# Do I really need a triple???



## punkypossum (7 Jan 2009)

Reason I'm asking is that I'm still compiling my shortlist of possible contenders that I will hopefully testride this weekend...

The Giant Defy (2.5, i.e with a triple) has been joined by the Specialized Allez, which comes with a triple, but then only with sora shifters... I'd prefer tiagra, but that then leaves me with the allez sport which comes with an 11-25t cassette and 50x34t chainrings...

I know I asked a similar question ages ago, but it is all very confusing...

Would the Allez get me up somewhere like Beacon Fell? If I went for a double and decided later that I did need a triple, how expensive would it be to change?

Will testride pretty much anything I can get my hands on, apart from the two above, but just would prefer to have a rough idea what will work and what won't.... I asked the triple / double question at Buy-a-bike and was informed by the grumpy sales assistant that only fat, old, unfit men need a triple, but I doubt he was a very reliable source looking as if he fit those criteria himself!

Thanks!!!!


----------



## Landslide (7 Jan 2009)

Get a triple. There's a real "triples are for wimps" mentality among cyclists that I've never fathomed. If you need it, great. If you don't need it, then the extra weight can be offset by going to the loo before you go out riding.


----------



## Landslide (7 Jan 2009)

ps: It'll cost you loads (both money and faffing) to change from a double to a triple later down the line.


----------



## Ravenz (7 Jan 2009)

Landslide said:


> There's a real "triples are for wimps" mentality among cyclists that I've never fathomed.



yeah!!!
TA (Triples Annonymous)
"My name is Rav, and I ride a triple!"


----------



## Landslide (7 Jan 2009)

Ravenz said:


> yeah!!!
> TA (Triples Annonymous)
> "My name is Rav, and I ride a triple!"



I'm not sure we're anonymous anymore!


----------



## RSV_Ecosse (7 Jan 2009)

I had no idea what the difference between a double compact and a triple was when I bought my bike. To be honest, I didn't even know the two types existed. 

Don't want to hijack the OP's thread, but what exactly is the difference between the two?.

I'm talking from a newcomers point of view of course, but if I hit a big hill I drop down to the wee ring on the front and adjust gears if need be. Or I pedal with more effort if that's not enough.

That might sound ridiculous to you guys who have been riding for years, but when I read threads concerning doubles and triples I genuinely wonder "Hmmm......should I have bought a triple?".


----------



## Cranky (7 Jan 2009)

Landslide said:


> Get a triple. There's a real "triples are for wimps" mentality among cyclists that I've never fathomed. If you need it, great. If you don't need it, then the extra weight can be offset by going to the loo before you go out riding.



Absolutely agree with this. I have no time for all that macho crap. A triple will get you up any hill with a lot less shoving and grunting than I see on many rides!


----------



## yello (7 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> was informed by the grumpy sales assistant that only fat, old, unfit men need a triple



Speaking from personal experience, i.e. I fit that description, he's right!

Tough call though. A triple doesn't need to used and obviously you can climb on a compact. It's your call really - what sort of riding do you like and want to do? How often are you likely to climb something like Beacon Fell and the like?

Personally, I don't find heaving and grinding up climbs particularly enjoyable and like having a granny ring to fall back on. Doesn't mean I have to use it.

That said, you can get a decent compact set up that gives a good spread of gears and, for most peoples uses and the riding they do, quite suitable.


----------



## a_n_t (7 Jan 2009)

depends how well you climb I guess?

I run a compact on the wilier 50/34 and a 13/26 cassette and it gets me up anything i've tried so far [upto 30% inclines]. Some people could do it on a 53/39? others might need a triple? Horses for courses!


----------



## punkypossum (7 Jan 2009)

No idea how well I climb - probably not very well. Would like to get more into hillier rides, but as beacon fell was done on my mountain bike (although I never had to leave the middle ring), I can't really say, as I have never ridden a road bike with road bike gearing...


----------



## ajb (7 Jan 2009)

Get the triple, dont take any notice of people that dont like them.
Riding with my mates, if I,m in the same gear as them ie:- 39x25 going up hill I will be dumped straight away, If I drop to the "granny" ring and and spin my legs I can certainly stay a lot closer.
Better to have and not use than to need and not have.

