Double vs triple & gearing...



V

Velvet

Guest
Been pondering on this one for a while.

If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger range/bigger
lowest gear?

I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the two
front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a granny/middle and
middle/biggest?

Curious about this, can anyone enlighten?
--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:
> Been pondering on this one for a while.
>
> If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
> rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
> same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger
> range/bigger lowest gear?
>
> I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
> was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the
> two front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a
> granny/middle and middle/biggest?
>
> Curious about this, can anyone enlighten?

Its not just the front rings that are important its the 'size' of the gear
that is produced. My tourer has a double chainset but the lowest gear is
lower than my racing machines that have triples.


Your question regarding sizes is difficult as triples are different as are
doubles. Heres what I have


50/36 , 13-32 (8)
52/39/30, 12-25 (9)
52/39/30, 13-24 (7)

My rear cassettes are pretty much the same on my triples as they were when
they were doubles, I pretty much added the 30 ring to get lower gears.
 
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Been pondering on this one for a while.
>
> If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
> rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
> same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger range/bigger
> lowest gear?
>
> I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
> was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the two
> front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a granny/middle and
> middle/biggest?
>

Probably much the same for both. That's why they say triples are for wimps
(like me) ;) But how long is a piece of string? You can put any cassette,
with any range of cogs you like on the rear, subject to the capacity of your
derailleur and the availability of ready-made blocks of ratios. Personally
I have three cassettes atm - 11-21, which for me is only for the flat or
very short and not very steep hills, a 12-23 which isn't much different, but
I have it anyway, and an 11-32 for when/if I tour or plan to do big hills.
Perhaps I'll buy something in between for audax one day. Choose your own
range of ratios to suit the terrain you expect to cycle over and load you
carry (touring, racing etc). What is 'usual' doesn't matter.

Rich
 
in message <[email protected]>, Velvet
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Been pondering on this one for a while.
>
> If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
> rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
> same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger
> range/bigger
> lowest gear?
>
> I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
> was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the
> two front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a
> granny/middle and middle/biggest?
>
> Curious about this, can anyone enlighten?

Almost any combination of the above, in principle. If you look at
Wiggle's most popular chainsets, though, the comparisons are

Double Triple
TA Zephyr 34/48
TA Vega 34/48 26/36/46
Shimano 105 5502 39/53 30/42/52
Shimano Dura Ace 7700 39/53 30/39/53
Shimano Dura Ace 7800 39/53
Truvative Elita 39/53 30/42/52
FSA Gossamer 39/53 30/42/52
Campagnolo Record 39/53 30/40/50

Obviously some of these chainsets are available as standard with
different ratios, and probably all of them can be built up with
different ratios to special order. But (Specialites TA apart) there's a
remarkable agreement there, and if you take the 'norm' as 39/53 for a
double ad 30/42/52 for a triple, what you notice is that the 'little'
ring on the doubles is not much smaller than the middle ring on the
triples, and the big ring on the doubles is actually bigger than the
big ring on the triples. Combined with that most bikes you see with
doubles have closer ratios at the back than bikes you see with
triples...

You can get up hills with biggish gears. You can't spin, though; at some
point you just have to get out of the saddle and stomp.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a+ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
 
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:45:46 GMT, Velvet <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Been pondering on this one for a while.
>
>If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
>rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
>same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger range/bigger
> lowest gear?
>
>I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
>was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the two
>front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a granny/middle and
>middle/biggest?
>
>Curious about this, can anyone enlighten?

I'd love to run my old road bike on a 52/39 with a really tight road
cassette like 13-25 (9) or similiar, but everywhere I go I see hills,
and hills that at 45 yrs of age I have to respect, so I run a mtn bike
triple of 48/38/28 with a 11-32 (9) cassette. Sometimes I stand,
sometimes I spin, but I sure do need the option to just sit and spin
slowly when the mood takes me [which can be quite often!], so I have
to compromise smaller increments between gears for 'range'.

Sheldon Brown offers a customized 9 speed cassette aimed at the
touring cyclist, and that suits me fine - a 9 speed with good low
options and nicely spaced higher gears Unfortunately, the price is not
so attractive :-( .

http://harriscyclery.net/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=730

I'm sure there'd be a market for Shimano here. I could make one myself
I guess, but right now I've just spent enough on bikes, what with
pedals, shoes, shifters, derailleurs etc! All for a bike that cost 3
quid !!

Anyway, it's a case of try and see what suits. Go try out.

