Double vs triple crankset - pros and cons
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,847
Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked 2,827 Times
in
1,543 Posts
OP here. Thanks for the replies folks. I had actually typed up a longer thread starter, but thought to myself - "nobody wants to read my life story". But here's a bit of background.
I'm a recent cyclist, not unhealthy but not athlete fit either.
The bike I ride is my first derailleur bike, before that I rode hub gear bikes. I built this bike myself, it's a touring frame, which I bought with the idea of maybe doing some light touring (Covid stopped that), but mainly because I like the idea of being able to attach racks, carry stuff, and I also like the low, steady geometry. It's got drop bars. It's got 48-38-26 with a 11-34 cassette. And I use all the range.
I built it up with a triple, originally Sora, drive train, but have now changed to Ultegra 6510 shifters, 9 speed triple. As those are old shifters, and 9 speed triple is on the way out, I've been busy building up a stock of "backup" parts, if I see any NOS or good used shifters/derailleurs etc.
The good thing about that generation of drive train components is that there's a lot of compatibility - Ultegra/105/Tiagra from that time is largely mix and match, 9 speed road and MTB can be mixed, and so on. And a big one is that the STIs for the front are double/triple.
So as I've got a lot of "spares" I could build myself a double, using a suitable frame. Maybe a lighter non-touring frame. I was wondering what the benefit might be. A bit less weight, which might mean I wouldn't need the very bottom gears as much, maybe.
I'm a recent cyclist, not unhealthy but not athlete fit either.
The bike I ride is my first derailleur bike, before that I rode hub gear bikes. I built this bike myself, it's a touring frame, which I bought with the idea of maybe doing some light touring (Covid stopped that), but mainly because I like the idea of being able to attach racks, carry stuff, and I also like the low, steady geometry. It's got drop bars. It's got 48-38-26 with a 11-34 cassette. And I use all the range.
I built it up with a triple, originally Sora, drive train, but have now changed to Ultegra 6510 shifters, 9 speed triple. As those are old shifters, and 9 speed triple is on the way out, I've been busy building up a stock of "backup" parts, if I see any NOS or good used shifters/derailleurs etc.
The good thing about that generation of drive train components is that there's a lot of compatibility - Ultegra/105/Tiagra from that time is largely mix and match, 9 speed road and MTB can be mixed, and so on. And a big one is that the STIs for the front are double/triple.
So as I've got a lot of "spares" I could build myself a double, using a suitable frame. Maybe a lighter non-touring frame. I was wondering what the benefit might be. A bit less weight, which might mean I wouldn't need the very bottom gears as much, maybe.
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Likes For squirtdad:
#27
Recreational Road Cyclist
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: MetroWest, Mass.
Posts: 548
Bikes: 1990 Peter Mooney road bike
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked 252 Times
in
134 Posts
Dave, that's quite a journey you're on.
Dura Ace or Campy for the knees?
Where did you land with the crank?
I like the close spacing on your cassette, but it would be little high for me with a 46T big ring. I think you are right about the 28-33 jump, you won't be using the 33 so much anyway.
Good luck!
Dura Ace or Campy for the knees?
In October I switch from rim brake frames to disc and experiment with 46/30 and 48/31 cranks.
I just ordered a 10-33 cassette, as my strength has improved after 3 years and 14,000 miles back on the bike. It has 10-11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-28-33 sprockets. Some complain about the 28-33 jump, but I expect no problem.
Good luck!
#28
Senior Member
Back in October of last year it was easy to find grx cranks, so I got two with 170 crank arms and 46/30 rings. Later, I decided to try 175mm crank arms and the 48/31 rings. A little Google searching worked to find those cranks online. You probably won't find any now.
I have knees from Johnson & Johnson.
I have knees from Johnson & Johnson.
Last edited by DaveSSS; 07-24-21 at 04:36 PM.
#29
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
For the tiny weigh penalty of a granny gear why not have one. I submit it is far less than the weigh of a 12 speed 1x cluster.
#30
With a mighty wind
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,596
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1088 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times
in
491 Posts
One of my boxes contains a nearly new XT triple 10 setup. Just in case I ever want a touring bike.
