Triples

Pete @ eclipse said:

I certainly dreamt of using a fixed gear. Woke up in a cold sweat !! I'll stick with my 18 gears !

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Graham <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Pete @ eclipse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
>
> As Ventoux veterans (no triples!) we urge you all to get out and ride;

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> not with a triple !
>
> With the risk of being flamed.... triples are for wimps ;-)
>
>
You said it ! Don't get a triple and never get off and walk.

Pahh!! you pansies, stuff your multi-geared set-ups, 'Real cyclists' would dream of using
nothing but a fixed gear.
--
Chris French, Leeds

So why is your double with 18 gears so superior to my wimpish triple with 18 gears?

Pete @ eclipse said:

Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it. Surprised at the number of people
riding triple rings (hence my, somewhat, ironic post)

Not sure what to try next summer. Tourmalet,sounds good

"M Series" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete @ eclipse said:

Well......

I did Ventoux in 94 on 39x24, that same trip I climbed the Aubisque, Tourmalet, Glandon/Croix de
Fer, Alpe d'Huez and Columbiere. Couldn't do it now though on the same set up.

I was pretty fit in those days, we followed the Tour through the Pyrenees and Alps. We saw the Tour
at the summit of the Tourmalet, Eros Poli won the stage after an epic break.

This year I rode over the Pyrenees again (Tourmalet, Aspin, Peyresourde, Aubisque), it is the first
time I have used a triple, my lifestyle is such that I can't put the hours in to get to the same
levelof fitness as before. I think with high spec. triples being available now and the realisation
that spinning instead of grinding is better for one it is more acceptable to use a triple.

Pete @ eclipse said:

Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.

42 x 22 in 1970.

Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)

John B

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete @ eclipse said:

Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.

42 x 22 in 1970.

Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)

John B

Ok, you can stop boasting now. Look, I'm in my 50's (at least, that's my excuse) and if I should
ever get around to trying Ventoux, Tourmalet, or anywhere else like it, I think I shall be pretty
damn pleased if I get up it on a 30 x 32. So there!

Rich

Rich,

I'm not boasting, honest. I just wanted to start a conversation on triples.

FWIW if I'd have had a triple ring I would have used it ! I thought that Ventoux was beyond me,
but was determined to get to the top. (This was my challenge ride before <cough> <cough> that
certain age).

If you ever watch Le Tour, then I'd recommend trying one of the mountain stages; it will give you a
totally different perspective when watching next year.

Whatever you cycle, enjoy

Pete

"Richard Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete @ eclipse said:

Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.

42 x 22 in 1970.

Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)

John B

Ok, you can stop boasting now. Look, I'm in my 50's (at least, that's my excuse) and if I should
ever get around to trying Ventoux, Tourmalet, or anywhere else like it, I think I shall be pretty
damn pleased if I get up

it

Quoted message said:

on a 30 x 32. So there!

Rich

Richard Goodman said:

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete @ eclipse said:

Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.

42 x 22 in 1970.

Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)

John B

Ok, you can stop boasting now. Look, I'm in my 50's (at least, that's my excuse) and if I should
ever get around to trying Ventoux, Tourmalet, or anywhere else like it, I think I shall be pretty
damn pleased if I get up it on a 30 x 32. So there!

Well back then I only had a double with a five block. Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81.

...and it'd take three days twiddling to reach the top.

John B

Pete @ eclipse said:

With the risk of being flamed.... triples are for wimps ;-)

Try drinking three Westmalle triples. Not for wimps :-)

Roos

[email hidden] schreef ...

Quoted message said:

Pete @ eclipse said:

With the risk of being flamed.... triples are for wimps ;-)

Try drinking three Westmalle triples. Not for wimps :-)

Roos

And if you ever move up one country to the north, try a Grolsch "Het Kanon" ("the Cannon"😉. The name
is highly appropriate ......

