Tripple vs Double chainring.
#26
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Providence
Posts: 732
Bikes: Specialized tarmac sl2 giant tcx zero
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
True, My 9-speed triple running a 12, 14-19, 21, 23 X 53, 42, 28 is a total waste. Having all the gears I could ever want for climbing with never a gap bigger that 2 teeth in back is so pointless.
(I'm one who loved being strong enough to ride most of New England's hills on a 42 X 13-19 5-speed n my racing days. I still love those gears. Even more when I can have those missing 16 and 18 cogs. Now adding a 21 and 23, yeah!! And to reflect that I am 40 years older, being able to have all those cogs uphill, another "yeah!!")
I am now setting up another "waste" bike to ride serious gravel. It is an old steel bike that I am not willing to stretch to 130 dropout spacing so I am going to run a 50-38-24 X 13-28 7-speed. So far , so good. Of course thehuge drawback of my setup is that it is so cheap. 110 BCD rings for old Sugino cranks are a dime a dozen. (I had all on hand since I have been riding the 110-74 standard so long.) Picked up a new Sachs FW from a parts box for $12. Excellent shifting with (gasp!) SunTour Power Ratchet DT shifters.
Oh, this "waste" 3 X 7 has 17 different use-able gear combos. 1 X 17s cost how much? and will be available when?
Ben
(I'm one who loved being strong enough to ride most of New England's hills on a 42 X 13-19 5-speed n my racing days. I still love those gears. Even more when I can have those missing 16 and 18 cogs. Now adding a 21 and 23, yeah!! And to reflect that I am 40 years older, being able to have all those cogs uphill, another "yeah!!")
I am now setting up another "waste" bike to ride serious gravel. It is an old steel bike that I am not willing to stretch to 130 dropout spacing so I am going to run a 50-38-24 X 13-28 7-speed. So far , so good. Of course thehuge drawback of my setup is that it is so cheap. 110 BCD rings for old Sugino cranks are a dime a dozen. (I had all on hand since I have been riding the 110-74 standard so long.) Picked up a new Sachs FW from a parts box for $12. Excellent shifting with (gasp!) SunTour Power Ratchet DT shifters.
Oh, this "waste" 3 X 7 has 17 different use-able gear combos. 1 X 17s cost how much? and will be available when?
Ben
1x would be all you need if there wasn't an efficiency penalty ,
you can get the same performance with a double as any triple ,
shifting jumps mean nothing,
you shift and pedal and its done in less than a second ..
if you are just riding and doing adventure stuff , you don't need the smoothest shifting , where you don't feel a click .
even if you are racing you are pedaling so fast you will never notice it ,
its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
#27
Zip tie Karen
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 7,004
Bikes: '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022, '21 Tsunami SNM-100
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Liked 1,542 Times
in
806 Posts
2) clumsier shifting
3) slightly more exaggerated chainline issues at the extremes
4) doesn't add much in the way of gear combinations, except perhaps at the lowest end
Do you need more reasons?
BTW, I have a triple on my current touring bike and have had many triples over the years. They're fine, but they do suffer from the above limitations.
If I'm building a general purpose road bike, or a faster road bike, it'll be a modern 11-speed double for sure. 53-39, 52-36, 50-34, 46-36...there are many options to suit just about all tastes.
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,249
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18422 Post(s)
Liked 15,570 Times
in
7,335 Posts
Tour with a triple. 9 speed. Wouldn't have it any other way. I don't like giant steps between gears. Nothing worse to me than climbing some mountain pass and having to choose between spinning too fast or mashing more than I should have to. Not racing, so I don't care if the shifting is (allegedly) "clumsy."
Likes For indyfabz:
#29
Banned
typically you use the middle of the triple a lot.. big ring offers a few gears higher , smallest a few gears lower
the outer ones overlap in gear ratio ranges with the middle ..
the outer ones overlap in gear ratio ranges with the middle ..
Likes For fietsbob:
#30
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,366
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,220 Times
in
2,367 Posts
By the way I do carry the stuff necessary to “match [my] gears to the terrrain”. It’s called a triple crank.
