you people out there riding double or tripple?
- Thread starter Kaboom
- Start date
Is the largest triple chainring bigger than on a double chainring? If so it means triples are faster on the downhills.
I use a double ring and often max out my speed on a good downhill because the chainring is too small. However I rarely use the easiest gears on the small ring unless theres a killer hill.......or if im feeling lazy. The granny rings as you call them are designed for fat people if they ever want to cycle.
I use a double ring and often max out my speed on a good downhill because the chainring is too small. However I rarely use the easiest gears on the small ring unless theres a killer hill.......or if im feeling lazy. The granny rings as you call them are designed for fat people if they ever want to cycle.
Standard: I don't think so. Triples seem to be a 52/42/30, Doubles are usually a 53/39.
The 30 in front is also used if there are really steep hills. I believe that even some TdF cyclists (sprinters) will use a triple in the mountains.
Speed downhill is more dependent about who weighs more and cadence. A 100 lbs rider will not go faster on a 53 than a 150 lbs rider on a 52 (assuming all other things are equal).
The 30 in front is also used if there are really steep hills. I believe that even some TdF cyclists (sprinters) will use a triple in the mountains.
Speed downhill is more dependent about who weighs more and cadence. A 100 lbs rider will not go faster on a 53 than a 150 lbs rider on a 52 (assuming all other things are equal).
keydates said:
I ordered my FSA triple with 53/39/30.....the same chainrings are available as with a double.
Agree the 30 ring is for the serious mountains. On many rides here with just rolling hills, I don't use it at all. But when you're talking sustained 10% climbs, or 15-25% steeps, it's great to have the little ring.
Also agree downhill speed isn't about top gear; at 40+ mph, forget about pedaling. To go fast, just tuck in well and watch the road ahead. If the descent is twisting, then controlling speed and the corner line becomes priority.
double only. 39/53, 23-11. Just bought a new Giant compact with 9 speed 105 after riding a fuji alloy frame with sachs new succes 8 speed for the last 6 years. and i'll tell you something. Iv'e got TOO MANY GEARS THAT MAKE IT TOO EASY. after riding up my local climb with my old man yesterday i was amazed that i could ride it at a very comfortable tempo on the fourth and fifth sprocket (im only 63 kg ) and not be anywhere near out of breath.
as a traditionalist i'll also say that triples are for mountain bikes and i'll only use the smallest ring if its quicker than walking up the sucker.
as a traditionalist i'll also say that triples are for mountain bikes and i'll only use the smallest ring if its quicker than walking up the sucker.
superclimber said:
Triples are also for road bikes ridden in the mountains. Climbing at 4-5 mph is easier with a triple, and still way better than walking. I've passed plenty of guys stronger than me walking uphill just because they don't have the gears they need. Of course, if you've got the horsepower of Lance, and never drop below 10-12 mph in the mountains, the 39/23 will be all you need.
Also, I'm a firm believer that what you ride (gearing) comes back to what you start out on and for me that was a 42 which i rode fon 1.5 years before i found out you could get a smaller one. Once your body becomes pretrained to an extent you just get used to it. and i've always ridden a double cause i like to climb fast, with tempo, its just my nature and the fact that nature blessed me with a small body and good cardiopulmonary capacity where i rarely have problems with any sort of gradient.
I find i love my small chainring when i'm mountain biking, on severe inclines, but to me it just feels wrong on a road bike ( and i have given them a go) as i find my roll on and momentum are to great to spin a tiny cog on asphalt without bouncing off the bike entirely. But its just my personal preference . Anyone who rides a triple, good on you, cos at least your still riding, and thats what we're all here for.
I find i love my small chainring when i'm mountain biking, on severe inclines, but to me it just feels wrong on a road bike ( and i have given them a go) as i find my roll on and momentum are to great to spin a tiny cog on asphalt without bouncing off the bike entirely. But its just my personal preference . Anyone who rides a triple, good on you, cos at least your still riding, and thats what we're all here for.