Outside of slow loaded touring in the west, it’s just not needed.
Outside of slow loaded touring in the west, it’s just not needed.
#31
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,369
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: 6222 Post(s)
Liked 4,222 Times
in
2,368 Posts
As to a triple “just not [being] needed”, you should say “for you”. I, and many others, have triples and use them often. I’m not a weak rider. I’m a smart rider. I’m over 65, have all my OEM parts (less a small patch of skin), have ridden at least once in every month since 1977, and have triples on every bike I own. I expect to keep riding with my OEM equipment until the warrantee expires because I don’t fear using lower gears when they are needed.
__________________
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!
Likes For cyccommute:
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,096
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 1,292 Times
in
744 Posts
It all depends on you particular application, as has already been stated.
#33
With a mighty wind
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,596
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1088 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times
in
491 Posts
I know it’s super steep on some roads out east. I’m very excited to try a temp contract out east this fall. Which bike to bring is the dilemma.
Maybe it’s a locality thing but I frequently hit 12-18 percent just a couple hours south of you. Interstates and state roads generally follow the 6-8 percent limit.
I didn’t like triples in the early 90’s and I don’t like them now. I’m very happy with 1x on MTB and Gravel (with 11sp thumbies on the MTB) and doubles on my road bikes. I can’t say I’ve noticed a compromise in missing the extra ring.
Maybe it’s a locality thing but I frequently hit 12-18 percent just a couple hours south of you. Interstates and state roads generally follow the 6-8 percent limit.
I didn’t like triples in the early 90’s and I don’t like them now. I’m very happy with 1x on MTB and Gravel (with 11sp thumbies on the MTB) and doubles on my road bikes. I can’t say I’ve noticed a compromise in missing the extra ring.
#34
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 401
Bikes: 2016 Masi strada vita due, 2019 Kona Dew Plus
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 268 Post(s)
Liked 80 Times
in
55 Posts
I love my 3x9s.
Some things havent been said about the current 1x trend. It cant be denied that a 1x is simple, but dont tell me 2x or 3x is complicated. And a 2x or 3x is not as complicated as the half step gearing touring bikes used to have. . . A 12speed rear end will be wide- this creates many problems. The drive side spokes will be nearly vertical & tighter, increasing stress & making it harder to true the wheel. Will the chain/seat stays have to be beefed up, since they are further away from the load? idk . . A 12spd RD will have the lower jockey wheel closer to the ground, where it is more likely to pick up dust and make it more vulnerable to get caught up w/branches, etc.
Some things havent been said about the current 1x trend. It cant be denied that a 1x is simple, but dont tell me 2x or 3x is complicated. And a 2x or 3x is not as complicated as the half step gearing touring bikes used to have. . . A 12speed rear end will be wide- this creates many problems. The drive side spokes will be nearly vertical & tighter, increasing stress & making it harder to true the wheel. Will the chain/seat stays have to be beefed up, since they are further away from the load? idk . . A 12spd RD will have the lower jockey wheel closer to the ground, where it is more likely to pick up dust and make it more vulnerable to get caught up w/branches, etc.
#35
Senior Member
But you don't have the low range I have with my small 24 tooth on my triple, and my 34 in the back. The triple is very usable for touring applications. You can get the low range by using a larger rear cassette though, and I may at some point go that route. The triple is nice for my application though. The chain line is very straight when using the low range, so there is less wear when grinding up long hills with a load. I set it up that way since it was used daily in the Ozarks at the time. I now am back in Western Pennsylvania, where the low range is also used quite a lot. We have very steep hills here in this region.
It all depends on you particular application, as has already been stated.
It all depends on you particular application, as has already been stated.
#36
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
9 Posts
OP here. Many thanks for the opinions folks. As I said, the triple I've got is the first, and only, derailleur bike I've ridden. Reading the opinions offered I've not seen anything that makes me think I made the wrong choice. I suspect that the emphasis on doubles (and latterly singles) is driven at least partly by what is available. I've settled on 9 x 3 from the Ultegra 6510 era, and have built up enough spare shifters, rear derailleurs and front derailleurs that I won't run out.