Alan.


----------



## Landslide (7 Jan 2009)

(In response to Lee's point about bottom gears)
But, a triple allows the same spread of gears, but with more closely spaced ratios. My 46/36/24 chainset lets me run a 12-23 cassette and still get up some seriously steep climbs in the Peak District.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jan 2009)

Have a play with Sheldon's Gear Calculator for anyone who doubts the overlap you get on any system. Punkypossum might find it useful for bikes she's going to try out. If I didn't have a triple I'd still be able to do some of the hills but it'd be a right old grind.


----------



## Over The Hill (7 Jan 2009)

Triple all the way.

I even fitted a smaller granny ring to mine! 

I cant see any point in not having one. 

Mostly I am on the middle ring which gives a nice range for 90% of my cycling. My concern with a double is that the big ring will be too big and the small to small so I will want to keep double changing from big to small and then compensating on the back. 

I like my front gears to be basically stepped to be about equal to a couple of back gears so I can go over easily. Double seem to have too big a jump.


----------



## Blue (7 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> was informed by the grumpy sales assistant that only fat, old, unfit men need a triple,



That is total crap.

The gears you need are determined by you and the type of riding you do.


----------



## Landslide (7 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> ...was informed by the grumpy sales assistant that only fat, old, unfit men need a triple he only had a double in stock, and couldn't be @rsed ordering in a triple...


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Jan 2009)

Over The Hill said:


> Triple all the way.
> 
> I even fitted a smaller granny ring to mine!
> 
> ...


Gearing is personal. 

My 50/36 with a 13*26 cassette gets me up anything and I only use the 26 sprocket on a vicious 25% gradient I sometimes climb. For anything less I never go below the 23.

The winter bike has the same cassette but with a 48/34 combo on the front. You can only ever advise people on what gears to use based on what you know about their riding, there are no hard and fast rules.


----------



## tyred (7 Jan 2009)

Personal choice and depends on the terrain you intend to ride on but if you think you might need it, now is the time rather than to be wasting time and money trying to fit one later.

Personally, I think I would be happy enough with the double but that's my choice. At the end of the day, it's the range of gears that count, not the number. If the lowest gear available on the double is low enough, you don't really need a triple.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (7 Jan 2009)

i'd say get a triple. you may be able to get up most climbs round here on a double, but it's not so much the short steep climbs that are the problem, something like bowland knotts or tatham or even the trough to jubilee tower can be too much for the bottom gear of a double if you're going into a strong headwind. a lower gear on the triple will allow you a ride thats just that bit easier and let you stay seated longer up a long drag.
both mine and my sons bikes have triples with close ratio cassettes.which i find is a lot better than a widely spaced cassette witha double.


----------



## numbnuts (7 Jan 2009)

Let the train take the strain 
train as in "gear train"


----------



## Ivan Ardon (7 Jan 2009)

I have a 2009 Allez Triple. It's a nice light bike with no real vices so far as I can tell.

Bottom gear is 25 inches, low enough for the steepest Devon hill I've encountered.

Transmission is a mixture of Tiagra and Sora. The Sora shifters work well enough but not being able to change down while on the drops (unless you have fingers like E.T.) may annoy you. It doesn't worry me too much as I mostly ride on the hoods.

Overall, it's a lot of bike for the money.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

I don't see anything wrong with a triple, especially when they go past some c*&t on a double walking up the hill.

Then again, there's little as satisfying as passing a geared rider uphill when you're on a fixed wheel.


----------



## ASC1951 (7 Jan 2009)

Don't forget there is some bike industry faddism going on as well. 

When I were a lad all you could get was a 52x42 and we all managed. Then doubles were for idiots and you had to have a triple no matter what sort of riding you were doing. Now they try to flog us Compact Doubles because triples are old hat...

I have triples, a double and a fixed. If I had to go for one only I would definitely choose a triple for general riding.


----------



## Paul_Smith SRCC (7 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> Reason I'm asking is that I'm still compiling my shortlist of possible contenders that I will hopefully testride this weekend...
> 
> The Giant Defy (2.5, i.e with a triple) has been joined by the Specialized Allez, which comes with a triple, but then only with sora shifters... I'd prefer tiagra, but that then leaves me with the allez sport which comes with an 11-25t cassette and 50x34t chainrings...
> 
> ...


