Triple gearing strategy

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Noel Llopis, Feb 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Noel Llopis

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. 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
     
  3. Matt O'Toole

    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.
     
  4. 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
     
  5. Tonv

    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
     
  6. Pete Grey

    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
     
  7. Rick Onanian

    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
     
  8. 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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...