Of course the nice thing about Ultegra/105/Tiagra from that era is that for the price of a double crankset and a new bottom bracket I could convert the bike to a double, and see if I like it. Though I'm not sure there's much point, as the bike weights 16.5 kg, so the weight saving would be insignificant.
The arguments offered (here and elsewhere) that suggest a double is better than a triple haven't really convinced me. I don't find the triple complicated, either to use or to set up. The smaller gap between chainrings suits me perfectly. Though people might say I should try a double, I'm struggling to see what advantage I might gain, especially for my leisurely style of riding, on a heavy bike, in an area with plenty of hills.
Of course the nice thing about Ultegra/105/Tiagra from that era is that for the price of a double crankset and a new bottom bracket I could convert the bike to a double, and see if I like it. Though I'm not sure there's much point, as the bike weights 16.5 kg, so the weight saving would be insignificant.
The arguments offered (here and elsewhere) that suggest a double is better than a triple haven't really convinced me. I don't find the triple complicated, either to use or to set up. The smaller gap between chainrings suits me perfectly. Though people might say I should try a double, I'm struggling to see what advantage I might gain, especially for my leisurely style of riding, on a heavy bike, in an area with plenty of hills.
Likes For stratman:
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,096
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 1,292 Times
in
744 Posts
I don't have that much low range because I don't need it. The key is to get the range you need for your power to weight ratio. I have that. There's no climb in my area that I can't handle. I have the same top gear as a race bike with a 53/11. I've got a 10-33 cassette on order to drop some of my low end. I've gained enough strength to ride 10% grades with a 31/32 seated or 31/24 standing. If I want to take it easy, I use my 31/36. I have two identical bikes, so I can pick the 33 or 36 lowest gear.
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: L.A.
Posts: 139
Bikes: Giant Anyroad
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times
in
22 Posts
I have only ridden my triple so I can't compare, but my 9 speed triple 24-39-50 and 12-36 cassette (a 625% range I believe) provides all I need and use for some of my favorite rides, which include steep fire road climbs, single track and paved descents, all in one. Front shifting issues = occasional dropped chain but this is rare. Just because it's dead doesn't mean you can't believe in it.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 522
Bikes: Downtube IX NS&FS, Dahon Speed8Pro/Matrix/Curve, Brom S2L,Montague Para, ICE-XL w/Rollie/Schlumpf, Trident Spike, ebikes, BFSatRDay
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked 95 Times
in
81 Posts
My heavier '99 Trek 2100 has a 3x8 and works well for trailers and hills.
Same for my heavier trikes, going to 30 gear inch lows.
My much lighter bike a Giant TCR does surprisingly well on hills with a standard double 2x9 at 42 gear inches.
I have older legs and close road style ratios are important. and a granny gear is appreciated
Same for my heavier trikes, going to 30 gear inch lows.
My much lighter bike a Giant TCR does surprisingly well on hills with a standard double 2x9 at 42 gear inches.
I have older legs and close road style ratios are important. and a granny gear is appreciated
Last edited by bikebikebike; 07-28-21 at 08:14 AM.
Likes For ShannonM:
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 4,141
Bikes: More bikes than riders
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1446 Post(s)
Liked 762 Times
in
570 Posts
The arguments offered (here and elsewhere) that suggest a double is better than a triple haven't really convinced me. I don't find the triple complicated, either to use or to set up. The smaller gap between chainrings suits me perfectly. Though people might say I should try a double, I'm struggling to see what advantage I might gain, especially for my leisurely style of riding, on a heavy bike, in an area with plenty of hills.
I choose my front ring based on broad speed ranges and then use the rear cassette sprocket to more or less fine tune my pedaling cadence. On slower single track or steeper terrain, I'm in the small ring. At more moderate gravel trail or canal path speeds, I'm in the middle ring. If I'm on the road with one of my XC bikes, I can easily tool along in my 42t ring.
