# Triple on a road bike - yay or nay



## Bloke (18 Jan 2010)

Hope this is the right section. I don't really bother with racing - the longer sportives are more my bag. 

I have a road bike and for the last year have been using a compact, which I find fantastic. Seems to me though that a high quality triple chain ring, with a relatively flat block at the back would offer the greatest flexibility of all - you could spin up all but the hardest of climbs and not lose out on top end gearing either.

How flawed or otherwise is my logic? Are they de rigeur on the UK sportive circuit?


----------



## Bloke (18 Jan 2010)

Hope this is the right section. I don't really bother with racing - the longer sportives are more my bag. 

I have a road bike and for the last year have been using a compact, which I find fantastic. Seems to me though that a high quality triple chain ring, with a relatively flat block at the back would offer the greatest flexibility of all - you could spin up all but the hardest of climbs and not lose out on top end gearing either.

How flawed or otherwise is my logic? Are they de rigeur on the UK sportive circuit?


----------



## Bloke (18 Jan 2010)

Hope this is the right section. I don't really bother with racing - the longer sportives are more my bag. 

I have a road bike and for the last year have been using a compact, which I find fantastic. Seems to me though that a high quality triple chain ring, with a relatively flat block at the back would offer the greatest flexibility of all - you could spin up all but the hardest of climbs and not lose out on top end gearing either.

How flawed or otherwise is my logic? Are they de rigeur on the UK sportive circuit?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (18 Jan 2010)

There's no flaw in your logic. A triple gives you a standard road double (40 / 52) with a separate low ratio set of gears when you need them. 

The compact is a compromise in every way. They work okay-ish for the big European mountain sportives as you ride to the foot of the climb in the big ring, change down with the front changer when you arrive at the foot of the climb and then leave it there for an hour or so until you change up at the top of the pass for the descent. But on the rolling terrain on UK sportives, with their much shorter climbs and changes in gradient, they are not ideal.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (18 Jan 2010)

There's no flaw in your logic. A triple gives you a standard road double (40 / 52) with a separate low ratio set of gears when you need them. 

The compact is a compromise in every way. They work okay-ish for the big European mountain sportives as you ride to the foot of the climb in the big ring, change down with the front changer when you arrive at the foot of the climb and then leave it there for an hour or so until you change up at the top of the pass for the descent. But on the rolling terrain on UK sportives, with their much shorter climbs and changes in gradient, they are not ideal.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (18 Jan 2010)

There's no flaw in your logic. A triple gives you a standard road double (40 / 52) with a separate low ratio set of gears when you need them. 

The compact is a compromise in every way. They work okay-ish for the big European mountain sportives as you ride to the foot of the climb in the big ring, change down with the front changer when you arrive at the foot of the climb and then leave it there for an hour or so until you change up at the top of the pass for the descent. But on the rolling terrain on UK sportives, with their much shorter climbs and changes in gradient, they are not ideal.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

If you over cook it on the first 2/3rds of a long sportive, as I have done, and the last 3rd has some tough climbs then the granny ring can make a lot of difference. On the other hand if you enjoy suffering.....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

If you over cook it on the first 2/3rds of a long sportive, as I have done, and the last 3rd has some tough climbs then the granny ring can make a lot of difference. On the other hand if you enjoy suffering.....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

If you over cook it on the first 2/3rds of a long sportive, as I have done, and the last 3rd has some tough climbs then the granny ring can make a lot of difference. On the other hand if you enjoy suffering.....


----------



## Rassendyll (18 Jan 2010)

I love having the triple on my audax / sportive bike. It just gives me another option when I'm not able to give it everything on a steep climb in the middle ring.

But... there is a tendency to use them because they're there.

I found that having a second road bike with a double meant that I realised I didn't need to go into the granny ring as much as I had been doing. I made more of a conscious effort to stay in the middle ring on certain climbs and was faster up them as a result.


----------



## Rassendyll (18 Jan 2010)

I love having the triple on my audax / sportive bike. It just gives me another option when I'm not able to give it everything on a steep climb in the middle ring.

But... there is a tendency to use them because they're there.

I found that having a second road bike with a double meant that I realised I didn't need to go into the granny ring as much as I had been doing. I made more of a conscious effort to stay in the middle ring on certain climbs and was faster up them as a result.


----------



## Rassendyll (18 Jan 2010)

I love having the triple on my audax / sportive bike. It just gives me another option when I'm not able to give it everything on a steep climb in the middle ring.