I have just recently written a response in another post about gear ratios that I will replicate here that may be if interest.

What you need to do is work out what gear ratios you like to use and then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket. 

By way of an example that is all I have done on my current tour bike, I use a 13t-29t Campagnolo 10 speed cassette set up with a chainset that 26-36-46t chainrings to give the the gear ratios I am after 








I like gears of around 60”, you will see that I have got those on both middle and outer ring. I have done this essentially because this is a bike I use for two roles, solo rides of 15-20mph and touring rides of 12-15mph, to save repeated chain ring changes I can essentially use the big ring mainly for solo rides and the middle ring for more sociable rides. Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out, for 15-20mph cruising I have ratios that I like available mid cassette on the 46 ring, this I find is the perfect set up for me. Of course everyone is different, some prefer a lower low gear and a higher high gear, horses for courses as they say

It does take a bit of thought as to what you need both in terms of ratios and then equipment choices to achieve them, but it can nearly always be done. In my case for example I did invest in a high quality chainset to get the ring combinations I wanted, as for me personally I find many road specific triples have ring choices too large yet the ATB chainsets too small for what I wanted.

Note I said 'wanted' not 'needed', my tour bike is used for tours, often I want to climb a long mountain pass with little effort to take in the scenery, so I chose lower gear ratios on that bike. Sportive bikes by comparison are normally ridden with no luggage, plus set up generally for riding at a higher speed than a touring bike, you can see from that gear chart above that a 34t inner chain ring with a 27t largest sprocket, a common combination on a sportive bike with compact transmission, will give a lowest gear ratio of approx' 34", on that style of bike that is low enough for most riders, even on a mountain pass.

To try and explain what a 34" gear ratio equates to you will see a red Audax bike in my tour write ups under my signature below, the 'Lejog' write up had a higher gear than that and I rode up every climb, in that specification I also toured the High Alps with two full panniers and again rode every climb.

However, I realised when I was riding in a group I had to keep the gear turning on the climbs and ride quicker than many of my new friends, who were using lower gear ratios than me and able to ride at a slower more socialble pace, that along with wanting to take in the scenery is why you will now see that bike had a triple in some of the later tour articles. As I said gear ratio choices can take some thought, the decision may not always be down to ability.

Note my bike is an Audax bike, I have mentioned it purely to illustrate the thought process that can go into deciding what gear ratios to go for. As an Audax bike like mine is often used potentially for slower tours, many spec' a triple over a double, where as some of the bikes you are considering are set up more as fast day ride/sportive bikes, as I said above normally used for a slightly faster style of riding, as such they will normally have higher gear ratios than my Audax bike as a result. 

Hope this helps

Paul_Smith
www.corridori.co.uk


----------



## Randochap (7 Jan 2009)

Disclaimer: It's impossible for anyone else to tell you exactly what your gearing needs are, or what gear you need to personally conquer a given incline.

However, beware of advice from people who say: I have a 39 X 26 and it gets me up anything. That's their experience; not yours.

Also beware those who say a compact double with the same ratios is the same thing as a triple. It's not.

This has been discussed endlessly, but here we go again:

A triple, over the same ratio spread has the advantage of closer spacing. This means that when you bail out of the big ring, on, say, a 50-40-30 triple, the drop is only 10 teeth, rather than the 16T drop from 50 to 34 on a compact double. Smaller difference (and 10 teeth is perfect IMHP) means you don't lose your cadence and end up spinning like hamster on a treadmill.

On my long-distance bikes (see VeloWeb), I run 30-40-50 up front and Campagnolo's biggest spread on the rear of 13-29. I also have a bike w/ (Shimano) 24-36-46 X 12-30 for carrying heavier loads. 

Mostly, I'm using the middle and big ring on the triple. Granny gets lonely, but is always there on a long ride, when an 18% grade pops up. In fact, when a very steep hill presents anywhere, I'm likely to spin rather than perform knee-destroying heroics.

But, as I said, I have no idea what your needs are.


----------



## jay clock (7 Jan 2009)

get the triple....


