Triple vs Double?

From CNN:

I did not mean for my simple question to turn into a hate-athon... Why are you causing such a ruckus with trying to decide how the rest of us should ride...perhaps we all are not out to look like d-bags racing around trying to look better than we are. Maybe if you could squirm your head far enough out of your ass and past the crack that you could realize that there are different things to do on a road bike like long distances or whatever the hell i want to do.. OK [censored]? and I agree with the last comment on the first page!

JohnO said:

Keep in mind, while you lower the effort, you're thrashing away for a lot longer on a climb as you're going a lot slower. So it helps, but not that much.

Not true, John. You climb at a speed dependent on the wattage you choose to put out. If you can keep your cadence 90-105, then you expend that wattage most efficiently and with minimal joint strain. Choosing a triple is all about being able to keep your cadence where you want it. If you are fit enough to keep your cadence up on a standard double, more power to you.

artemidorus said:

Not true, John. You climb at a speed dependent on the wattage you choose to put out. If you can keep your cadence 90-105, then you expend that wattage most efficiently and with minimal joint strain. Choosing a triple is all about being able to keep your cadence where you want it. If you are fit enough to keep your cadence up on a standard double, more power to you.

+1. I like my triple, but then I'm gettin old🙁.

RedRider2009 said:

Hi there, I am looking to buy a new roadbike for myself because I am currently riding one that is older than me. I don't have much money to spend on it so I am looking at the Trek 1000 Triple and The Lemond Etape mostly. I have noticed that some bikes come with a choice of a double or triple...What are some advantages for one or the other? What are the disadvantages? In other words why would I want this or not want this? Thank you-David

kdelong said:

+1. I like my triple, but then I'm gettin old🙁.

+2

The key is actually riding enough to know what your needs are, and being able to adapt your bike to them. In general though , if you have tough hills in your area and aren't in pretty good shape (also subjective) -- get a triple. What are the gears in your old bike, and do you think you need lower or higher gears ?

I have both triples and doubles-- and I have come to like my triples as well as doubles depending on how I feel and where I am riding. 'Tis truly a cadence and fitness thing (and maybe age)🙂. It's all about gear-inches and physics. For every turn of the cranks you make, you get to move the circumference of your rear tire along the ground just so far in each gear and this moves you and your bike a certain distance and change in elevation (or to put it simply, each turn produces a certain amount of work). Smaller gears in front allow you to turn the pedals/crankset a full revolution and incrementally produce a smaller amount of work (moving you and the bike a shorter distance along the ground and up or down hill), making it feel easier to pedal.

Every rider has preferences as to how far that gear-inch range & resultant distance should be; or how much work they can comfortably do per unit of time (the cadence part). There surely are optimum ranges for fitness and stress on joints as mentioned, but which also may vary based on individual characteristics of the rider.

And all this other [censored] flying around --- With what tools you get there should be a personal choice that is not judged either - double chain rings, compact chain rings, triple chain rings, 11-21 or 14-32 rear cassettes are nothing more than a means to an end. For quality components even the way these things work and how much they weigh are 6 of one/half dozen of the other. You'll create more difference in weight by eating a meal or carrying a water bottle.
You WILL be able to travel faster with taller gears in front (bigger rings) given the same rear cassette and cadence-- so if you race, these things do become important, but most triples come with a 52 or 53 tooth big ring so it's not like you are loosing the top end, you just gain a lower bottom end.

Anyhow. Choose what is right for you based on your own ability and personal needs. When you are happily riding your bike that is set up for your optimum enjoyment and training you can smile smuggly at anyone struggling to be "cool" riding their form over function choices. 🙂

George

geoinmillbrook said:

You WILL be able to travel faster with taller gears in front (bigger rings) given the same rear cassette and cadence. George

There's truth in that statement, but it's the kind of truth that can be misleading. The problem is that you have to have the leg power to turn the crank and maintain the same cadence with the taller gear. Lots of people get confused about the power requirement.

Look at it this way. You can't make a Yugo go 150 MPH simply by installing a Ferrari transmission in it.

Well, I do not need any lower gears....but larger ones would be nice....the ferrari engine is against the point haha although I would like it...So I probably should get a double? I am in pretty good shape...a little over weight but I am 16...so everything is still working well.

Retro Grouch said:

There's truth in that statement, but it's the kind of truth that can be misleading. The problem is that you have to have the leg power to turn the crank and maintain the same cadence with the taller gear. Lots of people get confused about the power requirement.