Garry
 
garryb59 wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:45:46 GMT, Velvet <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Been pondering on this one for a while.
>>
>>If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
>>rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
>>same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger range/bigger
>> lowest gear?
>>
>>I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
>>was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the two
>>front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a granny/middle and
>>middle/biggest?
>>
>>Curious about this, can anyone enlighten?
>
>
> I'd love to run my old road bike on a 52/39 with a really tight road
> cassette like 13-25 (9) or similiar, but everywhere I go I see hills,
> and hills that at 45 yrs of age I have to respect, so I run a mtn bike
> triple of 48/38/28 with a 11-32 (9) cassette. Sometimes I stand,
> sometimes I spin, but I sure do need the option to just sit and spin
> slowly when the mood takes me [which can be quite often!], so I have
> to compromise smaller increments between gears for 'range'.
>
> Sheldon Brown offers a customized 9 speed cassette aimed at the
> touring cyclist, and that suits me fine - a 9 speed with good low
> options and nicely spaced higher gears Unfortunately, the price is not
> so attractive :-( .
>
> http://harriscyclery.net/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=730
>
> I'm sure there'd be a market for Shimano here. I could make one myself
> I guess, but right now I've just spent enough on bikes, what with
> pedals, shoes, shifters, derailleurs etc! All for a bike that cost 3
> quid !!
>
> Anyway, it's a case of try and see what suits. Go try out.
>
> Garry


*Grin* I wasn't looking to change what I have on my bike (though
halfway up a hill sometimes I do long for a bigger cog on the rear!) -
I'm used to it now :) I was just curious as to the gearing that's
typical (or rather the spread of gears, perhaps) on a double vs triple
set-up...

I got to thinking about how triples are for wimps, and then wondered if
that's actually just a myth and the gearing works out roughly the same,
once you take into account a different casette at the back and a front
chainring that sits between granny/med and med/large.

It's those long hours in the car that gets me to thinking about stuff
like this ;-)

--


Velvet
 
Velvet [email protected]in opined the following...
> I got to thinking about how triples are for wimps,

Count the number of triples in the Tour and see if you'd feel happy
calling the riders wimps ;-)

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:

> Velvet [email protected]in opined the following...
>
>>I got to thinking about how triples are for wimps,
>
>
> Count the number of triples in the Tour and see if you'd feel happy
> calling the riders wimps ;-)
>
> Jon

LOL... Ok, I should have elaborated a bit... I don't think they're for
wimps, but my perception is that quite a lot of other cyclists *do*
think they're for wimps... or maybe that's exaggerating a bit and they
just seem to have a vague notion of 3 means your legs can't be as good
as mine with 2 :)

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:
> Been pondering on this one for a while.
>
> If a bike has a double chainset, what's typical gearing range on the
> rear cassette for it, compared to a triple? Is the rear cassette the
> same for both, or would a double tend to have a much bigger
> range/bigger lowest gear?

Rear sprockets with doubles are usually about the same or even smaller!

> I can't even begin to imagine you could get up hills on my bike if it
> was a double chainring instead of triple... or is it a case that the
> two front chainrings are actually a size to fit between a
> granny/middle and middle/biggest?

Nope, except for "compact doubles" that have smaller chainrings, the
double inner ring is no smaller than a road-bike-triple middle ring.

> Curious about this, can anyone enlighten?

39/53 and similar double chainsets are designed for racing where you
simply don't ever go so slow that a lower gear is needed. I feel sorry
for recreation riders in hilly areas who feel it would be wimping out to
use a triple and grind away in gears that are far too high instead.

~PB
 
Velvet [email protected]in opined the following...
> LOL... Ok, I should have elaborated a bit... I don't think they're for
> wimps, but my perception is that quite a lot of other cyclists *do*
> think they're for wimps... or maybe that's exaggerating a bit and they
> just seem to have a vague notion of 3 means your legs can't be as good
> as mine with 2 :)

I used to be a "2 is more than enough" rider until I got the Giant.
While I rarely drop to the Granny ring it has proved useful on occasions
when I've been absolutely knackered. Since I'm planning the Applecross
Peninsula ride this summer (See the routes section of the Edinburgh
Cycles website if you don't know it!) I think it'll become essential!

Jon
 
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:39:29 +0000, Velvet wrote:

> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>> Velvet [email protected]in opined the following...
>>
>>>I got to thinking about how triples are for wimps,
>>
>>
>> Count the number of triples in the Tour and see if you'd feel happy
>> calling the riders wimps ;-)
>>
>> Jon
>
> LOL... Ok, I should have elaborated a bit... I don't think they're for
> wimps, but my perception is that quite a lot of other cyclists *do*
> think they're for wimps... or maybe that's exaggerating a bit and they
> just seem to have a vague notion of 3 means your legs can't be as good
> as mine with 2 :)

There was an article in 'cycle' magazine that argued IIRC:

o) It's common to have to ride up hills in the UK that are _much_
steeper than most hills in the TDF.

o) In the TDF, riders use different ratios for steeper / less steep
stages. I imagine you would want a single set of gears that is
suitable for most occasions.

o) A stage of the Milk race was won by someone riding a triple.