1x would be all you need if there wasn't an efficiency penalty ,
you can get the same performance with a double as any triple ,
you can get the same performance with a double as any triple ,
And, yes, I have used that entire range multiple times on multiple tours. Pedaling at 4 mph beats the Hell out of walking up a hill at 4 mph.
shifting jumps mean nothing,
I could make a double out of my system but it would be completely useless. It would be two single speeds with little to nothing in common with each other. I could run through the gears on the 20 from a 15” gear to a 40” gear and then I’d have to shift all the way back down to the lowest gear and then shift over to the high range. Yeah, that’s convenient and efficient.
you shift and pedal and its done in less than a second ..
if you are just riding and doing adventure stuff , you don't need the smoothest shifting , where you don't feel a click .
if you are just riding and doing adventure stuff , you don't need the smoothest shifting , where you don't feel a click .
its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Last edited by cyccommute; 06-05-19 at 10:55 AM.
Likes For cyccommute:
#31
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,366
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,220 Times
in
2,367 Posts
1) unnecessary weight
2) clumsier shifting
3) slightly more exaggerated chainline issues at the extremes
4) doesn't add much in the way of gear combinations, except perhaps at the lowest end
Do you need more reasons?
BTW, I have a triple on my current touring bike and have had many triples over the years. They're fine, but they do suffer from the above limitations.
If I'm building a general purpose road bike, or a faster road bike, it'll be a modern 11-speed double for sure. 53-39, 52-36, 50-34, 46-36...there are many options to suit just about all tastes.
2) clumsier shifting
3) slightly more exaggerated chainline issues at the extremes
4) doesn't add much in the way of gear combinations, except perhaps at the lowest end
Do you need more reasons?
BTW, I have a triple on my current touring bike and have had many triples over the years. They're fine, but they do suffer from the above limitations.
If I'm building a general purpose road bike, or a faster road bike, it'll be a modern 11-speed double for sure. 53-39, 52-36, 50-34, 46-36...there are many options to suit just about all tastes.
- The weight is only “unnecessary” if you don’t need it. If you need it, it’s worth carrying.
- I’ve never had a triple that was “clumsy” while shifting. I have 8 bikes with triples on all of them from mountain bikes to touring bikes to fast road bikes. All of them shift crisply in all gears.
- Maybe the chainline is exaggerated but as you say it is only slightly and cause no issues that I can see.
- The low end gearing is the point. Look at the system I posted above. Should I choose between having a high gear or a low gear? Should I coast down every hill I run across or walk every hill I come across? When covering 1500 miles over the course of 5 weeks, that either a lot of coasting or a lot of walking. I don’t particularly like either.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#32
Zip tie Karen
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 7,004
Bikes: '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022, '21 Tsunami SNM-100
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Liked 1,542 Times
in
806 Posts
^ @cyccommute , I enjoy your thoughtful posts. I know that you're passionate about riding all sorts of bikes. You're also a stalwart contributor to BF discussions. But I think that your response has gone off track from the OP somewhat. He just wanted to know "why" and comes at this from a comfort/hybrid road perspective (2018 Giant Sedona). He doesn't tour, and he doesn't ride off road. I've done both, so get where you're coming from.
I, too, have had many triples, but am coming to the conclusion that they're really not necessary in most cases. I ride with a friend who is quite an accomplished cross country MTB-er, very technically sound and aggressive. He says that the XC MTB scene has (past tense) moved away from triples to doubles, and now is settling on wider range singles even. This may not apply to really mountainous riding. I just don't know. But those would be the extreme cases anyway.
For touring, I get it. I also appreciate the convenience of having a 0.75 or below gear for late in the day, loaded, and climbing. And you need the big ring for downhills and tailwindy days.
But for the majority of the recreational riding and all of the competitive riding, a triple doesn't make sense. You can get useful gear ranges for any skill level with the proper selection of double chainrings and the correct range of cogs.