Look at it this way. You can't make a Yugo go 150 MPH simply by installing a Ferrari transmission in it.

RG: Exactly what I was thinking. My wife's minivan should go 150 mph at redline as well. Perhaps the limitations of horsepower and aero drag come into play at some point?

IME, I WILL go faster on a long climb when I have low enough gears to sustain optimum power cadence....somewhere around 90-100 rpm. For the really steep hills, my 30/25 low gear is well short of this goal, but everything is a compromise. I've got about half the power-to-weight ratio of the top pro's, and climb at about half their speed, so about half their gearing should be right for me 🙂

Retro Grouch said:

Look at it this way. You can't make a Yugo go 150 MPH simply by installing a Ferrari transmission in it.

Really ? I'll bet on a good downhill or a really flat road you can get awfully close. Not sure what HP's you need to overcome the aerodynamics though -- which I think really starts to matter over 60 MPH and gets worse the faster you go. Especially in a Yugo 🙂 (bet no one ever studied it).
I have a friend that used to race go-karts that had 3.5HP 46cc chainsaw engines that went 60MPH. The gearing made huge differences in the top speeds they were able to obtain (the high revs of the engines made a difference too -- a 4 cycle 3.5 engine has to be much bigger and weighs more, and wasn't as fast). Since they were single speeds, you totally lost low end torque gearing too high, so you couldn't start them on their own power (had to push).
So it's not just horsepower, but the ability to keep up a good pace/cadence (fitness) plus horsepower that probably wins the race. And of course the fitness and HP of the engine (aka rider) on a bike will definately determine the ability to overcome resistances like weight, elevation, wind and friction and make the bike go faster at given gear ratios. HP/weight ratio + fitness + the right equipment, sounds like the formula. 🙂 My only real point in the statement was that with a triple you gain the low end w/o losing the top end, all other things being equal.

George

geoinmillbrook said:

Really ? I'll bet on a good downhill or a really flat road you can get awfully close.

How much? How much are you willing to bet?

I used to own a Ford Ranger pick up that had an overdrive 5th gear. That truck would actually go faster in 4th than it would in 5th because, in overdrive, the wind resistance would hold it back before the engine could rev high enough to reach it's horsepower peak. Incidentally, that's not uncommon.

The same thing happens with bicycles. If you never find yourself spun out in your highest gear ratio, installing a larger front chainring isn't going to make you go any faster.

Retro Grouch said:

How much? How much are you willing to bet?

I used to own a Ford Ranger pick up that had an overdrive 5th gear. That truck would actually go faster in 4th than it would in 5th because, in overdrive, the wind resistance would hold it back before the engine could rev high enough to reach it's horsepower peak. Incidentally, that's not uncommon.

The same thing happens with bicycles. If you never find yourself spun out in your highest gear ratio, installing a larger front chainring isn't going to make you go any faster.

I bet $100,000,000 USD. Please let me know when you have successfully fitted the Ferrari tranny to the Yugo engine and are ready for testing. The other thing you mention just sounds like you don't know how to drive a standard transmission vehicle. Also when I find myself "spun out" in any gear below 20th (or 30th on my triple), I will refuse to shift into a higher gear, because it will serve no useful purpose. 😕

geoinmillbrook said:

I bet $100,000,000 USD. Please let me know when you have successfully fitted the Ferrari tranny to the Yugo engine and are ready for testing. The other thing you mention just sounds like you don't know how to drive a standard transmission vehicle. Also when I find myself "spun out" in any gear below 20th (or 30th on my triple), I will refuse to shift into a higher gear, because it will serve no useful purpose. 😕

Hey - you're the one who wanted to bet so it should be you're responsibility to prove I'm wrong.

Never-the-less, if you deposit $100,000,000 USD into an escrow account that I can access after I win, I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to find backers to help me build the demonstration vehicle.

If you can't come up with the $100,000,000 USD, it proves that you're just blowing hot air about stuff that you don't understand as the rest of your post clearly shows.

Retro Grouch said:

Hey - you're the one who wanted to bet so it should be you're responsibility to prove I'm wrong.

Never-the-less, if you deposit $100,000,000 USD into an escrow account that I can access after I win, I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to find backers to help me build the demonstration vehicle.

If you can't come up with the $100,000,000 USD, it proves that you're just blowing hot air about stuff that you don't understand as the rest of your post clearly shows.