I did experiment with 1x: I did a pair of 9-speed 1x conversions, one with a Sunrace 11-40 cassette and one with a full Microshift Advent 11-46 drivetrain. I had enough gear range with the 11-46 but the cadence gaps were a little larger than I preferred. I didn't really have enough gear range with the 11-40, but I did like the gaps there and I made it work for a while. After a fair test using those drivetrains, I went back to the triples. I absolutely acknowledge that I'd have probably enjoyed 1x better if I splashed out for a modern SRAM or Shimano 11-speed or 12-speed drivetrain (or whatever), but I just didn't see the juistification for spending that kind of money when the triples work well for me.
Like you, I see no advantage to a double. The step differences in chain ring sizes are just too great for my preference. In order to smoothly transition from a 30t or a 32t to a 46t, for example, you'd also have to downshift a sprocket or two in the back to keep cadence even close. Because my riding is on such varied terrain, I am transitioning from slow-to-medium-to-fast speeds somewhat regularly, and I find the "wide range doubles" to not be ideal for me.
Likes For hokiefyd:
#42
Senior Member
I've had 2 bikes with double cranksets before my latest purchase which has a triple. I really don't care if the bike has 2 or 3 chainrings, If I like the bike and it's gearing meets my criteria, That's the bike I'll buy.
Three things I look for in a gearset. First is how closely spaced are the gears on the cassette/freewheel, Ironically the 5 gears I use most on my 7 speed freewheel with either the 38 & 48T chainring are more closely spaced then many 11 speed cassette's I've seen with one chainring. Second I want the gears I use most available on one of the two or three chainrings, I don't want to double or triple shift to find the next step, even if I could remember them all. Third a reasonable over-all range. In my case I have a 21 gear inch extra low gear for tough soft gravel hills, to 90 gear inches in high, which for a comfort bike like my Giant Sedona is the most I'll ever need.
Three things I look for in a gearset. First is how closely spaced are the gears on the cassette/freewheel, Ironically the 5 gears I use most on my 7 speed freewheel with either the 38 & 48T chainring are more closely spaced then many 11 speed cassette's I've seen with one chainring. Second I want the gears I use most available on one of the two or three chainrings, I don't want to double or triple shift to find the next step, even if I could remember them all. Third a reasonable over-all range. In my case I have a 21 gear inch extra low gear for tough soft gravel hills, to 90 gear inches in high, which for a comfort bike like my Giant Sedona is the most I'll ever need.
Last edited by xroadcharlie; 08-01-21 at 12:15 PM.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
There is a weirdo solution to this as well, using modern parts:
The modern mega-wide-range 11 & 12-speed cassettes for 1x drivetrains make ideal half-step doubles. An 11-50 cassette paired with a 42/39 double crank gives ~8% spacing from 22 to 109 inches. 45/42 looks good too, and would probably shift a bit better with the road double derailleurs that you'd be using. You give up a little on the low end and gain it back at the top. TANSTAAFL.
--Shannon
The modern mega-wide-range 11 & 12-speed cassettes for 1x drivetrains make ideal half-step doubles. An 11-50 cassette paired with a 42/39 double crank gives ~8% spacing from 22 to 109 inches. 45/42 looks good too, and would probably shift a bit better with the road double derailleurs that you'd be using. You give up a little on the low end and gain it back at the top. TANSTAAFL.
--Shannon
Likes For ShannonM:
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne, Oz
Posts: 9,547
Bikes: https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=152015&p=1404231
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1529 Post(s)
Liked 718 Times
in
510 Posts
Didn't have to be this way; it's a crying shame there are no electronic triples. Syncro or semi syncro on a triple is so obviously crying out to be a thing, and would make a half step setup actually practical. (Half step on the big ring is something I crave, for tighter ratios at speed where you want them most, but can't have without half step because maths.)
Likes For Kimmo:
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,909
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
Double vs triple crankset - pros and cons
The quick answer. Pros ride doubles. Cons ride coaster brake single speeds (if sufficiently privileged).
I'm neither. I ride triples because as someone who raced and was strong enough to ride small closely spaced FWs many years ago, I have geared every bike since to keep those small and closely spaced cogs with their wonderful small shifts and still run versions of the 53-42 I raced plus a small inner ring to reflect the hills around and my age and condition. (And love that as I've aged, they kept adding cogs though I just went 5 to 7 to 9.)
