Anyone tour using a double not a triple?
 

I've never gotten triples to set up properly and tend to spend each time on tour twidling with them. Now my triple STI just died (see https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...ed-tiagra.html). Luckily it was on a ride around the neighborhood.

So I'm thinking of getting rid of my triple and installing a double for touring. Anyone done this?

Good idea or bad?
Suggestions?

I don't do the "must do 100 miles today" type touring so losing some speed isn't an issue.

I did almost all my touring, and all my centuries, on a Kona Jake-the-Snake with a double in front, 9 rear. The knobby tires were swapped for 23c Axial Pros, and I swapped the narrow 105 cogset for a wider XT one, and matching rear mech. I was the club's hill-climbing monster at the time, too.

I've ridden single speed tours, so its highly doable. I guess the only downfall is if you think one gear inch is going to make big difference in what you have to put out when riding. I guess when you don't realize it takes the same amount of power to go up a hill, no matter what hill it is than you really care. Gravity is gravity andyou have to overcome it one way or another. You still have to put out the same amount of power through the legs to make it up the climb or you won't make it up the climb. It still takes the same amount of effort whether riding in a 52x12 or 30x30, the only difference is how fast you pedal and how hard it seems due to the lack of speed of the pedals going around.

Outside of a few hard tail mtbs/folding bikes, most of my bicycles are 2x, and almost all of em get used for longer trips outside of the DH and most of the XC MTBs. My current "fast" touring bike is a CAADX with 46/32 up front and 11-34 in the rear.

I use bar end shifters on my derailleur touring bikes with triples, the front shifter from Shimano is friction. I do not mind occasionally trimming it a bit as I move from one end of the cassette to the other on the middle ring. Thus, triples work great for me.

My rando bike has a brifter for the rear, downtube friction shifter with triple for the front. The downtube shifter is less than ideal compared to the bar ends in my opinion, but I have have not made a priority of swapping the front shifter for a bar end.

Last year a friend of mine was getting ready for his third cross country ride and about a month before he was to start, his rear Shimano brifter (9 speed) became dysfunctional. He could not find a good replacement quickly, asked me what I thought of bar ends. I let him ride one of my bikes for about 10 miles to try them. He bought bar ends and used them for his cross country tour, they worked great for him. One other person in his ACA cross country group on that tour had her rear brifter die on her, thus she finished that tour with a three speed bike (she had a triple, so she could shift the front only).

I finally replaced my ancient three ring 21 speed touring bike (26/36/46) with a two-ring 18 speed one (34/50), actually built as a gravel bike with a nice rear rack (25 kg load rating). Low gear is now 34-32, vs 26-28, a ratio higher by 14%.

In the twenty plus years I rode the old bike, over 3K miles/year, there were only a handful of times I used the lowest gear, on short steep gravel driveways out of campgrounds, easily walkable, virtually never on pavement. My last XC tour, 4400 miles, I went UL and never touched the granny gear, so I then resolved to eliminate it as soon as convenient. If a good 1X drive train came up for the right price, I would have tried it, and probably will next time, maybe in another couple of decades (I can hope).

I have not used the new bike on tour yet, though I carried 50 pounds of groceries home from the store yesterday on 5% grades and the ratio was fine. I haven't used low yet, other than to check that it's there.

Yea, they do.. my traveling mate , from UK, in 1975, used a *TA Cyclo-tourist Double,
on a tour down california coast.. it was a 50. 28.

*you could do that with them, because the inner bolted to the outer
and outer bolted to the crank arm..


My 1 by 14 IGH is very nice...

I swapped out my triple for a Sugino low-wide double crankset for touring about 5 years ago. I upgraded my rear DR to a long-cage version, and everything worked beautifully without modifying any other existing components. At the cost of some high gears I rarely used (especially for a loaded bike), I greatly increased my gear range and gained some really low gears for hill climbing. As a bonus, I no longer worry about cross-chain shifting and I now have a chainring guard on my crankset, which is very nice for commuting.

It is all about the range of gears you want. I started touring 40 years ago with a double, moved to a triple, and now use a Rohloff (1x14). The Rohloff has a ultra low of about 16 inches and a high of around 85 inches. The low is lower than my double or triple and I don't care if I spin out with the high end only 85 since I am doing 20+ MPH by then. That is plenty fast the few times I have ridden along at that speed when not going downhill where I tend to gently pedal to keep the legs warm but not exert energy.

If you can pedal it, do what makes you happy and don't worry about what anyone says, if anything. Best, John

Most of my "tours" have been short... < 10 days. But, virtually all have been riding a double, with a 41T or 42T for the small ring up front.

https://www.bikeforums.net/attachmen...hmentid=537827

I've gone a bit more relaxed with the gearing over the years, so I think that ride had a 41T front and 26T rear... and one hill got the best of me. The first day was absolutely wicked. :eek:

Oh, and if the photo above looks flat... it is only because it is 3/4 the way to the top of a mountain.