Cool ! OK, The money is in an escro account. And I have as much proof of that as you do of this statement: "You can't make a Yugo go 150 MPH simply by installing a Ferrari transmission in it."

For your consideration, I provide some other examples of why I say: "I'll bet on a good downhill or a really flat road you can get awfully close". ie- meaning: "under the right conditions"..

So for your entertainment ! (and for those you are gathering to match my bet) 😉 --->

Example #1:
1/3 HP human being on a bike going 152.2 MPH
canosoarus.comLSR%20Bike01.htmOpen ↗

Example #2:
130mph Yugo:eek: conceptcarz.comdefault.aspxOpen ↗

Example #3:
A production Yugo going 111MPH
[img]img.youtube.com2.jpgOpen ↗[/img]

Yugo going to 180 kmh xD for 100 euro yugo loool! ... Yugo ...var mb2=ManyBox.register('2',2,'VNY4l3r0-LsJ','','7e17',21,'Watch video','Hide video'😉
[img]google.complus sm.gifOpen ↗[/img]<IMG height=1 alt="" width=2>Watch video - 1 min 42 sec -










www.youtube.com/watch?v=abk2i9mmrMI

And since you seem to be such an expert, and have such a keen understanding of engine/mechanical gearing systems, do me a favor will you ?

Will you do this academic excercise for your potential investors ?

Put our Yugo on a nice steep hill - maybe on the Austrian side of the Dolomites (Halltall rises to 1482m in 7km at an average of 14%, its steepest stretch being 32%). Or let's just say we found a 14% grade hill that is nice and straight for about 3 or 4 miles.

You do remember your high school physics right ? The incline plane ? And you remember this really sophisticated equation: F= MA ? You also remember the trigonometry you had to use to calculate the force vectors of an object on an inclined plane ?

So we know said production Yugo weighs about 1690 lbs. (don't forget to convert this weight to mass) Your incline is 14% (don't forget to translate to the angle). The acceleration of gravity is 32.2 ft/sec2 at sea level and can be corrected for, or even integrated over the course of elevation that our Yugo will take -Maybe use the 1480 m elevation in the Dolomite example to start.

So, please also factor in the 103 HP of extra force the Yugo will have from the engine (hmmm.. that is over 300 times that of the 152.2 MPH bike rider), and then subtract all the forces and known frictions of bearings, tires, road, wind resistance and things that will work against it. Will you also allow us to take the governor off the engine so that it can go beyond it's standard RPM protections right , if not we can just use that max value ? Please then use the maximun known RPMs of the engine crankshaft (sans component failure or at max allowed) to determine the RPM that will be translated to the imput spline of the Ferrari tranny and -- using your mechanical engineering wizardry and knowledge of the front wheel drive system of the Yugo, calculate the top potential speed of rotation that the driveshafts will receive from the Ferrari tranny at it's top gear (please be sure to use a tranny model that Ferrari makes that will obtain the desired speed of 150m at least - within "normal" automobile mechanical and dimensional parameters).
Knowing all the forces in action and the size of the tires we are using, and their maximum potential RPMs you should have potential top speed. It is a very simple "body in motion" system, I am sure you can whip this up like falling off a log right ? Because aside from your so very astute pick up truck example, you may need this information to convince your potential investors to join the bet with you 🙂 , if it were me and I was investing $100,000,000 I'd want to see it.

Oh yeah, BTW and once again, I completely agree that in certain gears, the bike rider (or engine) does not have enough horsepower to keep up the RPMs to translate that gear into a faster speed (like when you shifted into 5th gear in yor truck at the worng RPM or during the wrong conditions) ... and again, my only point was that for a triple crank you don't loose the top end compared to a double if the large chain rings are the same and the riders are the same.

The rest of this is all just fun and games !

😄

George

1. If you'll notice, John Howard is drafting a streamlined land speed record car to overcome the air resistance at 153 MPH. That looks to me like it has about the same frontal area as a Yugo but better aerodynamics and a lot more horsepower. Your own example proves my point. Gearing is irrelevant if you don't have the horsepower to overcome the air resistance. Otherwise John wouldn't have to have bothered drafting the car.

2. Unfortunately for me, I think you're lying about the $100,000,000.

JohnO said:

I just took the triple off. I wasn't using the small chainring much, was getting tired of wisecracks from poseurs . . .

The smart poseurs make that comment to me on the flats. The dumb ones make that comment on the climbs, but they don't finish before I accelerate away while they're plodding along at 60rpm.