I'm surprised that there has been pushback on my assertion that triple front/rear shifting is clumsy. There is more overlap, so finding the "next" adjacent gear takes more mental effort. The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.
Finally, any weight you don't need is just...weight. I was commuting on my fast road bike yesterday morning, and some fellow passed me going uphill on a somewhat extended 7 degree incline. So, reacting, I began to apply power. I wasn't catching him and was astonished that I couldn't. Shocked. Minutes later, I arrived at work and took off my backpack, which I'd stuffed with food, lunch, laptop and other sundry items. 25 pounds, give or take. A headslap moment...right there.
I, too, have had many triples, but am coming to the conclusion that they're really not necessary in most cases. I ride with a friend who is quite an accomplished cross country MTB-er, very technically sound and aggressive. He says that the XC MTB scene has (past tense) moved away from triples to doubles, and now is settling on wider range singles even. This may not apply to really mountainous riding. I just don't know. But those would be the extreme cases anyway.
For touring, I get it. I also appreciate the convenience of having a 0.75 or below gear for late in the day, loaded, and climbing. And you need the big ring for downhills and tailwindy days.
But for the majority of the recreational riding and all of the competitive riding, a triple doesn't make sense. You can get useful gear ranges for any skill level with the proper selection of double chainrings and the correct range of cogs.
I'm surprised that there has been pushback on my assertion that triple front/rear shifting is clumsy. There is more overlap, so finding the "next" adjacent gear takes more mental effort. The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.
Finally, any weight you don't need is just...weight. I was commuting on my fast road bike yesterday morning, and some fellow passed me going uphill on a somewhat extended 7 degree incline. So, reacting, I began to apply power. I wasn't catching him and was astonished that I couldn't. Shocked. Minutes later, I arrived at work and took off my backpack, which I'd stuffed with food, lunch, laptop and other sundry items. 25 pounds, give or take. A headslap moment...right there.
#33
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
Why not have a triple. What does say a 28 tooth granny gear weigh. And---------------maybe at the end of a long day a detour forces your very tired body to climb a very steep hill to get home. You will happy you have that granny.
Likes For rydabent:
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
...
its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
Likes For 79pmooney:
#35
Senior Member
Thread Starter
When I looked for a bike last year, I wasn't looking for a specific gear set. I narrowed it down to Giant's Sedona 3 x 7 speed with 1.95" tires and their very handsome Cyprus 1 x 7 speed with 1.5" tires. Both have the upright seating position I am interested in for pleasure and comfort.
If the Cyprus 7 speed cassette's sprockets were properly spaced I would have bought it instead of the Sedona. I love the simple styling of the Cypress with a single chainring and no front derailleur. The 42/34 to 42/14 range is enough for 90% of my riding. BUT the Cyprus uses a 14/34 cassette with 2 low cogs of 24/34. So to keep reasonable steps between gears I can only use the 14 - 24 sprockets on the cassette. That is unacceptable even for a recreational riders.
If the Cyprus 7 speed cassette's sprockets were properly spaced I would have bought it instead of the Sedona. I love the simple styling of the Cypress with a single chainring and no front derailleur. The 42/34 to 42/14 range is enough for 90% of my riding. BUT the Cyprus uses a 14/34 cassette with 2 low cogs of 24/34. So to keep reasonable steps between gears I can only use the 14 - 24 sprockets on the cassette. That is unacceptable even for a recreational riders.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 727
Bikes: Current: 2016 Bianchi Volpe; 1973 Peugeot UO-8. Past: 1974 Fuji S-10-S with custom black Imron paint by Stinsman Racing of PA.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 215 Post(s)
Liked 204 Times
in
142 Posts
From the first bike to the current bike, I also notice it matches well with my age,weight and conditioning in that the high gears are very similar, but the lows are way lower. I could easily move back to a double front since my highest and lowest 2 speeds are so rarely used, but with the real lows, when they are needed they are nice.
The current bike is a Shimano Tiagra 4600 series triple STI setup that has proven to be extremely reliable and trouble free front and rear.