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Jan 2009)

Randochap said:


> Disclaimer: It's impossible for anyone else to tell you exactly what your gearing needs are, or what gear you need to personally conquer a given incline.
> 
> However, beware of advice from people who say: I have a 39 X 26 and it gets me up anything. That's their experience; not yours.
> 
> ...


That's an improvement.

Three pages before someone trotted that old myth out again.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

All depends on fitness and strength, and if you prefer to spin, or are happy out the saddle wrestling the bike up a steep incline.....

You'll get more out of a triple or compact, but if you don't know how good your climbing is - i.e. up the steep stuff, then get one.....


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

Randochap said:


> I'm likely to spin rather than perform knee-destroying heroics.



Like it.....

I'm a grinder and get up 25% climbs in a 39 x 21 - it's not pretty, but it's not after 100 miles, usually on a 50 mile ride..... For a long ride and doing silly hills I'd be looking for bigger sprockets....

It's not the knees that go, it's your ability to hang on to the bike with your hands and arms - or is it me - typical cyclist weedy arms/wrists, big strong legs.... I'm just old skool, ex TT'er !!


----------



## Crackle (7 Jan 2009)

Triple! /Len Goodman


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

Smokin Joe said:


> That's an improvement.
> 
> Three pages before someone trotted that old myth out again.



+1

Riding fixed tells you that it's bollocks.


----------



## peanut (7 Jan 2009)

possum I have read most of the other suggestions but although there is a wealth of experience and sound opinion it all comes down to what individual people use and are comfortable with themselves.

I would suggest something quite different.

I would suggest you ask the local bike shop if you can borrow a road bike for the day and go ride it round your usual circuit.
You will know immediately whether the gears you have on the bike will be sufficient or not for the type of riding you generally do.

Its a personal thing you see. No one can choose for you. 

Ask to try a bike with a compact chainset (probably 50x34) and a suitable cassette like 12-27t 
Ask the shop exactly what gearing the bike has got fitted so you can make a direct comparison.

If you are not convinced with the bike you tried then you have the option of going for a triple setup knowing a compact double isn't right for you on a road bike.

If you haven't ridden a road bike before as you say, you are in for the treat of your life. It will fly with so little effort you'll think it has an engine.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Jan 2009)

Triple. 

All my steeds have triples. I once got very cross at a talk given by a locally well-known cycling 'guru' who told a whole pile of cyclists - including newbies, very old ladies, beginning tourers, experienced cyclists, commuters, that there was absolutely no need for anyone to have a triple as a double will get you up an alpine pass. I pointed out very loudly that he may well be fit enough to get up Alpe d'Huez on a double but I, for one, needed all the help I could get and there was nothing wrong in having a triple chainset. 

One of the most horrible feelings I've had when cycling is being on a bike going up a hill, needing a lower gear and then realising there wasn't one, as I was on a double chainset. Never again. 

Plus, as others have said, there is a current fashion for 'compact' double chainsets. One of the things I like about having a triple is that close ratio of gears, as it's easy for me to select a gear which is *entirely comfortable* to cycle in.

Doing a cycle tour in France, on a fully loaded tourer, I was very, very glad I had a granny ring.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> +1
> 
> Riding fixed tells you that it's bollocks.


Agreed.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Jan 2009)

Randochap said:


> Disclaimer: It's impossible for anyone else to tell you exactly what your gearing needs are, or what gear you need to personally conquer a given incline.
> 
> However, beware of advice from people who say: I have a 39 X 26 and it gets me up anything. That's their experience; not yours.
> 
> ...



Agree with this, particularly the bold bit. Here again IMO the Triple wins for me because the compact's large drop between chainrings can lead to a big hole in the gear progression and a lot of double shifting. Whereas the gear progression on a triple is much simpler. In the middle ring you can use the whole cassette with ease and for most riding this is a simple way to go.
I don't see a disadvantage for a triple, wider gear range, closer ratios, easier progression. A small weight gain is neither here nor there.
Other than my fixed, on my road-bikes I've had 52/42 double, 53/39 double and 52/42/30 Triple The Triple is far the most flexible and easy to use, followed by the 52/42. The 53/39 was horrible as the gear I always seemed to want required more double shifting than I would have liked.


