road gears, why only two chainrings
Comments
-
Ooh, good idea. The triple is only £30 more than the double...
Probably worth it for a bit of insurance.0 -
Well, personal experience (prejudice) seems to be the clincher for most people here, so I'll add mine, mainly to emphasise that you don't need to be a TdF contender to ride a double.
I have a standard 53/39 with an 11-28 cassette on my heavy old Raleigh. I am a heavy old cyclist (85kg, 45), not very fit this year as I've had too many other things on to get out riding much.
One ride I did manage was a quick trip from Windermere up Wrynose and back, I did make it up the pass: +1 for standard double then.
But it hurt, lots, and I would undoubtedly have enjoyed it more - and probably gone faster - with a lower gear. -1 for standard doubles on that score.
All this doesn't prove anything, like 99% of all internet forum posts, but if everyone said it like they found it without silly point scoring there'd be no fun in it, sorry, that was a slip of the keyboard, what I meant to say was that the OP might actually have enough different experiences to make an informed choice.0 -
bompington wrote:Well, personal experience (prejudice) seems to be the clincher for most people here, so I'll add mine, mainly to emphasise that you don't need to be a TdF contender to ride a double.
I have a standard 53/39 with an 11-28 cassette on my heavy old Raleigh. I am a heavy old cyclist (85kg, 45), not very fit this year as I've had too many other things on to get out riding much.
One ride I did manage was a quick trip from Windermere up Wrynose and back, I did make it up the pass: +1 for standard double then.
But it hurt, lots, and I would undoubtedly have enjoyed it more - and probably gone faster - with a lower gear. -1 for standard doubles on that score.
All this doesn't prove anything, like 99% of all internet forum posts, but if everyone said it like they found it without silly point scoring there'd be no fun in it, sorry, that was a slip of the keyboard, what I meant to say was that the OP might actually have enough different experiences to make an informed choice.
I'll say it ...That about sums it up now don't it?My pen won't write on the screen0 -
Hi
I am currently using a borrowed FSB to get fir on, and most of the cycling I do is on the road.
I have been into this for about 4 weeks now and have not used the bottom ring for the last 2wks, I admit it was hand when I first went out and was soooo unfit I needed it to ride up onto the path, but now it is redundant, I went out last weekend and rode 35miles, 6 of which were on rough tow path and i never needed the bottom ring once.
Having said that, it being a mountain bike, the middle ring is quite spinny also and I suspect this helped a whole hell of a lot0 -
There are easier ways of getting your christmas tree homeDCowling wrote:I am currently using a borrowed FSB to get fir on,0 -
0 -
I have one bike with a double compact, and two bikes with triples (audax and tourer). Whilst I feel I have the power to ascend any hill without the granny ring I have learned that at a certain age parts of the body will start protesting - I have had two episodes of Achilles tendinitis from overdoing the hill climbing, and this can be a precursor to a full Achilles rupture (or the rupture can happen without warning). Not nice. So while the muscles are strong enough don't assume other structures are! As you age your tendons can become less flexible, and Achilles ruptures are apparently a 30 something plus problem amongst "weekend" sportsmen, and of course, sportswomen.
So, if a triple saves me 3 months off the bike / pain / disability / surgery, then maybe I'll play it safe. Common sense is fortunately winning over from machismo 8)0 -
alfablue wrote:I have one bike with a double compact, and two bikes with triples (audax and tourer). Whilst I feel I have the power to ascend any hill without the granny ring I have learned that at a certain age parts of the body will start protesting - I have had two episodes of Achilles tendinitis from overdoing the hill climbing, and this can be a precursor to a full Achilles rupture (or the rupture can happen without warning). Not nice. So while the muscles are strong enough don't assume other structures are! As you age your tendons can become less flexible, and Achilles ruptures are apparently a 30 something plus problem amongst "weekend" sportsmen, and of course, sportswomen.
So, if a triple saves me 3 months off the bike / pain / disability / surgery, then maybe I'll play it safe. Common sense is fortunately winning over from machismo 8)
Is the NHS dishing out triples now?