My two current bikes are: 50-38-24 with any combo from 12-23 to 14-28 9-speed and 52-42-24 X 13-28 7-speed. (I'm approaching 70. All chainrings are getting smaller but the concept hasn't changed. That second bike is due for downsizing up front but it isn't a serious climber so there's no hurry.) My post racing bike 42 years ago was my Mooney set up with my racing 13-19 FW and a 53-42-28 up front.
Edit: I don't use index shifters simply because I burned into my muscle memory friction shifting more than a half century ago - so deeply it came back more naturally than walking after my head injury. The original digital shifting. Still works - with all FWs and cassettes, all cranksets and all derailleurs. Light and cheap. (Well, replacements aren't but there are other reasons to not lose those digits!)
Last edited by 79pmooney; 08-01-21 at 09:41 PM.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
Posts: 9,579
Bikes: '65 Frejus TDF, '73 Bottecchia Giro d'Italia, '83 Colnago Superissimo, '84 Trek 610, '84 Trek 760, '88 Pinarello Veneto, '88 De Rosa Pro, '89 Pinarello Montello, '94 Burley Duet, 97 Specialized RockHopper, 2010 Langster, Tern Link D8
Mentioned: 73 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1609 Post(s)
Liked 2,216 Times
in
1,103 Posts
I don't ride frequently enough to be able to tolerate the 39/23 low. Going for the escape:
P1050211 on Flickr
P1050211 on Flickr
__________________
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.
#47
Senior Member
It's not range I'm concerned about. I have a 2x11 on my Lynskey with a 50/34 in front and an 11-34 in back. Unless I'm on a -1% for a while, I'm not really sitting in 50x11, and I can make it up the short, 9.4% grade on my typical route using 34x27. My bigger concern is that I don't have a 16T or 14T in back, so I have to choose between 13, 15, and 17 on flats. If I had a 52/42/32 triple in front, I could run a much tighter cassette in back (giving me 13,14,15,16,17T cogs), while still having a 32-27 for climbs. In fact, this is the gearing my Bianchi 3x9 runs, with very tight spacing for near-flat terrain, as well.
On my current project bike, I've put on a 48-32, and planning for a SRAM 11-28 to get corncob gearing. Sure, I'll lose my top-end (48x11 instead of 50x11 or 52x12 on my other bikes), but like I said... range on that end really doesn't matter for me. If I end up liking this gearing, I may adapt my Lynskey to be more like that.
On my current project bike, I've put on a 48-32, and planning for a SRAM 11-28 to get corncob gearing. Sure, I'll lose my top-end (48x11 instead of 50x11 or 52x12 on my other bikes), but like I said... range on that end really doesn't matter for me. If I end up liking this gearing, I may adapt my Lynskey to be more like that.
#48
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 492
Bikes: Historical: Schwinn Speedster; Schwinn Collegiate; 1981 Ross Gran Tour; 1981 Dawes Atlantis; 1991 Specialized Rockhopper. Current: 1987 Ritchey Ultra; 1987 Centurion Ironman Dave Scott Master; 1992 Specialized Stumpjumper FS
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked 178 Times
in
111 Posts
Likes For Chinghis:
#49
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times
in
57 Posts
I too am a big fan of 3x9 triples especially in the mountains. Where I live is flat and my Domane with 2x11s is more than adequate. However move up to an area like Pittsburgh where there is less than 5 flat acres in the southern part of the state and good low geared triples are a god send for a guy like me. I think the industry did all of us a dis-service by attempting to eliminate the triples. You can buy almost any gear combination you can dream up between the front triple and the back cassette and parts/derailers are easy to find with the exception of drop bar shifters, no wonder serious tour bikes still use this technology. I recently built a gravel bike using an older shimano 3x9 groupset and it functions flawlessly.
I love the new technologies but some of the old stuff works extremely well also..
I love the new technologies but some of the old stuff works extremely well also..
Last edited by N2deep; 08-02-21 at 05:03 PM.
Likes For N2deep:
#50
Newbie