But... there is a tendency to use them because they're there.

I found that having a second road bike with a double meant that I realised I didn't need to go into the granny ring as much as I had been doing. I made more of a conscious effort to stay in the middle ring on certain climbs and was faster up them as a result.


----------



## Lovebadger (18 Jan 2010)

Totally agree! A compact is a compromise. Get a triple, especially if you like riding in the mountains. I've used a triple on Audax, Sportive and for touring in the Alps. Some people frown upon them but when you are at the end of a long ride you have the granny ring waiting there to bail you out!


----------



## Lovebadger (18 Jan 2010)

Totally agree! A compact is a compromise. Get a triple, especially if you like riding in the mountains. I've used a triple on Audax, Sportive and for touring in the Alps. Some people frown upon them but when you are at the end of a long ride you have the granny ring waiting there to bail you out!


----------



## Lovebadger (18 Jan 2010)

Totally agree! A compact is a compromise. Get a triple, especially if you like riding in the mountains. I've used a triple on Audax, Sportive and for touring in the Alps. Some people frown upon them but when you are at the end of a long ride you have the granny ring waiting there to bail you out!


----------



## zacklaws (18 Jan 2010)

Getting a triple was best thing I ever did, I'm a "purist" at heart but I'm not getting younger and pushing a "double" up hills was too much on the steeper hills so I took the plunge after being talked out of buying a "compact" at the LBS and bought a Trek Madone with a triple fitted.

The difference it has made is incredible, I have lower heart rates pushing up the hills, I've more than doubled my speed up some hills, reduced the time climbing some hills by well over 50%, my knees do not hurt so much now pushing the big gears and when I get to top of hills instead of turning my lungs inside out gasping for breath its now a case of getting into the higher gears ASP and race away, in fact I've virtually broke every timing on all my usual routes and rewrote "the books".


----------



## zacklaws (18 Jan 2010)

Getting a triple was best thing I ever did, I'm a "purist" at heart but I'm not getting younger and pushing a "double" up hills was too much on the steeper hills so I took the plunge after being talked out of buying a "compact" at the LBS and bought a Trek Madone with a triple fitted.

The difference it has made is incredible, I have lower heart rates pushing up the hills, I've more than doubled my speed up some hills, reduced the time climbing some hills by well over 50%, my knees do not hurt so much now pushing the big gears and when I get to top of hills instead of turning my lungs inside out gasping for breath its now a case of getting into the higher gears ASP and race away, in fact I've virtually broke every timing on all my usual routes and rewrote "the books".


----------



## zacklaws (18 Jan 2010)

Getting a triple was best thing I ever did, I'm a "purist" at heart but I'm not getting younger and pushing a "double" up hills was too much on the steeper hills so I took the plunge after being talked out of buying a "compact" at the LBS and bought a Trek Madone with a triple fitted.

The difference it has made is incredible, I have lower heart rates pushing up the hills, I've more than doubled my speed up some hills, reduced the time climbing some hills by well over 50%, my knees do not hurt so much now pushing the big gears and when I get to top of hills instead of turning my lungs inside out gasping for breath its now a case of getting into the higher gears ASP and race away, in fact I've virtually broke every timing on all my usual routes and rewrote "the books".


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2010)

if your reason for not getting a triple is anything other than you genuinely don't need it, then you should get one.


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2010)

if your reason for not getting a triple is anything other than you genuinely don't need it, then you should get one.


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2010)

if your reason for not getting a triple is anything other than you genuinely don't need it, then you should get one.


----------



## AlanW (18 Jan 2010)

Look at it this way......I rode the Falling Leaves Audax three years ago. Its only 60km, but it is up and down for the whole duration. 

I rode it on a 39/52 and a 10sp 12/25, I got round and finished in a reasonable time, in places it was a bit of struggle and the following day I was knackered!

Then I bought a triple and rode the same event a year on. Completed it in near enough the same time, cannot compare exact as we got lost the second year! 

The triple is a 28/39/52, but a 10sp 12/23 instead of the 12/25 before, this keeping a nice tight ratio, perfect for maintaining a steady cadence.

BUT.......the big difference having the triple was that I enjoyed the event so much more. I rode round, rather than mauling the bike round in places.

One of the best things I ever did was going for a triple.


----------



## AlanW (18 Jan 2010)

Look at it this way......I rode the Falling Leaves Audax three years ago. Its only 60km, but it is up and down for the whole duration. 

