cyccommute 

Yup. Read it in Bicycling magazine before I read it in Adventure Cycle. The Bicycling magazine article was longer and more in-depth. It basically chronicled a 3 or 4 day suffer fest that included such things as drying their socks by the fire because they didn't have any other clothes, suffering through a cold night in an inadequate sleeping bag, bad food, etc. Going minimalist depends on how much suffering you are willing to endure. For 2 to 5 days, most people could put up with most anything. Longer trips...not so much. Including worn out knees from trying to push even a light load up steep grades.

And the guys in Bicycling and in the Adventure Cycle article were using standard issue mountain bikes...with 44/32/22 11-34 drivetrains.

Bekologist

yes, they were doing some serious backcountry mountain biking, to lakes and places people had never taken bikes before. for that type of highcountry fast and light trip the suffering embodied in the bicycle magazine article mirrors a climbers' dirtbag ethos.

Cycocommute is exactly right, the suffer is part and parcel of ultra-lightweight backcountry travel. those guys on that trip in bicycling magazine were some of the vanguards of lightweight bikepacking. no racks, light gear.

they were riding in the mountains on trails so yes, a mountain triple makes sense. they were passbagging and bike tagging places never visited by bike before. mountain triple? yep.


The reality is, people are ultralite bikepacking-style touring on pavement as well. A buddy of mine (we used to both work at Marmot ) went and spent a week this summer riding around Yellowstone/Jackson/Pinedale, on a road bike, with all his gear in a Moots saddlebag, handlebar bag and jersey pockets.

I wonder if he would have been better off with a mountain triple?

There's a trend towards lighter and lighter loads in general. You guys can schlepp your trad loads all day long, when i schlepp trad loads i've got a bike with a triple too. What needs to be front and center to this conversation is that there's a lot of 'centuries-weekend riding' and a lot of light touring going on nowadays.

Trad loads on a trad touring bike with a trekking or mountain triple is not the only way to tour.

sstorkel

I use a compact double (50/34) with an 11-28 cassette. The range of gears is almost identical to a standard road triple (50/34/30 + 12-27) I owned a couple of years ago.

droptop

I am a fan of the double over the triple. I currently have a cross check that I am considering equipping with apex. It will be used for everything from commuting to road training to the occasional tour. It is replacing my old schwinn super le tour, which had very similar geometry.

I have a 48/34 on my schwinn. I have ridden up some mid sized hills with my college books everyday. When writing a paper or studying before a test, I have up to 40 lbs on my bike. It's not ideal, but I'm young and I made it. It's not ideal, but I like the idea of apex. I want to have a 11-26 for road riding and a 11-32 for commuting, just by swapping wheels. For me, it's ideal.

I just went on a weekend trip on my 29er. I had a 1x9 with MTb knobbies and 34/11-34 gearing. For the weekend, including food, my pack weight in bags was 36 lbs. I barely had enough gearing, but I think the knobbies at only 35 psi had a bigger part in that. We pedaled against a 20mph+ headwind for 20 miles. I think I would have been fine on the cross check even without the 34t cog out back. But maybe I'm just young and stupid, with strong legs.

I think for the average, recreational rider a group like apex makes a lot of sense. With a wheelset change or just cassette swap, you can go from a race bike setup to a solid commuter or light touring rig. For a full on touring rig, triple is the way to go.

badger1

My intentions parallel those of the OP ... commuting, fast fitness rides, longer day rides (including centuries), and CC/light touring. I think that that is precisely the target 'rider profile' for Apex, and I'm hoping the gearing works out long-term -- I've just ordered the complete group (w/flat bar double-tap instead of brifters) for my Sirrus Comp. 50/34 with 12-32 Rival cassette.
Reasons? Substantial weight saving over the bike's stock Tiagra mix (substantially lighter even than new 105, in fact [and less expensive]), and noticeably better q-factor/better shifting than my triple. I never used the small (30) ring on the stock triple, and I am one who searches out hills to climb.
I'm not a particularly 'strong' rider, but I can't foresee a problem. Fully-loaded touring would be different, but that's not for me. Will report further if anyone's interested.

njkayaker

I like low gears (32 rear with a 30 triple) even without loads. I don't often need the lowest gears but I've also managed to ride up hills that many people were forced to walk (in NJ, even).

surreal

This has been an interesting discussion, but many ppl have completely diverged from the OP's original question, which was in regards to "New SRAM Apex vs Triple - CC Touring, Centuries, Weekend Rides". Fully-loaded self-supported touring wasn't part of the original query.

I think most earthlings (not folks from planet Rohloff) would agree that a triple is essential for loaded touring. As to which triple to run, and with which cassette, well-- that depends on variables such as terrain/geography, rider's fitness, the bike (eg, size of heels, overall weight), and probably other factors as well.

For CC tours, weekend rides, and centuries, I would advise anyone to avoid the triple wherever possible. Front shifting on triples is yucky. Cross-chaining becomes more of a problem. You won't look cool. Unless you live in an alpine region, or you have some physical limitations that cause you to need the very low gears, go with the double on your non-full-loaded-touring rig.