--
Regards, Marten

JohnB said:

Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B

81 gears seems excessive. lol

--
yours S (addy' not usable[not that you would try it anyway]) Illegitimi non carborundum
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Soup said:

JohnB said:

Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B

81 gears seems excessive. lol

The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'

PS: I ride fixed sometimes too.

Competition Idea: I wonder how many 'gears' I have on all my bikes added up? <shifties off to
garage to count>

John B

JohnB said:

Soup said:

JohnB said:

Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B

81 gears seems excessive. lol

The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'

PS: I ride fixed sometimes too.

Competition Idea: I wonder how many 'gears' I have on all my bikes added up? <shifties off to
garage to count>

John B

I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's
only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe
cross ones .

--
yours S (addy' not usable[not that you would try it anyway]) Illegitimi non carborundum
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

JohnB said:

Soup wrote: Competition Idea: I wonder how many 'gears' I have on all my bikes added up? <shifties
off to garage to count>

hmm.... I make it 116. 120 if you count the spare triple and an extra 32 tooth TA front ring hanging
in the garage.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

Soup said:

JohnB said:

Soup said:

JohnB wrote:
> Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B

81 gears seems excessive. lol

The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'

I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's
only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe
cross ones .

It *is* 81 on the same machine (recumbent trike, not a bike)

Quite easy really, its.... On the front: Deore XT Triple 22/32/44 Rear: Deore XT mech with 11 - 34
cassette Rear hub: SRAM Dual Drive 3 x 9

Its not _that_ uncommon an arrangement.

John B

Tim Downie said:

JohnB said:

Soup wrote: Competition Idea: I wonder how many 'gears' I have on all my bikes added up?
<shifties off to garage to count>

hmm.... I make it 116. 120 if you count the spare triple and an extra 32 tooth TA front ring
hanging in the garage.

345

Plus loads of rings (including a TA 68 toother) and rear fixed sprockets.

John B

Soup said:

I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's
only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe
cross ones .

3 on the front, 9 on the back and a 3 speed hub, 81 gears but there may be some duplication;-)

--
Chris dot Gerhard at btclick dot com.

JohnB said:

Soup said:

JohnB said:

Soup wrote:

> JohnB wrote:
>> Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B
>
> 81 gears seems excessive. lol

The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'

I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's
only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the
severe cross ones .

It *is* 81 on the same machine (recumbent trike, not a bike)

Quite easy really, its.... On the front: Deore XT Triple 22/32/44 Rear: Deore XT mech with 11 - 34
cassette Rear hub: SRAM Dual Drive 3 x 9

Its not _that_ uncommon an arrangement.

John B

K K "uncle" LOL was thinking of a standard 'bike (not a 'bent) with seven front rings rofl (after
all the thread was about running three front rings ).

--
yours S (addy' not usable[not that you would try it anyway]) Illegitimi non carborundum
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim Downie wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hmm.... I make it 116. 120 if you count the spare triple and an extra

32

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tooth TA front ring hanging in the garage.

345

Plus loads of rings (including a TA 68 toother) and rear fixed sprockets.

Dang. I *knew* I wasn't in with a chance here having a bare 8 bikes in the garage but I didn't
realise that I was going to be so profoundly trounced.

Who's going to top that then?

Tim

Quoted message said:

John B

Chris Gerhard no_spam@not_btclick.com said:

Soup said:

I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's
only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the
severe cross ones .

3 on the front, 9 on the back and a 3 speed hub, 81 gears but there may be some duplication;-)

Only half a job really.

Why not:

3 on front 10 on back 14 speed rholoff hub Schlumpf mountain drive

3 x 10 x 14 x 2

(fx fingers, thumbs, toes)

840.

They may be even more duplication.

Tim
--
In space no one can eat ice cream

"Pete @ eclipse" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

With the risk of being flamed.... triples are for wimps ;-)

If you just ride fast enough triples are for whimps indeed, otherwise you end up real slow. try 20%
on a 39/24😉

Hubert

[email hidden] (hubert pellikaan) writes:

He, jij ook hier :-)

Roos