Is this where all our taxes are going?My pen won't write on the screen0 -
bompington wrote:
There are easier ways of getting your christmas tree homeDCowling wrote:I am currently using a borrowed FSB to get fir on,
I know but if I set out now, I should be home in time for the mulled wine and i have asked for typing lessons from santa0 -
Well, they do the C2W, so sometimes, yes!
I blame Wiggle for my Achilles problems!0 -
It seems impossible to ask a question about gearing on here without a lot of willy-waving and accusations of not being fit enough.
Most people seem to completely ignore that someone else might pedal with a different cadence, and many people seem to think there is a greater merit in grinding away in a high gear rather than spinning in a low gear.
Not sure that this adds anything useful, just wanted to get it off my chest. 0 -
redddraggon wrote:keef66 wrote:Or you could get a triple, and if you find you don't use the smallest chainring, take it off. (the Shimano triple shifter can be set up as a double) Then you're left with something in between a standard and a compact double 50 / 39
I'm keeping my granny ring since I'm heading rapidly into grandad territory.
You still have the only thing IMO that make triples crap and that's the chainline. You might aswell leave the granny on, because taking it off solves nothing.
IMO chainline isn't a problem as long as you are sensitive to changing gears.
For example, on my audax bike I have a 52/42/30 chainset and 12-25 cassette.
Using middle ring, and avoiding extreme 4 sprockets on my 10 speed cassette then I have a range of 52-79 inches, at at a moderate 100rpm that is about 24mph.
In practice I would probably change up to the big ring at about 20mph and clip along in something like 52/19.
One thing I like about that setup is that I find a good approx climbing gear is 45 in, on the flat about 70 in and downhill / fast about 90in. These coincide with the best chainlines for each chain ring, and still give closely spaced gears in either direction for fine tuning.
Having said that, I used to be a bit anal about chainlines, but now don't bother so much, except for avoiding noisy combinations. I haven't noticed chain wear being affected with my change to lazier habits.0 -
I have a standard Ultegra 52/39/30 triple and 12-25 10 speed casette. The choice was made for me by what was in Evans sale 3 years ago - two bikes I tried, both same price but the Lemond fitted better and had a triple.
The chainline is fine. Most days I can get up steep local hills (18-20%) on the 39x25. However the 30x25 is a nice bail-out if I'm knackered at the end of a long ride or to save my legs at the start of a hilly one.
On the etape and dragon rides it can be a lifesaver, probably also on the Marmotte which I plan to do one year. I am fairly light and like a high cadence so it suits me fine.
Doubles do look nicer though.0 -
redddraggon wrote:keef66 wrote:Or you could get a triple, and if you find you don't use the smallest chainring, take it off. (the Shimano triple shifter can be set up as a double) Then you're left with something in between a standard and a compact double 50 / 39
I'm keeping my granny ring since I'm heading rapidly into grandad territory.
You still have the only thing IMO that make triples crap and that's the chainline. You might aswell leave the granny on, because taking it off solves nothing.
I have a standard double, a Trek 1.7 triple and a compact 50/34. The worst for chain line was the compact. The 50/34 was a horrible combination involving very big changes on the chain rings just to gain a slight increment in the gearing. Absolutely hated it. Changed the inner to a 40, which is more use for me.
I think the idea for a compact is to have a big change on the chainrings, and that's just bad news.
The is a well thought out combination and very comfortable, but then so is a double. .0 -
I have a triple on my road bike. I had a triple on my flat-bar road bike before.
Last weekend I did the Ride to the Horns 93 mile sportive, round all the steepest hills in the Chilterns. I used my granny ring on 3 of the 6 major climbs, and a couple of times went past the guy I was riding with, who couldn't manage the steepest hills without stopping for a breather.
http://www.wheelsinwheels.com/ridetothe ... e_horn.gif
Oh, and I'm 60, and weigh 90 kilos/14.5 stone.
If I was 25 and a Pro rider, I might think differerntly. As it is, I'm not afraid to get the right tool for the job.
I feel sorry for anyone with a double - one of their rings is missing.