Last edited by Bill in VA; 06-05-19 at 12:57 PM.
#37
Senior Member
I thought I loved my CAAD4 triple (52-42-30F 12-25R) until I got on my CAAD12 with 52-36 / 11-32. Two fewer gears, but higher high and lower low, so you know, you'd never know.
#38
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,366
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,220 Times
in
2,367 Posts
^ @cyccommute , I enjoy your thoughtful posts. I know that you're passionate about riding all sorts of bikes. You're also a stalwart contributor to BF discussions. But I think that your response has gone off track from the OP somewhat. He just wanted to know "why" and comes at this from a comfort/hybrid road perspective (2018 Giant Sedona). He doesn't tour, and he doesn't ride off road. I've done both, so get where you're coming from.
I, too, have had many triples, but am coming to the conclusion that they're really not necessary in most cases. I ride with a friend who is quite an accomplished cross country MTB-er, very technically sound and aggressive. He says that the XC MTB scene has (past tense) moved away from triples to doubles, and now is settling on wider range singles even. This may not apply to really mountainous riding. I just don't know. But those would be the extreme cases anyway.
I, too, have had many triples, but am coming to the conclusion that they're really not necessary in most cases. I ride with a friend who is quite an accomplished cross country MTB-er, very technically sound and aggressive. He says that the XC MTB scene has (past tense) moved away from triples to doubles, and now is settling on wider range singles even. This may not apply to really mountainous riding. I just don't know. But those would be the extreme cases anyway.
A single speed is fine if you know the area where you are riding but if you don’t know what is ahead, it’s hard to plan your gearing beforehand. The biggest failing of 1x in my opinion is that you can pick a good low or a good high but not both. If you don’t pick right, your ride can be seriously impacted.
With a triple, I can have a good low, a good high and a good middle. I read an article by one of the SRAM engineers where he said that with a single you could change the front chainwheels and completely change the character of the bike. I fully agree. Having the gears on the bike and a mechanism change between them is just a convenient way of “completely changing the character of the bike”.
But for the majority of the recreational riding and all of the competitive riding, a triple doesn't make sense. You can get useful gear ranges for any skill level with the proper selection of double chainrings and the correct range of cogs.
I'm surprised that there has been pushback on my assertion that triple front/rear shifting is clumsy. There is more overlap, so finding the "next" adjacent gear takes more mental effort. The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.
I don’t use compact doubles (I’ve had some doubles in the past) but I find the gearing to have huge holes in the shifts between the chain rings. If you downshift off the large ring at 90 rpm, the pattern requires an increase in rpms to over 120 to maintain the same speed or it requires downshifting on the back 2 gears or more to get something that is only slightly off of the original gear ratio so that you can maintain the same rpm. Triples don’t require that kind of fiddling.
Finally, any weight you don't need is just...weight. I was commuting on my fast road bike yesterday morning, and some fellow passed me going uphill on a somewhat extended 7 degree incline. So, reacting, I began to apply power. I wasn't catching him and was astonished that I couldn't. Shocked. Minutes later, I arrived at work and took off my backpack, which I'd stuffed with food, lunch, laptop and other sundry items. 25 pounds, give or take. A headslap moment...right there.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#39
Senior Member
The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.
Most of my triples are on friction shifters, where trim isn't a problem. My indexed triple doesn't have trim positions at all, but even this setup is surprisingly non-bothersome... it doesn't really rub in the middle ring, and the only places it rubs in the other rings are at the cross-chained extremes which I tend to avoid anyway.
#41
Senior Member
That's one of the reasons, but also a somewhat annoying one since Q-factor on modern cranks is usually wider than it needs to be. Modern road triples usually have a Q of about 160mm, but most road frames could play just fine with 150mm. One of my bikes uses an asymmetric spindle to achieve a Q-factor of 142mm with a triple crankset.
#42
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I guess the “right” way to do it is to keep a few sets of chainrings swap them out depending on the terrain? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
The real reason is called "Q factor". That is how far spread apart your feet are.