Now, some ppl will say "but i live in the rockies" or "i'm exceptionally old!" or (my favorite guy; i forget his name, but i'm surprised he's not shown up on this thread yet) "I need a triple on all of my bikes b/c, even though i don't race and i am the kind of guy who needs a triple at all times, i am extremely worried about cadence and always being in the perfect ratio." To these ppl, i say: go with the triple. You're mind is made up. But, if you're looking at a creature like the salsa casseroll, you're better off with a double, most of the time.

hth
-rob

Bacciagalupe

Actually, it's usually pretty easy.

You could also get away with a narrower cassette, which means smaller gaps between gears. If you're into that kind of thing.

Meanwhile, the jump between a 34 and a 50 is huge, can be jarring and takes a bit of acclimatization. I.e. pick your poison.


Uh, not really. I can reach almost the entire range of a wide cassette with the middle ring, as long as the front is a friction shifter.


Is there an emoticon for a Bronx Cheer?


Or, if you don't like to mash and want to keep your knees intact, gearing lower than a compact double might be in order.

I'm a halfway decent climber, and don't live in Colorado. Still, there are hills I vastly prefer to tackle with a triple than with my compact double.

Doubles and compact doubles can be quite useful. But don't confuse your own preferences and/or abilities with "what everyone else should do."

The Impossipede

I think that's a good reminder for everyone in these gear threads, no?

It should be remembered that the 25th Infantry "toured" 1,900 miles without much in the way of roads and on single-speeds--in 1897.(https://tinyurl.com/d8xyqv). Once we've established what's possible, what is ideal becomes highly idiosyncratic to one's abilities, goals, environment, and technique.

Also, from the photos, it looks like the 25th was using frame bags, which are all the rage in the bikepacking community. The more things change. . . .

MTBMaven

I have been using the Apex cassette matched with a compact double since the summer. I did the Death Ride (120 miles with 15,000 gain), a loaded 500 mile tour, lots of mountain rides, and several centuries. I just did a 70 mile ride with 7,800 feet of climbing today with this set up. The only time I wanted more gears was doing the Lost Coast section of our loaded tour this summer. 65 pound set up climbing 10%+ grades called for some more gears. For CC touring, centuries, and weekend rides this set up is perfect.

surreal

Front shifting with a triple is easy enough, but it's "yucky" in terms of the feel. I agree that the 14t drop is harder to tune than a <12t drop, but you can get it dialed in with a bit of patience. As for the cross-chaining issue, this is admittedly easy to avoid on a triple, but it's not easy to crosschain at all on a double if your chainline and FD adjustment is correct. As for not "looking cool" with a triple, my italics were supposed to indicate that i was kidding. i mean, it's true: you do look less cool with a triple, but that is hardly any kind of reason to go with a double over a triple. A smoother, lighter drivetrain is the most compelling reason, imo.

I agree that preferences are one thing, and they probably shouldn't be allowed to cloud advice to drastically, but... if you're in a 34F/28R combo, and you feel that you're "mashing", you're either traversing mountains or hauling a lot of weight.

-rob

bmike

running 30/46 TA Carmina with 13-29 Campy 10spd rear in that shot (or 30/44 or 32/48 front options depending on what i'm doing), campy regular cage front derailer
currently experimenting going 'shimergo' - mating my Campy 10spd Ergo lever with a short cage tiagra rear derailer and an 11-30 sram cassette.
has been shifting great around town. and cassettes cost $36 instead of $130 - $165!

gears, you'll likely never have low enough. at some point one needs to balance the terrain, their fitness, and the crap they plan to carry, and get on with it.


i'm eying a new fargo with the apex group, think it will serve me fine.
also, i'm running a double on the pugsley - 22,32 (will likely move to a 34 or 36 this summer) - never touched the 44t 'big' ring.

kayakdiver

My new touring combo is Ultegra 6600 double mated to a Sram X7 26/39 double crank. I'm going to be running either an 11/34(have that now) and maybe in the future the 11/36. I will have everything down low I need or have ever needed.

I love doubles.. I also like having the ability to swap any of my wheels between bikes. Don't plan on running a triple ever again on anything.

MTBMaven

I am not sure I follow this. Are you saying you can switch wheels out across all your bikes because you are running doubles on all bikes instead of double on some and triple on others? If this is what you are saying I am missing something. I don't see how the difference matters. Not second guessing your statement, just curious.

@bmike gears, you'll likely never have low enough. at some point one needs to balance the terrain, their fitness, and the crap they plan to carry, and get on with it.

Awesome statement. I think you basically just said to sack up no?

kayakdiver

motobecane69

yep and to this I say it's personal preference. I have a compact with an 11/32 on the back it's good for my weekend rides and centuries. just finally getting back out to riding again after a brutal winter and 2 weeks ago it's low gears were barely enough for me to get over the brooklyn bridge! 2 weeks in and I cruised over it with ease in the 28 cog (I'm 250lb clyde) As I get more fit, the hills get easier and I can get away with less range but it's nice to have it. I also have a commuter bike that is a touring frame with the same 11-32 but a 30/42/52. what I don't like about the compact is that I constantly find myself shifting up front a lot and it's never a smooth transition. on the triple, I can usually do double shifts and it puts me into a perfect gear. If I'm on the compact in the big ring, and drop to the small, I need to shift up 2 or more gears for it to be in a good combo but at the end of the day what does that take, an extra 2 seconds?

