reach" (47mm-57mmm) brakes so that larger tires and fenders can be fitted if
desired. For the vast majority of riders, short reach brakes just limit their options and provide no
advantages.

Triple crank with Normal reach caliper brakes and one can have a fast road bike that can double as
an all arounder.

jon isaacs

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

zilla-<< Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most
of the bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

Many gruppos offer well made and well functioning triple components. Not just for hybrids or touring
bikes. If it keeps ya on the bike-great idea. BUT a lot of LBS get bikes in boxes from a
manufacturer and they spec based on who knows what. A good LBS will convert it or find a bike shop
that starts with a frameset and will allow you to build it anyway you wish(like we do).

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Dave Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>, "I C S" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I only use a double on my road bike... but then again it is a 48/34 double. A much more realistic
> setup for the average cyclist.
>
>
>

Where did you get those chainrings?

I have thought about riding with close to the same setup.

Dave in Minnesota

 

[I C S]

I only use a double on my road bike... but then again it is a 48/34 double. A much more realistic
setup for the average cyclist.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Suzy Jackson wrote:
>
> >> Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad,
> >
> > They're to cater for the mountain bike crowd who can't cope unless they have gears where they'd
> > walk faster.
> >
> > If you're overweight (either through obesity or luggage) get a triple, otherwise a normal double
> > is quite adequate.
>
> Bollocks. Triples can be great for normal road cycling in hilly areas whether you're
> overweight or not.

I say "bollocks" as well (not exactly sure what it means, but I guess it's a firm disagreement). The
popularity of triples may come from MTB cross overs, I don't know. I think a lot of the anti-triple
attitudes are dated, and reflect the limitations of old equipment. These days a triple really has no
significant downside or compromise. I hardly ever use mine, never needing it for rolling hills where
I ride weekly, but it's there when I do need it, like those mountainous double centuries where I
have to spin on climbs to keep my exhausted legs from cramping. A triple costs very little to equip
a new bike with, yet is a pretty expensive retro-fit. I think it's a case of "better to have and not
need, than need and not have".

 

[Terry Morse]

Suzy Jackson wrote:

> If you're overweight (either through obesity or luggage) get a triple, otherwise a normal double
> is quite adequate.

US Postal Team used triples in the 2002 Vuelta a Espana, with a lowest gear of 30/25. I doubt that
anyone on US Postal would be considered overweight.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Dave Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In article <[email protected]>, "I C S"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I only use a double on my road bike... but then again it
is a 48/34 double.
> > A much more realistic setup for the average cyclist.

> Where did you get those chainrings?
>
> I have thought about riding with close to the same setup.

Look for a MTB "2x9" crank, which also appears on cyclocross bikes these days. Ritchey, Raceface,
and probably Sugino have them, as well as rings in various sizes. The Rivendell website usually has
stuff like this.

Matt O.

 

[Dave Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>, "Matt O'Toole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "I C S" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I only use a double on my road bike... but then again it
> is a 48/34 double.
> > > A much more realistic setup for the average cyclist.
>
> > Where did you get those chainrings?
> >
> > I have thought about riding with close to the same setup.
>
> Look for a MTB "2x9" crank, which also appears on cyclocross bikes these days. Ritchey, Raceface,
> and probably Sugino have them, as well as rings in various sizes. The Rivendell website usually
> has stuff like this.
>
> Matt O.
>
>

Well, if any of you bike shop type who so generously help us out all the time with your knowlege
would like to give me some pricing shoot an email to me.

Dave in Minnesota