I have triples on both my road bikes. Why? I live in West Virginia and I weigh 265 pounds. I have standard Ultegra 52-42-30 setups on both bikes, with XT rear derailleurs and custom 13-34 cassettes.
Both my mountain bikes run standard 44-34-22 chainrings and 11-34 cassettes.
The lone exception is my fixed-gear bike -- a straight 42x18 setup.
Both my mountain bikes run standard 44-34-22 chainrings and 11-34 cassettes.
The lone exception is my fixed-gear bike -- a straight 42x18 setup.
firc56ab said:triple are for girls. If you cant get up a hill kepp your pride and walk.
Thanks, but I'll use the gears that get me up the mountain the fastest. It may not be fair, but I take pride in passing young macho guys walking their doubles up hill.
Besides, aren't doubles for "girly men" too? 102 years ago, Henri DeGrange (founder of the TdF) said: "Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailleur? We are getting soft......As for me, give me a fixed gear!" Seems back then, real men rode fixed-gear bikes.
MidlifeRider said:
Wow! With a MTB that has 22 in the front and 34 in the back, you must be able to climb up walls!
I say if the technology is available - use it!
I too have this same combo. Although I'm contemplating a tripple chainring conversion on my road bike.vaughnden said:
I've been into road bikes for longer then mountain bikes. Every bike I've had before has been a double. But concidering I live in Vermont, some of the roads I like to ride on are pretty dam steep and long. So I've been looking into a tripple setup.
Case in point
How many of you have a hill you climb where you can't maintain 11mph? From riding with a fairly fast group of people in a relatively non-hilly area, a lot of them (90%) can't. They average slightly over 20mph on 20mile rides. And if you believe in maintaining a high cadence, and don't want to _have_ to stand up, then you need a triple or play more with chain rings.
Even a 39x27 at 90rpms is 10.2 mph on 700c (2.096m circum)
I find I maintain better efficiency above 90 rpms, and usually find myself around 100 rpms. Average cadence on a recent century was 96 rpm.
So, now if you have a climb that's 1+ miles long, where it's quite unlikely you'll want to be out of the saddle that long, and you can't maintain 10mph. You need a triple.
In the area around here where most rides have climbs under a mile, there isn't a need. But I want to be able to sit on any climb and
Now, I would like for someone to contribute some other numbers to this thread. I'll do it soon when I can get my Polar power system installed on my bike.
For a 150lb rider, what power output is necessary to maintain 10mph (assume 90 rpms, or choose what you feel your efficient cadence is) on a climb where everything has reached equilibrium? (no more heart rate change) Let's vary this as a function of grade, but start at 5%. And through 10%. And also increase speed. (try and not make temperature or other variables be present) Now another variation, at your optimal cadence and at some variable powers (let's say 300 W, 350W, and 400 W), what is your speed?
That will provide for an interesting discussion here, as we can start to put numbers against people's subjective comments. It would seem logical the majority of people here can't maintain 400 Watts over a minute or two. And if that's what's required to maintain a "normal" "unembarrassing" speed at a given cadence up a hill, then one can provide a good argument as to whether a triple is necessary since we want to find a combo sufficient for max sustained power at efficient cadence depending on the topology of the area.
Maybe the people saying only doubles here are the ones that don't ride real hills? Or do varying workouts on hills?
Even a 39x27 at 90rpms is 10.2 mph on 700c (2.096m circum)
I find I maintain better efficiency above 90 rpms, and usually find myself around 100 rpms. Average cadence on a recent century was 96 rpm.
So, now if you have a climb that's 1+ miles long, where it's quite unlikely you'll want to be out of the saddle that long, and you can't maintain 10mph. You need a triple.
In the area around here where most rides have climbs under a mile, there isn't a need. But I want to be able to sit on any climb and
Now, I would like for someone to contribute some other numbers to this thread. I'll do it soon when I can get my Polar power system installed on my bike.