Lycra ManFCN7 - 1 for SPDs = FCN60 -
oddlad wrote:I do not want to buy a double and regret it a week later cos I can't get up hills. Similarly I don't want to buy a triple and end up with something that I don't use.
The cautious part of me says get a triple. The daring part of me says get a double and live with some pain for a while. The sensible part of me says get a compact (although the Specialized Allez doesn't come with this option as far as I can see, so it would be an optional upgrade - not necessarily a problem).
I'm pretty sure the Allez comes with a compact double as standard - 50 x 34t. It's quite unusual to find a "non-compact" double chainset (something like 52 x 39) as standard on an off-the-shelf bike from a major manufacturer unless it's towards the higher end of the range (like £1500-£2000).
One thing that I don't think's been mentioned so far is that it's relatively easy and cheap to change the cassette at the back if you really find you don't have the gears you need at the bottom end on a compact double. For example the Allez comes with a 9-speed 12-25 cassette but you can get a 12-27 for about £50 new. Depending on the bike shop they might even set it up for you like this.
My commuter bike's got the stock setup (50 x 34, 12-25) and it's fine. Compared to a standard double there is a big jump between chainrings - I often have to change both front and back when I shift chainrings. On the other hand as I've got fitter I've found I'm just using the small ring less and less. I can get up most things in London (not real hills!) in 50 x 21.
On triples I think you get the idea. I reckon it's pretty much:
Pro-triple
Massive gear range, you will get up anything
Anti-triple
Weight (not significant unless you're racing I'd say)
Slightly more complex, therefore slightly more bits to potentially go wrong
Not as pretty
Up to you how you weigh those criteria..."We're not holding up traffic. We are traffic."0 -
Some can push big gears, some can't.
If you can't, get a triple or a compact.
Work out which of them will suit you best.
I have a standard double with a 27 cassette and still can't climb a couple of hills here. (One though is so steep I'm standing in granny on the mtn bike; the good riders use granny ring and 2nd).
I have to stand and push any steep hill; the load on the knees otherwise is crippling.
I needed some gearing help and will for a while yet. If I still want a compact in a few months I'll get one then. Most riders need the capacity to spin up hills otherwise it wears you out to quick especially if you're trying to ride fast.0 -
Pro-triple
Massive gear range, you will get up anything
Anti-triple
Weight (not significant unless you're racing I'd say)
Slightly more complex, therefore slightly more bits to potentially go wrong
Not as pretty
Up to you how you weigh those criteria...
This is pretty much on the ball except perhaps to say that a triple actually limits your gear range on the front. There is a limited capacity for a front mech to lift the chain, so big chainrings are out - over 52t on paper but usually 53t is possible if the small ring is around 30t. This may seem irrelevant but the original question was concerned with the reason why road bikes came with doubles. Although it may well have to do with emulating the pros to a certain extent, it also has a lot to do with evolution. I am old enough to remember standard 'racing bikes' in the shops having a single chainring and five sprockets on the back. Indexing???? What's that? The market is driven by demand - and if the consumer wants to emulate the pro then that will be reflected, along with the latest gizmo that may sell a bike.
There is nothing to stop anyone changing to a triple if the need arises (this is up to the individual) but the bike is not 'incomplete' without one.0 -
53/39 is fine for anything in the uk if you are fit.0
-
0
-
oh dear0
-
Hmm, you get marvellous advice on this beginners forum!celbianchi wrote:53/39 is fine for anything in the uk if you are fit.0 -
alfablue wrote:
Hmm, you get marvellous advice on this beginners forum!celbianchi wrote:53/39 is fine for anything in the uk if you are fit.
Indeed you do - just as well I didn't throw in that you don't need anything >23 on the back as well eh.
To be more constructive - why gethung up on what someone else uses? Whislt I do train and race on 53/39 11/23, I would not expect everyone else to do so. However, I have always only used 53/39 even when I was starting in my teens (prob was a 42 inner then). So in a roundabout way I am saying that as a novice you can start with a standard double and sufficiently get by in the UK. i wasn't race fit when I was 15 and riding for fun.0 -
Yes, indeed, you can start on anything. I started on a standard double purely because that was what came on the bike (I was unaware of such things). I expect many other beginners are in the same boat. Yes, I coped and got on with it, however I may have got on better and ridden further with some easier gears as a beginner. For some, the double may mean the bike stays in the garage as they don't enjoy their early months of cycling as they could.
