Hey all!
There's been quite a bit of talk and discussion about going from doubles to triples in regard to things like age, injury, knees etc...
But I'm curious about the people that have gone the seemingly less travelled road of Triple to Double?
My bike came with the ultegra triple group and it has worked well, very well... I used the small chainring up front for parts of the hill portions of my regular rides quite a while back, but "hopefully" owing to the fact that I've been working at improving over the last year, I find myself not using the 30 ring at all now... ever... and even when I was using it, it was always for a short time only, a short recovery period during an ascent as it were.
People on one side say to keep it because it adds very little weight these days, and the deraillers have gotten to the point where the shifting with long cages rivals that of the short cage deraillers. Additionally they add the "you never know" factor when it comes to a time where the lower gearing would help tremendously...
On the other side, club-mates say, if I'm strong enough not to need it for the riding I do, then go to the double and get even stronger, the shifting will be more crisp and accurate, I could shed some weight and the mechanicals would be a bit more reliable... They add that if it turns out to be a bit much, I could go with a 12-25 cogset replacing the 11-23...
I know that the triples have come a long way in reliable shifting and less weight over the stuff available years ago, and perhaps the opinions from those years ago are coloring my judgement, but wouldn;t the doubles at the same time also be benefitting from those advances as well?
I'm not a competitive cyclist by any means, but for the moderate hills I tackle in normal riding the 30 ring is now dead weight, and some riders have even suggested that the reduced q-factor of the doubles (reduced crank width without the small chainring) often helps with the knees and pedalling efficiency...
Any thoughts?
There's been quite a bit of talk and discussion about going from doubles to triples in regard to things like age, injury, knees etc...
But I'm curious about the people that have gone the seemingly less travelled road of Triple to Double?
My bike came with the ultegra triple group and it has worked well, very well... I used the small chainring up front for parts of the hill portions of my regular rides quite a while back, but "hopefully" owing to the fact that I've been working at improving over the last year, I find myself not using the 30 ring at all now... ever... and even when I was using it, it was always for a short time only, a short recovery period during an ascent as it were.
People on one side say to keep it because it adds very little weight these days, and the deraillers have gotten to the point where the shifting with long cages rivals that of the short cage deraillers. Additionally they add the "you never know" factor when it comes to a time where the lower gearing would help tremendously...
On the other side, club-mates say, if I'm strong enough not to need it for the riding I do, then go to the double and get even stronger, the shifting will be more crisp and accurate, I could shed some weight and the mechanicals would be a bit more reliable... They add that if it turns out to be a bit much, I could go with a 12-25 cogset replacing the 11-23...
I know that the triples have come a long way in reliable shifting and less weight over the stuff available years ago, and perhaps the opinions from those years ago are coloring my judgement, but wouldn;t the doubles at the same time also be benefitting from those advances as well?
I'm not a competitive cyclist by any means, but for the moderate hills I tackle in normal riding the 30 ring is now dead weight, and some riders have even suggested that the reduced q-factor of the doubles (reduced crank width without the small chainring) often helps with the knees and pedalling efficiency...
Any thoughts?