For a 150lb rider, what power output is necessary to maintain 10mph (assume 90 rpms, or choose what you feel your efficient cadence is) on a climb where everything has reached equilibrium? (no more heart rate change) Let's vary this as a function of grade, but start at 5%. And through 10%. And also increase speed. (try and not make temperature or other variables be present) Now another variation, at your optimal cadence and at some variable powers (let's say 300 W, 350W, and 400 W), what is your speed?
That will provide for an interesting discussion here, as we can start to put numbers against people's subjective comments. It would seem logical the majority of people here can't maintain 400 Watts over a minute or two. And if that's what's required to maintain a "normal" "unembarrassing" speed at a given cadence up a hill, then one can provide a good argument as to whether a triple is necessary since we want to find a combo sufficient for max sustained power at efficient cadence depending on the topology of the area.
Maybe the people saying only doubles here are the ones that don't ride real hills? Or do varying workouts on hills?
I ride with a tripple. I can get a bigger gearing range out of a tightly spaced cassette, which is pretty handy where I live (right between the Adirondak mountains and the dead flat St. Lawrence Valley).
I see you live in TN, so will assume that's probably east. Terrain is similar here; lots of climbs on local rides that exceed 10% for 1/2 mile or more. I've got a triple also, after many years of a double, find I can climb these mountains better and longer in a triple.jasong said:
But a lot of people don't have sustained mountains like we do to climb, and can get by with a double just fine. Also, some have enough strength to grind out a low cadence at 5-10 mph in a double for many minutes at a time.
Agree 10 mph is a good "break point". If people find themselves climbing very often at 10 mph or less, I say the triple would be an advantage. It gives us a tighter set of climbing gears on the inner ring, easy to shift up/down while climbing as needed.
Power Numbers: Just calculate your vertical power in ft-lbs/sec, and multiply by 1.36 to get watts. EG, 10 mph is 14.66 ft/sec. On a 10% grade; 1.466 ft vertical/sec.
Multiply vertical speed by your total weight (bike + rider) to get power. For a 150 lb rider on a 20 lb bike, thats (1.466 x 170), or 249 ft-lbs/sec, or 339 watts. I'd throw in another 10% to account for drivetrain loss, tire friction and wind, and get 373 watts required.
As you said, Lance and the gang can do this kind of power output all day long. On last weekend's ride, I was passed by a local racer on a 1.2 mile, 10% grade. He was climbing seated, in a double 39/23, at 9-10 mph, while I was going about 5. He got to the top, zoomed down, and rode up again for a bit more training. No triple required.
Thanks for posting the formula. WHen I get that power unit installed, it'll be interesting to compare and see what kind of efficiency my bike/me has relative to the formula.
You're right about the topology here. It's not tough and one can get by without the triple here. I think the main point of backing this stuff up with numbers is that I want to able to output my max power at a high (>90rpm) cadence. I'm sure I can stand for a while and put out a lot, but I think the determining factor for people here is that they should be able to deliver their strong power at a high cadence while sitting. Better for the knees, less energy lost than standing, and arguably more efficient. More versatile!
Those arguments for weight, aerodynamic gain, shifting ease, etc. aren't really applicable to even the people that think they're fast reading this group.
You're right about the topology here. It's not tough and one can get by without the triple here. I think the main point of backing this stuff up with numbers is that I want to able to output my max power at a high (>90rpm) cadence. I'm sure I can stand for a while and put out a lot, but I think the determining factor for people here is that they should be able to deliver their strong power at a high cadence while sitting. Better for the knees, less energy lost than standing, and arguably more efficient. More versatile!
Those arguments for weight, aerodynamic gain, shifting ease, etc. aren't really applicable to even the people that think they're fast reading this group.
dhk said:
Yes, just another chainring. Actually its a 16 tooth freewheel cog on an adapter from Mt Tamer that gives me a great-granny. The chainring teeth are 16-28-44-54. Some minor tech details were required to get it to work, but it shifts fine and gives me a nice wide range of gears.
god said:
What do you have for a Front Derailleur? Is it a regular triple from Shimano, or something special?
Similar threads