----------



## MacB (7 Jan 2009)

Fitness/age/physical health must be big factors in this as well as intended riding. I've noticed a lot of comments on here telling people not to worry about saving a couple of pounds on a frame, it would be easier/cheaper to lose the weight yourself. Does a triple weigh that much more than a double? From my starting point I know I wouldn't complete my commute without the granny ring. I also find spinning an easier gear less tiring than grinding, though I accept that may change as my fitness improves. 

But one thing you can guarantee, if you get the triple you'll wonder why you bothered, if you don't you'll suddenly find a need for further gears.........it's call sods law........personally I'd rather have something I didn't need than need something I lacked.


----------



## punkypossum (7 Jan 2009)

Right, thanks for all the feedback! I think I'll better stick with the original triple plan...just seems to limit the choice of bikes considerable....


----------



## wafflycat (7 Jan 2009)

Don't forget that you can change a double to a triple - but then there is a cost in that.


----------



## punkypossum (7 Jan 2009)

Which is apparently quite substantial...

Lets say I went for something like the Allez, with sora shifter but tiagra mechs, would it be possible to just change the shifters to tiagra if I don't get on with them or is that going to be ridiculously expensive as well?

I just don't want to rule out potential bikes if changes are feasible and don't end up doubling the price of the bike...


----------



## Gary D (8 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> Right, thanks for all the feedback! I think I'll better stick with the original triple plan...just seems to limit the choice of bikes considerable....



punky,
I have posted about this before, but here goes. Don't let your decision of going for a triple limit your choice too much!

The main cost when changing from a double to a triple is in the shifters. However, 9 speed Tiagra and 10 speed 105 shifters are double and triple compatible.

So........

If you find a compact or double bike that you like equipped with either of these shifters, and find yourself a good LBS, they should be able and willing to convert the bike at a fairly sensible cost.

I know, because I had the same dilemma. My bike is 105 equipped but I couldn't get a triple at the time. So, the LBS had to change the chainset & BB obviously, the front derailleur and the rear mech to a medium length. The whole lot only cost me an additional £40 as they just took the difference in cost between the parts - and I assume, banked on being able to sell the parts they removed in the shop. They were not unique either, as another shop I was seriously talking to, also offered to do it at a similar price.

Depends on how much they want your business I guess  

Hope this helps,

Gary.


----------



## Paul_Smith SRCC (8 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> Which is apparently quite substantial...
> 
> Lets say I went for something like the Allez, with sora shifter but tiagra mechs, would it be possible to just change the shifters to tiagra if I don't get on with them or is that going to be ridiculously expensive as well?
> 
> I just don't want to rule out potential bikes if changes are feasible and don't end up doubling the price of the bike...


I assume you are looking at the 2009 Allez 27, as this has a Tiagra rear mech but note not front as that is Sora, along with the STI levers.








Can confirm what GardD mentioned above, most shops will simply charge for the price difference for the upgrade.

Paul_Smith
www.corridori.co.uk


----------



## postman (8 Jan 2009)

Beacon Fell i know it well.My in laws live in Goosnargh.I intend to ride up and around the area.Good cafe aswell.


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

Punky, have you actually worked out what gears you use now for cruising and climbing? A bit of time invested on it might start to clarify your needs as will intended use.

I.e. Living in the flat plains of Cheshire now, a compact would do me. I'd mostly use the large ring but there are climbs which would require me to use the inner occasionally. I have toured with a compact but I wouldn't now.

Living in hilly Scotland I bought a triple and set it up to use the middle on the up and down singlerack and the inner on the climbs and the outer for long flats. I hardly ever used the outer there but I would here.

You do get more gear overlap with a triple but it means you can arrange it to have a tight spread in a gear area you use most, which I like as it means I can maintain my cadence easier but I'm repeating what's already been said. 

The thing is, once you start thinking about and playing with gears, you will inevitably spend money on new chainrings and blocks as you find the gears which suit. You may as well start the process of understanding gear set-up now even if it takes a little while to translate into actual use. I have a little spreadsheet you can use to put your current set-up into and your future set-up, which will then allow you to compare directly what gears you now use with what gears your new bike will have. Bear in mind that the same gear on a mountain and racing bike will not feel equivalent because the two bikes are very different and you will almost certainly find it easier to shift a racing bike along on the same gear you use on your mountain bike.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

More toe overlap with a triple?