I rode it on a 39/52 and a 10sp 12/25, I got round and finished in a reasonable time, in places it was a bit of struggle and the following day I was knackered!

Then I bought a triple and rode the same event a year on. Completed it in near enough the same time, cannot compare exact as we got lost the second year! 

The triple is a 28/39/52, but a 10sp 12/23 instead of the 12/25 before, this keeping a nice tight ratio, perfect for maintaining a steady cadence.

BUT.......the big difference having the triple was that I enjoyed the event so much more. I rode round, rather than mauling the bike round in places.

One of the best things I ever did was going for a triple.


----------



## AlanW (18 Jan 2010)

Look at it this way......I rode the Falling Leaves Audax three years ago. Its only 60km, but it is up and down for the whole duration. 

I rode it on a 39/52 and a 10sp 12/25, I got round and finished in a reasonable time, in places it was a bit of struggle and the following day I was knackered!

Then I bought a triple and rode the same event a year on. Completed it in near enough the same time, cannot compare exact as we got lost the second year! 

The triple is a 28/39/52, but a 10sp 12/23 instead of the 12/25 before, this keeping a nice tight ratio, perfect for maintaining a steady cadence.

BUT.......the big difference having the triple was that I enjoyed the event so much more. I rode round, rather than mauling the bike round in places.

One of the best things I ever did was going for a triple.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (18 Jan 2010)

deffo a yay. when i first joined my local club i found i could not get up the hills on the double chainset. i looked at changing to a compact but went triple after a lot of deliberation. 

i've never regretted it, as someone who tends to spin a high cadence rather than grind a high gear up the climbs.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (18 Jan 2010)

deffo a yay. when i first joined my local club i found i could not get up the hills on the double chainset. i looked at changing to a compact but went triple after a lot of deliberation. 

i've never regretted it, as someone who tends to spin a high cadence rather than grind a high gear up the climbs.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (18 Jan 2010)

deffo a yay. when i first joined my local club i found i could not get up the hills on the double chainset. i looked at changing to a compact but went triple after a lot of deliberation. 

i've never regretted it, as someone who tends to spin a high cadence rather than grind a high gear up the climbs.


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2010)

or you could say nay to both and go for a Rohloff, rediscover simplicity, straight chainlines and longer wear on parts. Go for one with a carbon belt drive and say goodbye to oil, noise and chain stretch. Sort of traditional combined with modern.


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2010)

or you could say nay to both and go for a Rohloff, rediscover simplicity, straight chainlines and longer wear on parts. Go for one with a carbon belt drive and say goodbye to oil, noise and chain stretch. Sort of traditional combined with modern.


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2010)

or you could say nay to both and go for a Rohloff, rediscover simplicity, straight chainlines and longer wear on parts. Go for one with a carbon belt drive and say goodbye to oil, noise and chain stretch. Sort of traditional combined with modern.


----------



## Bloke (18 Jan 2010)

Wow. Thumbs up all 'round then.

I must admit I love the idea of having that flexibility to maintain your speed but double your cadence, it seems pointless to just default to 1st gear at the foot of every climb and slog all the way up. 

I have heard that they can be more problematic or not change gear as sweetly - and of course racers will scorn and spit in disgust, but then every mountain bike I've ever seen has a triple, and all the entry level bikes have them, so they can't be that bad.

What kind of blocks do you guys run at the back in conjunction then?
I think I might be sold! . Yay indeed.


----------



## Bloke (18 Jan 2010)

Wow. Thumbs up all 'round then.

I must admit I love the idea of having that flexibility to maintain your speed but double your cadence, it seems pointless to just default to 1st gear at the foot of every climb and slog all the way up. 

I have heard that they can be more problematic or not change gear as sweetly - and of course racers will scorn and spit in disgust, but then every mountain bike I've ever seen has a triple, and all the entry level bikes have them, so they can't be that bad.

What kind of blocks do you guys run at the back in conjunction then?
I think I might be sold! . Yay indeed.


----------



## Bloke (18 Jan 2010)

Wow. Thumbs up all 'round then.

I must admit I love the idea of having that flexibility to maintain your speed but double your cadence, it seems pointless to just default to 1st gear at the foot of every climb and slog all the way up. 

I have heard that they can be more problematic or not change gear as sweetly - and of course racers will scorn and spit in disgust, but then every mountain bike I've ever seen has a triple, and all the entry level bikes have them, so they can't be that bad.

