Double or Tripple
- Thread starter peteaj
- Start date
Originally posted by peteaj
Although Mountain Biking for some time I'm thinking of getting a road bike possibly a Trek 1400. My problem is Double ring or Tripple ring. Obviously on the MTB its not a cocideration, however, I don't want to make a mistake with the road bike. From what I can see it seems to be a personnal preference. Any help will be appriciated.
Pete Jones
UK
How about a road climb to help you decide? You might want set up your MTB to duplicate the gears you're considering for your new road bike, and take it up the steepest hill you plan to climb with the new one. For the Trek example, if the double has a 39/25 low, that's about the same ratio as 34/21 or 22 on your MTB. The 30/25 low on a triple would be close to 34/28.
You could climb in one gear, then recover and repeat in the other, checking your times, HR, and pain index at the top. You could repeat on different days, or climb the hill several times in the same day if you're planning to do longer rides with many climbs. What feels fine the first time up the hill may not work after you've already climbed 2000 meters that day.
SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'VE NEVER HAD THE STICK TAKEN OUT OF YOUR OBVIOUSLY VERY SIZABLE ASS, JUDGING BY THE AMOUNT OF **** THAT SPEWS FROM IT!!!!!
Sorry to see that I've stirred up such a hornets nest. However, I take the advice and can see that coming from a MTB and just planning on using the road bike in the typical English summer I will probably get more out of a tripple. All said and done its what I'm already used too.
Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply.
THIS MAY SOUND A LITTLE SILLY TO YOU BOUDREAUX, BUT I LEARNED FROM A VERY YOUNG AGE THAT MANNERS PLAY A BIG PART IN LIFE, BE IT ON THE INTERNET OR REAL LIFE. AND ONE THING I CANNOT STAND IS SOMEONE WHO SHOWS NO MANNERS OR RESPECT FOR ANYONE. I PERSONALLY THINK YOU SHOULD GO ANDLEARN SOME MANNERS REAL SOON.
Don't worry too much about this. Those people having an argument actually like it, they do it every time!! It provides a bit of entrainement of all of us......
Whatever you decide, hurry up, buy a bike, and go ride!! And, I promise you, you'll feel a whole lot better.....
I DONT SEE IT AS 'STYLE' WHEN YOU PUT PEOPLE DOWN FOR EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS, EVEN WHEN THEY DIFFER FROM YOURS. EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM,IM SURE, ENJOYS RIDING THEIR BIKES, EVERYONE, HOWEVER DOES NOT ENJOY BEING PUT DOWN, EVEN THOUGH YOU OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THEY DO.Originally posted by boudreaux
I don't see it as 'manners'. Difference in style maybe. Someone else can shove the rainbows. Group[[ [hug]]], unwad nickers and everyone go for a bike ride.It will be all better. TTFN.
Boudreaux, I'm not sure what your beef with my point is, other than that you're in a particularly combative mood this week. I've stated that both doubles and triples present advantages, and insisted there's no shame in selecting either.
There are plenty of cyclists on doubles who plan for their next bike to offer three chainrings; there are plenty of cyclists (newer ones, most likely) on triples who look forward to their next ride sporting two. In the meantime, they're still riding, and in all likelihood, they don't know precisely how much faster or slower they'll be going after the switch, or what climbs might be accesible then that aren't now.
Clearly, the new road biker has a big decision to make, but aside from test-riding each (which I also recommended, you dour creature), the only way to determine which to buy is a little leap of faith based on your sense of fitness, and the hills you think you might want to tackle at some point.
So what's the point in jacking up the anxiety quotient for a guy like Pete? It will be OK when all is said and done. No sense in conjuring up the double-triple selection process as some sort of hideously dangerous blind corner. You're simply being contrary if you're bent on claiming that either could be disasterous -- especially for Pete, who's got an established fitness level from years of MTB riding.
Trying to get back on topic a bit, even though there are already plenty of double vs. triple posts. Weight and "granny stigma" arguments aside, the most interesting advantage I've heard for a double is that it "simplifies shifting" (interpret that how you want) and there are less duplicate gears.
Although I have a triple, it seems like a compact double (e.g. 50x36 or 48x34) would be a nice alternative for most folks who don't mind losing a gear or two at the top and bottom end. The shift between middle & inner chainrings is sometimes a bit awkward on a triple.
I'd be curious to hear from someone who has the experience of going from a triple to a compact double and if they've felt it was a useful switch. Seems like the less you have to think about "proper" chainline and what gear you're in the more can just enjoy the ride!
Although I have a triple, it seems like a compact double (e.g. 50x36 or 48x34) would be a nice alternative for most folks who don't mind losing a gear or two at the top and bottom end. The shift between middle & inner chainrings is sometimes a bit awkward on a triple.
I'd be curious to hear from someone who has the experience of going from a triple to a compact double and if they've felt it was a useful switch. Seems like the less you have to think about "proper" chainline and what gear you're in the more can just enjoy the ride!
No, it is just that I am older than you think! I can assure you that I owned a road bike before triples were available on production road bikes.
I am not sure what your point is here, but yes, there have always been options. Getting back to the original point, the choice of double or triple is one of personal preference - there is no formula or calculation that will dictate which one a person must buy.
A person buys what he/she need to do the job. If they NEED( and many do in order to certain rides) a triple,that isn't preference. Sorry if you can't comprehend the distinction. Avoiding the big climb like one poster mentioned as a 'PREFERENCE', just hedges the issue. If he were decide to tackle it likely he would NEED a triple(or al whole lot of spinach). Admittedly,there are low gear inch options with a double,but they may not be the best solution, and still may not get low enough. A young lady I know just did Ride The Rockies.She needed(had to have) a triple.... I guess she could have wussed out like a lot of you guys and 'PREFERENCED' not to do it...LOL
That's hardly the issue at all, and you probably know it. Pete isn't asking what gearing he'll need to do the Great Doodle Creek Death Climb. Even if he was, there's hardly a formula to determine to what extent a triple would be required for his effort.
By the same token, unless your lady friend was a beginner who bought her first road bike for the specific purpose of tackling Ride the Rockies, she wasn't facing Pete's question either. She probably purchased that bike with an informed sense of what she needed, and why.
The bottom line is that a newer rider's choice in chainrings, though not a shot in the dark, is a shot in fog, at dusk, with sunglasses on -- no matter how you slice it. There's no sense in suggesting that a new buyer think of it as a death leap, for which there's a definite way to go. It makes much more sense to inform the potential roadie of the ups and downs, advise them that their riding style will conform to whichever they buy, and wish them luck.
Ok, newb question here, what are the disadvantages of a triple? I have an older model bianchi advantage for cruising around town, but if I'm in the high gear or low gear the chain will touch the deraileur in some gears. Even my local bike shop couldn't fix that. Is this a common problem with triples or is my setup just faulty?
Similar threads