AC
 
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I got to thinking about how triples are for wimps, and then wondered if
> that's actually just a myth and the gearing works out roughly the same,
> once you take into account a different casette at the back and a front
> chainring that sits between granny/med and med/large.
>

No, triples will have a wider spread and go lower. Typically I think
there'll be not much difference, if any, at the rear and a typical Shimano
front triples are 52/42/30, front doubles 53/39 so which chainring sits
between both a granny/med and the med/large? I assume you're refering to
both rings of a double but that's not the way they usually are. The lower
double ring is much nearer the med of a triple than it is of the granny, and
the higher double is typically slightly bigger than the large triple.
Triples are not for wimps, IMO, but for people who are simply not racers.
On the flat, I have no real need even for my 52 big ring and think I'd be
better off with something like 46/36/26!

Rich
 
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:32:06 +0100, Richard Goodman wrote:

> Probably much the same for both. That's why they say triples are for wimps
> (like me) ;) But how long is a piece of string? You can put any cassette,
> with any range of cogs you like on the rear, subject to the capacity of your
> derailleur and the availability of ready-made blocks of ratios.

I wouldn't mind some advice on this subject.
I find the gearing too high on my road bike.
Its got a double chainring, Shimano Sora components and STI levers.
Sorry - haven't counted the teeth on either.
Looking for some easier gears for the upcoming Dunwich Dynamo.

How difficut (and expensive!) is it to fit a triple chainset on the front?
I think front derallieur would have to be changed.
I guess the brake/gear lever is unchanged?

Alternatively, is it a big deal to fit another rear cassette?
What tools would I need (good excuse to buy tools...)?
And if I got a cassette with a much larger lowest gear, would I have to
change the chain to cope? I suppose I'm asking how one guages what range
a derallieur can cope with.
 
John Hearns:
> How difficut (and expensive!) is it to fit a triple chainset on the front?

New chainset + new bottom bracket + new rear derailleur = £60-£80 minimum?

> I think front derallieur would have to be changed.
> I guess the brake/gear lever is unchanged?

You might get away without changing the front derailleur, depending on the
depth of the cage, but you'll probably have to change to a long cage rear
derailleur. I'm not sure about the shifters but they are sold as seperate
double or triple models so I suspect you would have to change them - and
that ain't cheap.

> Alternatively, is it a big deal to fit another rear cassette?

No big deal at all - much less hassle and cost than changing the chainset. A
cassette with a 28 or 32 largest sprocket can be got for £25.

> What tools would I need (good excuse to buy tools...)?

Chain whip and cassette removal tool - see here for a detailed explanation
(with pictures!):
<URL:http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/FAQcogs.shtml>

> And if I got a cassette with a much larger lowest gear, would I have to
> change the chain to cope? I suppose I'm asking how one guages what range
> a derallieur can cope with.

I'm not sure but if you're buying a new cassette then it's a good idea to
buy a new chain anyway, otherwise you'll wear the cassette out quicker.

d.
 
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:28:48 +0000, davek wrote:

>
> No big deal at all - much less hassle and cost than changing the chainset. A
> cassette with a 28 or 32 largest sprocket can be got for £25.
>
Thanks for the advice.

current setup is: dual front 52 and 42 teeth

7 speed rear, range from 13 to 23 teeth
(hmm - am I counting this right? I marked a tooth with Tippex)

Ideas on a good cassette?
 
John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote:

: current setup is: dual front 52 and 42 teeth

: 7 speed rear, range from 13 to 23 teeth

You could lower your gearing significantly without going to a triple.

You'll need a 39 tooth chainring (about £15) and a 13-26 or 13-28
7 speed block.

Don't get a rear block with more than 28 teeth - they are MTB blocks and
your rear mech probably won't cope (it might, but it's a risk and I wouldn't)

A triple would give you lower gears again but that'll be really expensive
because you'd have to convert to at least 8 speed (and more probably 9) to
get shift levers. Which might need a re-spaced rear (or might not) and it'll
just be a complete PITA. If your bike still has downtube levers then you could
just use the front shift in friction mode but you'd still have to try and
find a 7 speed triple from somewhere.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
in message <[email protected]>, John Hearns
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:28:48 +0000, davek wrote:
>
>>
>> No big deal at all - much less hassle and cost than changing the
>> chainset. A cassette with a 28 or 32 largest sprocket can be got for
>> £25.
>>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> current setup is: dual front 52 and 42 teeth
>
> 7 speed rear, range from 13 to 23 teeth
> (hmm - am I counting this right? I marked a tooth with Tippex)
>
> Ideas on a good cassette?

