Double or Triple
- Thread starter topcat
- Start date
Just as it looks .......... triple has the inner chainring for climbing.
Don't like triples on road bikes myself ........... but for recreational riding it probably isn't a bad idea. And if you have a ton of hills in the area.
I just see the inner chainring as a cop out though .......... if you really needed to use it, you shouldn't be riding hills much yet ........
Don't like triples on road bikes myself ........... but for recreational riding it probably isn't a bad idea. And if you have a ton of hills in the area.
I just see the inner chainring as a cop out though .......... if you really needed to use it, you shouldn't be riding hills much yet ........
Originally posted by Daremo
I just see the inner chainring as a cop out though .......... if you really needed to use it, you shouldn't be riding hills much yet ........
Can you hold 12+mph on a 8+% gradient for a mile or more? Most people can't. That is why that argument (against a triple) is stupid.
Ive read several posts on this debate. I myself have a triple. I use the inner less and less but there are 1 or 2 hills on the rides that I do that it's just not feasible for me. One of them is a 14% gradient and there is no way I'm doing that in my middle ring which is a 42. Maybe if it was a 39 like on most doubles I might be able to do it. Although I have never ridden a bike with a 39 so I really can't say. I will have to get a bit stronger before I think about going to a double.
On almost all my routes around where I live, I have to climb a minimum of three miles + on each ride (even the 20 mile loop I do) because of my location near a valley area. And the grades can vary from 5 - 10%. I haven't averaged 12+ up them since I was a Cat. 3 over 6 years ago and there aren't many recreational cyclists who can ............ I stopped riding for 6 years, gained 35 pounds, and am finally getting back into riding.
But I DO climb all but one of the hills in my 39 X 19 at the most ........ (I run an 11 X 21 cassette with a 39/53). Lately I have been averaging over 10 up them compared to the 7-9 I was doing a few months ago. And I have a 58 cm steel framed bike, that is not on the light side of things by any stretch of the imagination!
Years ago I would run a 42/53 set-up with an 11-21 .........
Even in Germany when I was stationed there and first got into cycling, I ran a double with only 6 speeds in the rear (way back in '91).
With little experience at the time, and just a basic knowledge of how my body responding to pedaling, I would stand and sit as needed to get up the mountains (some up to 10 km's long). I still do that, but I now have 10+ years of riding experience and knowledge to fall back on.
If cyclists made it up hills using a single gear for years, then we can certainly do it using 16-20 .......... I stand firm with the belief that people should not need a triple ............ Touring with panniers up the Rockies, yeah, I'll give someone that, but not a recreational ROAD cyclist riding 20-50 miles a ride.
Just my worthless opinion.
And to add to that .................
If you can't average 12 + with a double up the hill ...... adding the triple isn't going to allow you to do that ............ physics is physics ....... changing to a easier gear will not make it THAT much easier to maintain a set velocity up a hill
If you can't average 12 + with a double up the hill ...... adding the triple isn't going to allow you to do that ............ physics is physics ....... changing to a easier gear will not make it THAT much easier to maintain a set velocity up a hill
Similar threads