Mtb bikes with triple chainrings have like 170mm Q-factor or something like that
Road bikes with double chainrings have like 140mm Q-factor or something like that.
Doubles' lower Q-factor equal more efficient bio mechanical.
Mtb bikers use Triple because they're willing to sacrifize efficiency for more gears.
Double vs Triple is a compromise. Pick your weapon wisely.
Mtb bikes with triple chainrings have like 170mm Q-factor or something like that
Road bikes with double chainrings have like 140mm Q-factor or something like that.
Doubles' lower Q-factor equal more efficient bio mechanical.
Mtb bikers use Triple because they're willing to sacrifize efficiency for more gears.
Double vs Triple is a compromise. Pick your weapon wisely.
If the manufacturers decided to address Q-factor as something important, a lot could be done. (There is a manufacturer of bottom brackets that allows you to spec the exact spindle length and asymmetry you want. (You can even tweak the asymmetry quite a lot.) Phil Wood. Not cheap, but compared to aftermarket knees ... )
Ben
#44
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,366
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,220 Times
in
2,367 Posts
And cassettes. Don’t forget cassettes. Maybe 2 or 3 or 5 would be enough to cover every possible type of terrain you might run across. Think of all the weight you’ll save And all the time when you change the gears at the bottom of the hill and then at the top. I’m sure the peleton will wait for you.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 727
Bikes: Current: 2016 Bianchi Volpe; 1973 Peugeot UO-8. Past: 1974 Fuji S-10-S with custom black Imron paint by Stinsman Racing of PA.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 215 Post(s)
Liked 204 Times
in
142 Posts
A lot of the large Q-factor is driven by the manufacturers, not the triple as a concept. Triples are around 3mm wider on the drive side. Space the crank out 3 more mm and that is done. Now bikes have gotten wider to allow for wider tires and thicker chainstays which pushes the crankset out. Also the major manufacturer likes to make its bottom brackets symmetrical which is completely unnecessary. That same manufacturer likes to ensure there is far more crank to bike clearance than necessary. The old Sugino cranksets were quite asymmetrical. Left crank didn't miss narrow steel chainstays by much. Right crank didn't miss the chain in the big chainring-small cog by a lot. Triple Q-factors were not large.
If the manufacturers decided to address Q-factor as something important, a lot could be done. (There is a manufacturer of bottom brackets that allows you to spec the exact spindle length and asymmetry you want. (You can even tweak the asymmetry quite a lot.) Phil Wood. Not cheap, but compared to aftermarket knees ... )
Ben
If the manufacturers decided to address Q-factor as something important, a lot could be done. (There is a manufacturer of bottom brackets that allows you to spec the exact spindle length and asymmetry you want. (You can even tweak the asymmetry quite a lot.) Phil Wood. Not cheap, but compared to aftermarket knees ... )
Ben
Now I see chainstays that are curved and thicker to provide more tire clearance, yet keep a narrow BB. The seat tubes are fatter so the FD is also has to more and with triples it can be a lot of movement and cable travel. I figure a lot of this is due to the differing properties of light alloy, carbon fibe, and chrome-moly tubes.
I have not noticed any major differences moving from a double full size crank and 120mm rear hub to a triple crank and 130mm rear 10 speed cassette as far as feet or knees. I was familar with chain lines, but not Q-factors. Now I am curious and I will have to measure the distance between the outside of the cranks where the pedal shaft attaches.
Last edited by Bill in VA; 06-06-19 at 12:40 AM.
#46
Cycleway town
Having a single on the front, and a derailleur on the rear, invariably gives me issues with the chain coming off. Even with a clutched derailleur (which are pretty good, if my XT one is any worthwhile experience.
And I could cope with a single up front. As long as my rear cassette is an 8-60t.
In fact, I'd want at least 10-50t with a double up front (34/54t with that).
And I could cope with a single up front. As long as my rear cassette is an 8-60t.
In fact, I'd want at least 10-50t with a double up front (34/54t with that).