Consider changing your 42 tooth chainring for a 39?

My partner's roadbike (which was originally my sisters) has a 14/28 6
speed at the rear, which gives decently low gears but some quite big
jumps.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.
 
John Hearns wrote:
> How difficut (and expensive!) is it to fit a triple chainset on the
> front?

Quite expensive. Inner ring could be changed to a 38 or 39 instead (38 is
miniumum) or a "compact double" crankset could be fitted instead -- these
can take smaller rings.

> I think front derallieur would have to be changed.
> I guess the brake/gear lever is unchanged?

Unfortunatley, not all STIs are triple-compatible.

> Alternatively, is it a big deal to fit another rear cassette?

Certainly worth changing your 13-23 first anyway.

> What tools would I need (good excuse to buy tools...)?

For cassette: Cassette remover and chain whip from Mike Dyason's.

Chainrings: 5mm allen key.

> And if I got a cassette with a much larger lowest gear, would I have
> to change the chain to cope?

Might need a longer chain, depending on whether existing chain is longer
than it needs to be now or not. Would be worth getting a new chain anyway
if current one is quite worn.

> I suppose I'm asking how one guages what
> range a derallieur can cope with.

See Shimano websites but note that you can "push" the limits and
capacities a bit.

~PB
 
"Pete Biggs" <pcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> John Hearns wrote:
> > How difficut (and expensive!) is it to fit a triple chainset on the
> > front?
> Quite expensive.
> > And if I got a cassette with a much larger lowest gear, would I have
> > to change the chain to cope?
>
> Might need a longer chain,
> > I suppose I'm asking how one guages what
> > range a derallieur can cope with.
>
> See Shimano websites but note that you can "push" the limits and
> capacities a bit.

indeed. The quoted ranges are designed to let you use largets
chainring with smallest cog and vice versa without reaching the limits
of the rear derailleur cage so the "max" rear cog size can be the
largest cop you would use on the big chain ring (although a margin
might be sensible). As usual, Sheldon Brown will tell you more than
you ever want to know. My bike came with 12-23 52-39 as stock. I
have run 12-27 and will be running 12-25 for the dynamo. Changing a
cassette is a five minute job (plus wheel removal and refitting). The
tools aren't expensive butr surely Julian or someone would be able to
lend you a whip and cassette tool

best wishes
james
 
[email protected] (james) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Pete Biggs" <pcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > John Hearns wrote:
> > > How difficut (and expensive!) is it to fit a triple chainset on the
> > > front?
> Quite expensive.
> > > And if I got a cassette with a much larger lowest gear, would I have
> > > to change the chain to cope?
> >
> > Might need a longer chain,
> > > I suppose I'm asking how one guages what
> > > range a derallieur can cope with.
> >
> > See Shimano websites but note that you can "push" the limits and
> > capacities a bit.
>
> indeed. The quoted ranges are designed to let you use largets
> chainring with smallest cog and vice versa without reaching the limits
> of the rear derailleur cage so the "max" rear cog size can be the
> largest cop you would use on the big chain ring (although a margin
> might be sensible). As usual, Sheldon Brown will tell you more than
> you ever want to know. My bike came with 12-23 52-39 as stock. I
> have run 12-27 and will be running 12-25 for the dynamo. Changing a
> cassette is a five minute job (plus wheel removal and refitting). The
> tools aren't expensive butr surely Julian or someone would be able to
> lend you a whip and cassette tool

I started with the usual 52/42 vs 13-24, but when I started Audax
dropped to a 39, but this was still a struggle so cheated with a 28
inserted instead of the 24, which made a good emergency gear but you
could not basically change up from it to 21 without it feeling like
someone had tied a haybale on the back, so this year went back to a
13-23 but with a 30/40/50 triple from SJS, this is ideal as you get a
good range of low gears and also fairly close ratio in each front
ring. With only 7 on the back the ratios on a normal 14-28 on the back
are just too far apart road use. Would never buy a bike without a
triple now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Converting Shimano 105 Triple to Double
Replies
4
Views
555
UK and Europe
Call me Bob
C
Chris Armstrong
double or triple
Replies
12
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Peter B
P
M
Triple/Double
Replies
0
Views
361
UK and Europe
MartinM
M
M
Triple/Double
Replies
0
Views
299
UK and Europe
MartinM
M
M
Re: Triple/Double
Replies
0
Views
335
UK and Europe
MSeries
M
Top Bottom Back