NoReg

I don't see the advantage of a double. I pretty much ride double when I tour, I use the lowest 2 chainrings, then when I get home and take the bags off, I pretty much use the top two chain rings. It's a variable double or tripple as some people call it.

There doesn't seem to be any real advantage to the double set -up, most notably in wheel build or chain strength, maybe even cog strength, though I would need advice on that. Most people for a fairly long period of time have been doing all their city biking and comuting on tripples, and sure they didn't really need them, but it would seem silly to ditch them prior to venturing off into the hoped for unknown. I would love to have an excuse to build something with the White industries double, but cool factor aside, I don't really see it. Cool wise, my now 85 year old parents used to tour on a single and a 3 speed, and when I came along my first touring bike was a 5 speed and then a 10 speed with deraileur. So it isn't as though there is some badge to be earned by stepping down to a 20 speed.

I have always prefered ultralight camping approach to touring, but I also carry one or two extra items, I need capacity for food and water. In the end I have a midway load of about 40-50 pounds and for me with my no training approach, and only one leg, early fifties, that comes down to a tripple. But there isn't any problem with having more than one bike, and if that turns your crank it can fill any largely imaginary need you want. I have an expedition touring bike, which is unfortunately largely a fiction also.

Bekologist

yep, i'd agree with peter. there's room for more than one touring bike.

light touring bike, with compact double/wide range gearing


and heavy touring bike with 48-36-24 triple and wide range in the back. Mountain passes and heavy loads beg for a touring triple.

I used to even own a trek 520 with the road triple in the front. set up as an ultralite tourer and it was good for off road and dirt even with the road crank.

My go to bike for my (short) tours this year will be the travelers check with the Apex like compact double and mountain gearing in the back.

fietsbob

10t and 16t differences worked OK,, have a 110/74 and a campag race triple . in 50,40,24 triple.
[smaller than 16 and the number of ratios below the middle/big combo is less ]

if you went with current Campag stuff their 10 speed cassette goes to 29t

My kit is older and lower tech.

NoReg

There is nothing new about any of this stuff other than the fanciness of the gear we are priviledged to have these days. Backpacking gear and cycling gear was for the most part lighter in earlier days. Not in every respect, but certainly as far as size of bags simplicity of bikes, and materials in panniers etc... My mom's panniers from the 50s were made of a cloth lined vinyl that would be light even today. Of course a lot more stuff in the day was made of steel and that led to a lot of weight.

The thing about ultralight backpacking, and even mountatineering is that it didn't consist of greater suffering. So for instance when backpacking goes ultralite, it reduces the load carried, and allows more speed over the ground. There is an optimum, where the mileage and weight carried come together to make for a lighter trip. I did a trip in 78 where we had previously hiked a trail with very heavy external frame packs over about 5 days. This time out we were sprinting back to recover our car, took daypacks and did it in an afternoon. It was a real eyeopener, but the effort of the afternoon was not worse than the week had been. In climbing the result is often less bivouacks, or exposure to rockfall or avalanche.

The optimum on bikes should also leed to the same kind of efficiency, and it isn't altogether clear to me why dropping gears is actually part of the package. The bike does make it easier to carry gear, so it shouldn't be necesarilly the case that one adopts the same load one would when backpacking. On the other hand I could certainly drop a lot of the backup stuff one carries just in case. Based on past experience I carry stuff like extra tires. I don't really carry much, but every catagory ads up. So one takes a risk on the outcome, but moves faster. That sounds alpine like to me. To the extent that one is making a case for privation pushing the weight is another kind of suffering. Cycling just plays by other rules.

Bekologist

if you're going to be carrying spare tires, perhaps a triple is your best bet.

people ride in the mountains these days on doubles, and the equipment manufacturers have devised clever, wide range drivetrains with two ring cranks that give a rider almost the same gear range as a triple.

Allusions that modern fast and light mountaineering doesn't involve some degree of compromise in comfort? again, only if you're packing heavy.

Going fast and light typically involves leaving items behind the stove, the sleeping bag, etc. to move fast and light in the mountains. Planned bivies without a sleeping bag is not comfortable. tolerable as you shiver thru to the dawn, but going so minimal often involves compromise. those riders featured in Bicycling and Adventure Cycling? No racks, no spare socks, no stoves and a lousy fire ettiquette.

if you want to bring complete changes of clothing, an ipad and an SLR, multiple pot cookkits, a four and a half pound tent, a spare tire and the like, perhaps a traditional triple is your crank.

if riders want to bring spare socks, a small stove, but still pack light and move fast, a light touring bike with a compact double/wide range just might work.