#47
Banned
with a hub combining a 3 speed internal and a cassette your large cog in low gear is 3/4 of its actual gear size
and high is 4/3 bigger..
and high is 4/3 bigger..
#48
Cycleway town
Simplicity perhaps, if your set-up prevents the chain from coming off. But I'm not so sure about appearance.
Designs vary greatly, but I find more rings quite invariably look better.
The triple on my Merlin..
The single on my Ellswick..
Designs vary greatly, but I find more rings quite invariably look better.
The triple on my Merlin..
The single on my Ellswick..
Likes For MikeyMK:
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hollister, CA (not the surf town)
Posts: 1,737
Bikes: 2019 Specialized Roubaix Comp Di2, 2009 Roubaix, early 90's Giant Iguana
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Liked 1,526 Times
in
551 Posts
I have a 9 speed triple and I use the small chainring on some of the steeper hills in the area. I've wondered if a compact double would be OK but it was pointed out to me that with the larger rear cogs that come with many of the compact doubles, you can get the same low end gearing without going to the very small ring. For me, if I can get a range that is good enough for the terrain I'm riding, I'm fine with the double. A 50/34 with 11/34 cassette should work for my needs.
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,249
Bikes: 1964 Legnano Roma Olympiade, 1973 Raleigh Super Course, 1978 Raleigh Super Course, 1978 Peugeot PR10, 2002 Specialized Allez, 2007 Specialized Roubaix, 2013 Culprit Croz Blade
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 818 Times
in
421 Posts
I have both doubles and triples on vintage bikes. I'm pretty lazy about shifting, and feel that the triple is more flexible without compromising gear loads. I like the Sugino cranks, with an AT triple 32/40/50 matched to a 34t Megarange 6 speed freewheel. I built this bike for Eroica where there is unusual terrain, dirt and gravel combined with paved sections. I also built a Peugeot PR10 with a Sugino GT compact double 34/52 mated to a 28t 6 speed freewheel. It was a nice ride, but the gear drop from 52 to 34 on the front, a little extreme. It worked pretty well, though, with more chain wrap than the old Simplex RD was happy with. I have since replaced the Sugino GT double with a French Stronglight 52/40 double.
My latest build mated a Sakae SR double, 52/42 to a Megarange 34t 6 speed, and is the nicest ride of them all. Don't be afraid to experiment. None of these vintage set ups are very hard to find, or that costly to experiment and have fun with. Go for it. I use low cost, but great performing, Suntour VGT Luxe rear derailleurs on the 34t Megarange, and they work fine with Suntour bar end shifters.
I went into so much detail, because as a rookie builder on my '73 Super Course first build, I spent lots of time lurking on this forum, before I tried putting the pieces together. It all went amazing well, with bikes that were a great joy to build and ride.
'73 Super Course with Sugino AT triple and 34t Megarange 6 speed.
Sugino GT compact double with 28t 6 speed, Peugeot PR10.
'78 Super Course with Sakae SR 52/42 double with 34t Megarange.
Stronglight 52/40 double with 28t 6 speed on same PR10 (maybe a little too much chain).
My latest build mated a Sakae SR double, 52/42 to a Megarange 34t 6 speed, and is the nicest ride of them all. Don't be afraid to experiment. None of these vintage set ups are very hard to find, or that costly to experiment and have fun with. Go for it. I use low cost, but great performing, Suntour VGT Luxe rear derailleurs on the 34t Megarange, and they work fine with Suntour bar end shifters.
I went into so much detail, because as a rookie builder on my '73 Super Course first build, I spent lots of time lurking on this forum, before I tried putting the pieces together. It all went amazing well, with bikes that were a great joy to build and ride.
'73 Super Course with Sugino AT triple and 34t Megarange 6 speed.
Sugino GT compact double with 28t 6 speed, Peugeot PR10.
'78 Super Course with Sakae SR 52/42 double with 34t Megarange.
Stronglight 52/40 double with 28t 6 speed on same PR10 (maybe a little too much chain).
Last edited by Slightspeed; 06-06-19 at 05:29 PM.