I agree, don't get hung up on what other people ride, or what they think. It would be a bad thing if readers of this thread thought that they ought to use a standard double because of peer pressure, and fear of being considered unfit.0 -
Weejie54 wrote:Pro-triple
Massive gear range, you will get up anything
Anti-triple
Weight (not significant unless you're racing I'd say)
Slightly more complex, therefore slightly more bits to potentially go wrong
Not as pretty
Up to you how you weigh those criteria...
This is pretty much on the ball except perhaps to say that a triple actually limits your gear range on the front. There is a limited capacity for a front mech to lift the chain, so big chainrings are out - over 52t on paper but usually 53t is possible if the small ring is around 30t. This may seem irrelevant but the original question was concerned with the reason why road bikes came with doubles. Although it may well have to do with emulating the pros to a certain extent, it also has a lot to do with evolution. I am old enough to remember standard 'racing bikes' in the shops having a single chainring and five sprockets on the back. Indexing???? What's that? The market is driven by demand - and if the consumer wants to emulate the pro then that will be reflected, along with the latest gizmo that may sell a bike.
There is nothing to stop anyone changing to a triple if the need arises (this is up to the individual) but the bike is not 'incomplete' without one.
I found the 50/34 a real pain in London commuting. Neither fish nor foul. A standard double or triple were much better. And chain line was awful. I far prefer commuting on a single 48 with five gears at the back, with friction shifter - but then in London I hardly ever shift.0 -
alfablue wrote:Yes, indeed, you can start on anything. I started on a standard double purely because that was what came on the bike (I was unaware of such things). I expect many other beginners are in the same boat. Yes, I coped and got on with it, however I may have got on better and ridden further with some easier gears as a beginner. For some, the double may mean the bike stays in the garage as they don't enjoy their early months of cycling as they could.
I agree, don't get hung up on what other people ride, or what they think. It would be a bad thing if readers of this thread thought that they ought to use a standard double because of peer pressure, and fear of being considered unfit.
I think this is true, and there is too much "you should be strong/fit enough to use a double/compact/fixed" in the beginner's forum. Some people have more time to train or are naturally stronger riders than others, and when you are beginning hills are really tough, especially for the first couple of weeks.
Round my way, a standard double is fine, but I know that when I take the bike to other places with 10-20% hills, for me this would not be fine as I am just not used to those gradients and I do struggle. If you live somewhere like that and you are starting cycling, you just get used to those gradients with whatever equipment you have, or I guess you stop cycling as walking up hills feels like defeat and is demoralising.0 -
3 chainrings...? I was actually wondering the other day if I could get away with just a single chainring and ditch the front shifter altogether. What with 11 cogs on the rear with Campagnolo these days and up to 29 teeth capacity on the new rear derailleurs... A 50 tooth chainring at the front and an 11-29 cassette maybe? That would still give you a lowest gear identical to a 39/23, fine for rolling terrain and short hills if you are an OK climber. Currently though Campagnolo only does a 12-29, not an 11-29, and a 50/12 is a little limiting for a top gear. If and when 12 speed ever comes along, I'd like to see some drive train options redesigned for single chainrings, with greater capacity on rear derailleurs and cogs/chains designed to accept a wide range of chainlines.0
-
id like to see pigs fly.0
-
It's the logical next step with the increasing trend towards more cogs at the back, narrower chains, and more flexible chains capable of accepting a wider chainline. Multiple front chainrings (with the associated clunky changers) have always been clumsy and inefficient. It would save weight too. The current standard double arrangement is a hangover from an era when we had only 5 cogs at the back. With 1 or 2 more cogs at the back the most sensible thing to do would be to have a single chainring at the front with doubles offered as an option the same way that triples are now.id like to see pigs fly.0
