Triple gearing strategy



Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Noel Llopis

Guest
I'm about to change the cassette on my Trek 5200 with a triple (30-42-52). I don't do racing, but I
go on fast club rides.

Up until now I've had a 12-27 cassette which gives me a range of 3.0-8.4 gear ratio units on the
middle and large chainrings. Considering that it's not extremely hilly around here (and especially
no long hills), I was only dropping down to the small chainring when I was totally cooked or I was
commuting to work carrying some bags.

I just got a new commuter bike, so that's not an issue anymore, and since I'm about to change the
cassette, I'm considering changing to something like a 12-23 and using the small chainring just like
any of the other two (and getting a much tighter gear set). That would still give me a 2.5-8.4 range
which should be more than enough, but I'm concerned about how convenient it is to switch between all
three chainrings constantly (terrain here is rolling, so I'm shifting all the time).

Anybody else has a triple setup with a tight cassette on the back? Do you like it better than a widely-
spaced double, or is it just annoying? Just curious about other people's experiences with it.

--Noel
 
C

Chris Zacho "Th

Guest
Sorry, I can't help you with this one, I don't think my 12-34 counts as
"tight". :-3)>

"May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
 
M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
Noel Llopis wrote:

> I'm about to change the cassette on my Trek 5200 with a triple (30-42-52). I don't do racing, but
> I go on fast club rides.
>
> Up until now I've had a 12-27 cassette which gives me a range of
> 3.-8.4 gear ratio units on the middle and large chainrings. Considering that it's not extremely
> hilly around here (and especially no long hills), I was only dropping down to the small
> chainring when I was totally cooked or I was commuting to work carrying some bags.
>
> I just got a new commuter bike, so that's not an issue anymore, and since I'm about to change the
> cassette, I'm considering changing to something like a 12-23 and using the small chainring just
> like any of the other two (and getting a much tighter gear set). That would still give me a 2.5-
> 8.4 range which should be more than enough, but I'm concerned about how convenient it is to switch
> between all three chainrings constantly (terrain here is rolling, so I'm shifting all the time).
>
> Anybody else has a triple setup with a tight cassette on the back? Do you like it better than a
> widely-spaced double, or is it just annoying? Just curious about other people's experiences
> with it.

The standard 30-40-52 triple has small enough gaps that it's nearly as easy to make a front shift as
a rear one. A double has a much bigger jump. With my triple, I don't worry about it anymore -- if I
want a small adjustment I use the rear, a larger one the front. So yes, the triple is worth keeping
as it is. If you want smaller gaps, the 12-23 would be a good way to go. Besides, cassettes are much
cheaper than chainrings.

The only reason to change the chainrings is if it would give you a better chainline in a gear you
use all the time. But that's another advantage of a triple -- there's definately some gearing
overlap, but you can better optimize the chainline.

Matt O.
 
W

Walt Nicholson

Guest
Noel Llopis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> Anybody else has a triple setup with a tight cassette on the back? Do you like it better than a
> widely-spaced double, or is it just annoying? Just curious about other people's experiences
> with it.
>
>
> --Noel

I'm using a 12-23 10 speed cassette on the rear with a 22 tooth difference on the front. Works
very smoothly.

Walt
 
T

Tonv

Guest
>Noel Llopis>
<cut>
> Anybody else has a triple setup with a tight cassette on the back? Do you like it better than a
> widely-spaced double, or is it just annoying? Just curious about other people's experiences
> with it.

Here in the west of Holland we have no hills, only the dunes. A double is enough here. There is no
need for a triple. But on my new bike I have a triple crankset 50-42-30 (Campy). Why? A few weeks
every year we are on holiday in France or Switzerland climbing the mountains there.

So most of the time I only use 50 and 42 with a cassette 12-25. In France on the Mont Ventoux I need
my triple's 30 and a cassette 13-26. I am happy with my Campy Chorus triple. I changed the standard
53-42-30 to 50-42-30 and its works very fine.

In practice is seems not annoying or better than a double. But there is a different view. With a
triple and a 13-26 or 13-29 you need a long cage derailleur.

Ton
 
P

Pete Grey

Guest
I run a 13-26 9-speed, with a 20-tooth difference across a triple on my winter bike. The 39-53 shift
is nearly flawless. The 32-39 is not as great, but I don't use it that much...

-pete

"Noel Llopis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm about to change the cassette on my Trek 5200 with a triple (30-42-52).
I
> don't do racing, but I go on fast club rides.
>
> Up until now I've had a 12-27 cassette which gives me a range of 3.0-8.4 gear ratio units on the
> middle and large chainrings. Considering that it's not extremely hilly around here (and especially
> no long hills), I was only dropping down to the small chainring when I was totally cooked or I was
> commuting to work carrying some bags.
>
> I just got a new commuter bike, so that's not an issue anymore, and since I'm about to change the
> cassette, I'm considering changing to something like a 12-23 and using the small chainring just
> like any of the other two (and getting a much tighter gear set). That would still give me a 2.5-
> 8.4 range which should be more than enough, but I'm concerned about how convenient it is to switch
> between all three chainrings constantly
(terrain
> here is rolling, so I'm shifting all the time).
>
> Anybody else has a triple setup with a tight cassette on the back? Do you like it better than a
> widely-spaced double, or is it just annoying? Just curious about other people's experiences
> with it.
>
>
> --Noel
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:15:14 -0500 (EST), [email protected]
(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:
>Sorry, I can't help you with this one, I don't think my 12-34 counts as "tight". :-3)>

It does when you compare it to the 11-34 I keep on my MTB. Even that, I wouldn't be opposed to using
on my road bike, and almost did before I went triple...I thought it would be cheaper, but cassettes
and XTR rear derailers are expensive -- and I'd hate to waste grams putting something less than an
XTR on my road bike! <G>
--
Rick Onanian
 
D

Drew Saunders

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Noel Llopis <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm about to change the cassette on my Trek 5200 with a triple (30-42-52). I don't do racing, but
> I go on fast club rides.
>
> Up until now I've had a 12-27 cassette...I'm considering changing to something like a 12-23 and
> using the small chainring just like any of the other two (and getting a much tighter gear set).
>
> Anybody else has a triple setup with a tight cassette on the back? Do you like it better than a
> widely-spaced double, or is it just annoying? Just curious about other people's experiences
> with it.

I have a 26-38-50 w/ 12-21 8-speed on one bike (XO-1 with 26x1.75 tires) and a 26-40-50 w/ 12-21,
also 8-speed, on my Rivendell with 700x27's, so you could say I like triples with tight cassettes.
Since the hills seem to get steeper each year around here, (must be all that seismic activity, yeah,
that's right!), I might convert the Riv to a 9-speed 12-23, since I really do use the 16 a fair bit.

I tend to use the granny when going up the steep hills, and otherwise use the bike as a double. The
terrain here is either rolling not-so-steep hills, or up to the crest of the local mountain range,
which works well with my setup.

Anyway, do you get a lot of use out of the 52x12? Some folks do, others hardly ever, so if you're in
the latter group, you could consider something like a 28-40-50 w/ 12-21, which will work with your
existing crankarms, or a 28-40-50 w/ 11-21, which would give a taller top gear than you currently
have and a low gear close to your intended 30-23, with the same 22t range that you currently have. A
28-21 is slightly higher than 30-23, while a 27-21 is slightly lower, and would still work with your
front derailleur.

Of course, just changing the cassette is much cheaper.

Drew

--
Drew W. Saunders

dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.