I have never had a problem setting up a triple and they always just work, no adjustments, no issues. On downtube shifters, various trigger shifter bikes, sti's (3 diff sti's) and Gevenalle shifters.
I don't claim to be a super mechanic, just a regular joe blow who makes mistakes here and there and bumbles my way along, but honestly, setting up triples has just be non eventful, as is using them.

that aside, which Im sure you dont want to hear ;-)
as per your question, with large cassettes in 10 and 11 speed nowadays, (42t up to 50t) a reasonable double can have reasonable low and high ranges, but a triple will always have the advantage of a wider range often combined with a tighter cassette to boot--win win.

give some ideas of what you are thinking of using, component wise.

Triples made a lot more sense when freewheels were only 5-speeds. I'd be tempted to make a double work, so long as you can get it down to a 1-to-1 gear ratio.

As indicated by others, it is the gear range you should care about, not whether two or three chainrings is needed. Back in the olden days of 5 and 6 speed freewheels a decent touring gear range required a triple. Now that we have 9 and 10 speed cassettes, a triple may not be necessary. Figure out what low gear you want (for loaded touring and non-superhumans I'd say somewhere around 20 to 25 inches). Next figure out what high gear you want (typically anything over 100 inches is useless when touring). Then play with a gear calculator (this is my favorite: Bicycle Gear Calculator ) and figure out if you can get that range with roughly 10% to 15% jumps between gears without an overly contorted shift pattern (tighter at the top and bigger jumps at the bottom). For a modern bike with 9 or more cogs on the back this should be achievable with two chainrings. If you're riding more vintage stuff like I do then you'll probably prefer a triple.

Alternatively, if you're young, strong and foolish like I was back in the 70s you will do a fully loaded tour through the Swiss Alps with a 52-42 racing double setup and relatively close ratio racing gears. Never again!

1 to 1 is in the 26, 27 gear inch range, maybe even more, and just makes life harder on your knees.
Get it down to 20 and all is good, put a bunch of stuff on a bike and hit steep hills and you'll want lower than 25, 26, 27
and dont worry, it wont make you a mamby pamby, promise ;-)

I needed LBS to adjust triple Tiagra/brifter FD correctly but installing 3x9 Deore derailleurs/bar-ends was fairly easy. If tours include significant climbing & bike allows 3x then why switch to 2x? For me 3x is just logical, wider range gears with a negligible weight penalty. I once did a weekend unloaded mountain tour on a 2X racing bike but back then I was 2X stronger. At least the 52x14 let me zoom down the hills, a low-range 2x will just passively coast.

Agreed. And if you don't mind losing a bit of top end on your touring bike, there are lots of options out there to run a double with plenty of low end.

My Surly ECR even came from the factory with a 36/22t crankset and a 12-36t cassette, so technically EVERY gear is at least 1-to-1. It sounds super low, until you factor in the massive circumference of a 29x3" tire. But it is a bit of an unconventional touring bike - not meant for speed.

I have toured with a 40-26 crank and a 12-32 8 speed cassette. Worked pretty well. I use bar end friction shifting and currently have no problems with a 41-38-24 triple and 12-36 9 speed cassette. I am considering returning to the 40-26 crank however just for the simplicity.
what is really important is whether or not you can pull the hills with your low gear, and if not whether it bothers you to walk. Enjoy the trip!

I run a compact double. 50-34, and an 8speed 11-34, sure I would like a 46-30 upfront, and when the front chainrings wear out that's what I will do. I do walk occasionally, but that doesn't worry me, but I am getting much stronger nowadays as am hitting the gym twice aweek. But I am also 59 so don't know how much long I will reain strong or fitter.

i am 61, will be 62 later this month. I am as strong as I need to be. So are you!

I am not disagreeing with you at all, but I did not want any readers to assume that all Rohloff bikes have a range of 16 to 85 gear inches.

My Rohloff bike, I tour with a 16 tooth sprocket (the default size from Rohloff) and a 36 tooth chainring. With my 559X57 tires, that gives me a range of 16.5 to 86.5 gear inches. Sometimes I wished I had a higher gear for long shallow downhills or a strong tailwind. But the lowest gear is more important for hill climbing, so I keep using that gearing for touring.

But for around home riding where my bike is not loaded down with camping gear, I gear it up higher with a 44 tooth chainring with the same 16 tooth sprocket (plus four more chain links), that has a range of 21.2 to 105.8 gear inches. That gives me a low enough gear for the hills near my home and a higher gear for strong tailwinds or shallow long downhills.

The chainring and sprocket selection is what determines your gear range on a Rohloff. When you buy or build up a bike you should specify a chainring that gives you the desired range.

Like # 20, Rohloff , 16t hub cog ; 26" .. 559-47 16:38.

on my 406-47 BiFri, the chainring is 53t :16 (x 20" wheel..)

2 speed geared cranks , overdrive 1.6X, so with a Rohloff , you pick a low range , (within Specs)
then kicking the shift button (schlumpf)* the chainring , through the gearbox,
turns faster than the crank arms.

* (or cable, [Patterson metro] )




....

Subcompact 46/30T double chainrings with a combination of an 11-36T or 11-40T cassette. I was using standard compact cranksets, but I feel much better with subcompact cranksets now that I travel a lot in Asia.

I don''t think double is necessarily smoother/faster shifting than triple, Shifting is better when one uses a stock setup whether double or triple. Q difference between double & triple is fairly minor though I suppose for some folks/bikes that could be an issue.