More toe overlap with a compact frame?

What's that all about then, all else being the same?


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

toe overlap? I know I was talking gear overlap or are you not referring to my post?


----------



## punkypossum (8 Jan 2009)

Cool, sounds like conversion is not as impossible as I thought! 

Just added the cannondale synapse to my shortlist as well...


----------



## alecstilleyedye (8 Jan 2009)

Landslide said:


> ps: It'll cost you loads (both money and faffing) to change from a double to a triple later down the line.



been there, done that!


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> toe overlap? I know I was talking gear overlap or are you not referring to my post?



Sorry, must have misread that!


----------



## simoncc (8 Jan 2009)

Triples are not for fat old men. In my experience fat old men have doubles because they want something that looks just like what the Tour de France boys want. So they splash out on carbon framed masterpieces and dawdle around the country lanes on nice summer days pushing very high gears while going beetroot red in the face.

What does for most people is a touring triple made by Stronglight with 46/36/26 teeth. Most road triples are too highly geared most non-racing riders who are not in the first flush of youth. For someone in a flat area a compact double will probably be OK with a decent spread on the cassette.


----------



## peanut (8 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Punky, have you actually worked out what gears you use now for cruising and climbing? A bit of time invested on it might start to clarify your needs as will intended use.



thats the problem crackle . If I understand possum's first post correctly she has never ridden a road bike before so she is not likely to know what she'l need hence posting this thread.



punkypossum said:


> No idea how well I climb - probably not very well. I can't really say, as I have never ridden a road bike with road bike gearing...


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

Starter for 10 though Peanut. I mentioned it wouldn't be equivalent in feel but a 64" gear is a 64" gear whether it be a 42x18 on a mtn bike or a 50x22 on a road bike (or thereabouts. I haven't got a gear chart in front of me). 

I just realized; you know she has a mtn bike though. She's a century rider is our Punky.


----------



## peanut (8 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Starter for 10 though Peanut. I mentioned it wouldn't be equivalent in feel but a 64" gear is a 64" gear whether it be a 42x18 on a mtn bike or a 50x22 on a road bike (or thereabouts. I haven't got a gear chart in front of me).
> 
> I just realized; you know she has a mtn bike though. She's a century rider is our Punky.



yes but it doesn't translate into hill climbing ability does it. 
Put the same gear on a MTB and a road bike and I know which one I would prefer to climb with 

century rider eh !... maybe we should be asking her advice ...


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

peanut said:


> yes but it doesn't translate into hill climbing ability does it.
> Put the same gear on a MTB and a road bike and I know which one I would prefer to climb with
> 
> century rider eh !... maybe we should be asking her advice ...



No absolutely, point taken but I still use the same gears on my mtn as my road, it's just the road bike takes less effort to cruise at the same speed or faster.

Punky always posts in beginners, even though I'd consider her well past beginner now (take note Punky)


----------



## punkypossum (8 Jan 2009)

But I _*AM *_ a roadbike beginner!!!  Plus there wasn't really anywhere else to stick the question... And at least it tends to be busy in beginners, so there is a better chance of getting loads of (conflicting) answers and advice!!! 

I'll make sure I stick my questions in P&L in the future!!! 

However, if it helps, the mtb has a 11-32 8 speed casette and a 42/34/24 Crankset....I spent most of my live on the middle chainring and vary between gears 8-5 on flattish territory, the lowest I ever had to drop was middle ring at the front and 2 at the back - but that was on the hill from hell. I tend to spin rather than grind...

Not sure what the above really means, but it somehow sounds a lot lower than what I will get on a road bike... Argh!!!


----------



## marinyork (8 Jan 2009)

I thought you were really speedy punkypossum whizzing around at 15mph and did a 100 miler last year?


----------



## peanut (8 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> But I _*AM *_ a roadbike beginner!!!  Plus there wasn't really anywhere else to stick the question... And at least it tends to be busy in beginners, so there is a better chance of getting loads of (conflicting) answers and advice!!!
> 
> I'll make sure I stick my questions in P&L in the future!!!



you can post anywhere you like punky as far as I'm concerned . well done for completing a century anyway.


----------



## punkypossum (8 Jan 2009)

marinyork said:


> I thought you were really speedy punkypossum whizzing around at 15mph and did a 100 miler last year?



I wouldn't say I'm speedy - and the 15 is on a good day, but yes, I did a 100 miler on my trusted moutain bike. Starting to get serious doubts now - maybe I should just stick with the current bike, at least I know I can handle it!


----------



## Cranky (8 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> I wouldn't say I'm speedy - and the 15 is on a good day, but yes, I did a 100 miler on my trusted moutain bike. Starting to get serious doubts now - maybe I should just stick with the current bike, at least I know I can handle it!



Triple.


----------



## marinyork (9 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> I wouldn't say I'm speedy - and the 15 is on a good day, but yes, I did a 100 miler on my trusted moutain bike. Starting to get serious doubts now - maybe I should just stick with the current bike, at least I know I can handle it!



That be speedy, and surely it isn't flat where you are so that's not bad at all. I think after 100 miler you deserve a faster bike and can probably get a bit more out of it than some of us other folk.


----------



## Titch (9 Jan 2009)

I am new to road bikes, I got my bike today. However I got a specialized Allez with the double chainset. Had a quick ride around Plymouth this afternoon and didn't struggle on any of the many hills in this city. I was suprised at how much easier the hills seemed on the new bike, compared to my hybrid bike that I use for commuting.

I had the same quandry about double or triple but I am pleased that I went for the double. I'm going out tomorrow around dartmoor so I'll let you know if I struggle with the gears.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Jan 2009)

marinyork said:


> That be speedy, and surely it isn't flat where you are so that's not bad at all. I think after 100 miler you deserve a faster bike and can probably get a bit more out of it than some of us other folk.



100 miles on an MTB deserves some respect... you deserve to be a fully fledged roadie... still get a triple though.


----------



## peanut (9 Jan 2009)

it was an MTB  blimeyolriley possum thats a fantastic achievement. I'm not sure I could have done that even when I was fit


----------



## Crackle (9 Jan 2009)

punkypossum said:


> But I _*AM *_a roadbike beginner!!!  Plus there wasn't really anywhere else to stick the question... And at least it tends to be busy in beginners, so there is a better chance of getting loads of (conflicting) answers and advice!!!
> 
> I'll make sure I stick my questions in P&L in the future!!!
> 
> ...



I'll bung it in me spreadsheet tomorrow and let you know which gears you're using and what the equivalent roadbike gears would be. So, always middle ring, the 34 and 5 to 8, with 8 being the smallest. I'm definitely thinking triple with those kind of gears though.


----------



## Crackle (9 Jan 2009)

Actually I just put it into Sheldon. In road bike terms a triple with a 42 (30-42-50) middle and rear 11-25 would give you the range you use most or a double with a 48 outer and 12-27 rear cassette. The middle triple is better, it gives you closer ratios in the range you use most which is 42" to 70". Any double is likely to be at least 50 and will mean buying a smaller chain ring or you will struggle with the higher gears, especially if you are a spinner. Any chainwheel higher than 50 is likely to be useless to you.

One thing to bear in mind is that changing chainwheels on a triple is more limiting and expensive as you have to both maintain a certain gap betwee chainwheels (8ish teeth jump) and buy special middle rings. You can do it though, I have on mine.


----------



## punkypossum (10 Jan 2009)

Thanks for working that out crackle - it all goes a bit over my head I have to admit, but it has at least confirmed that I'm definitely going to be better off with a triple!!!

I'll really have to sit down at some point and get my head round those gear ratios...


----------



## pwh91 (13 Jan 2009)

Just one more data point to add confusion...

Although I have a triple on my mountain bike, I went for a compact double on my new Ribble road bike - and if you go for Campy kit you can get a 50/34 chainset and 10-speed 13-29 cassette, which seems to work out for me (average speed ~16mph on a morning out) . Not sure what it is, but I feel more at home with a double on the road and this range seems to do everything I need it to even on some seriously steep stuff south of Bristol.

No reason in particular not to get a triple but I guess I'm saying there are other ways of getting pretty low gearing if you feel you need it. 

HTH
Pete


----------



## punkypossum (13 Jan 2009)

Bought the bike now, so I'm tripled out!!


----------