What kind of blocks do you guys run at the back in conjunction then?
I think I might be sold! . Yay indeed.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jan 2010)

From '96 to '98, I rode all my Audax rides, including the Castleton Classic on 52/38 to 13 - 23.
The bike was 24lb.
In '98, I rode the TdeF 1st stage round Co. Wicklow on that bike.

I was stronger then.

My Dawes Giro is the same weight and has a triple. It came as standard.
I only use the 30T ring when the gradient gets to one chevron on the OS map.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jan 2010)

From '96 to '98, I rode all my Audax rides, including the Castleton Classic on 52/38 to 13 - 23.
The bike was 24lb.
In '98, I rode the TdeF 1st stage round Co. Wicklow on that bike.

I was stronger then.

My Dawes Giro is the same weight and has a triple. It came as standard.
I only use the 30T ring when the gradient gets to one chevron on the OS map.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jan 2010)

From '96 to '98, I rode all my Audax rides, including the Castleton Classic on 52/38 to 13 - 23.
The bike was 24lb.
In '98, I rode the TdeF 1st stage round Co. Wicklow on that bike.

I was stronger then.

My Dawes Giro is the same weight and has a triple. It came as standard.
I only use the 30T ring when the gradient gets to one chevron on the OS map.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> every mountain bike I've ever seen has a triple



keep your eyes peeled then as SRAM's top end XX MTB group set is 'only' a double with a wide range 10 speed cassette. Coming to a high end MTB near you soon, I'd say.

fwiw I'm a tourist type with rack and mudguards etc., fitted and thus have an MTB style cassette on't back end of my triple equipped road bike.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> every mountain bike I've ever seen has a triple



keep your eyes peeled then as SRAM's top end XX MTB group set is 'only' a double with a wide range 10 speed cassette. Coming to a high end MTB near you soon, I'd say.

fwiw I'm a tourist type with rack and mudguards etc., fitted and thus have an MTB style cassette on't back end of my triple equipped road bike.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> every mountain bike I've ever seen has a triple



keep your eyes peeled then as SRAM's top end XX MTB group set is 'only' a double with a wide range 10 speed cassette. Coming to a high end MTB near you soon, I'd say.

fwiw I'm a tourist type with rack and mudguards etc., fitted and thus have an MTB style cassette on't back end of my triple equipped road bike.


----------



## I am Spartacus (18 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> keep your eyes peeled then as SRAM's top end XX *MTB group set is 'only' a double with a wide range 10 speed cassette. *Coming to a high end MTB near you soon, I'd say.
> 
> fwiw I'm a tourist type with rack and mudguards etc., fitted and thus have an MTB style cassette on't back end of my triple equipped road bike.



sweet... you have to bear in mind that an uphill section on a trail is where you need those lo gears with difficult terrain to negotiate... on the road?
if you need a 26" gear to get up a hill... then you have clearly bonked and need to call for a taxi home


----------



## I am Spartacus (18 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> keep your eyes peeled then as SRAM's top end XX *MTB group set is 'only' a double with a wide range 10 speed cassette. *Coming to a high end MTB near you soon, I'd say.
> 
> fwiw I'm a tourist type with rack and mudguards etc., fitted and thus have an MTB style cassette on't back end of my triple equipped road bike.



sweet... you have to bear in mind that an uphill section on a trail is where you need those lo gears with difficult terrain to negotiate... on the road?
if you need a 26" gear to get up a hill... then you have clearly bonked and need to call for a taxi home


----------



## I am Spartacus (18 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> keep your eyes peeled then as SRAM's top end XX *MTB group set is 'only' a double with a wide range 10 speed cassette. *Coming to a high end MTB near you soon, I'd say.
> 
> fwiw I'm a tourist type with rack and mudguards etc., fitted and thus have an MTB style cassette on't back end of my triple equipped road bike.



sweet... you have to bear in mind that an uphill section on a trail is where you need those lo gears with difficult terrain to negotiate... on the road?
if you need a 26" gear to get up a hill... then you have clearly bonked and need to call for a taxi home


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

I am Spartacus said:


> if you need a 26" gear to get up a hill... then you have clearly bonked and need to call for a taxi home



bit harsh...

...you might be unfit, like me, or have loads of luggage aboard and are climbing an alpine pass, or just not used to cycling long uphills, or have knackered knees...

...but your point is taken


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

I am Spartacus said:


> if you need a 26" gear to get up a hill... then you have clearly bonked and need to call for a taxi home



bit harsh...

...you might be unfit, like me, or have loads of luggage aboard and are climbing an alpine pass, or just not used to cycling long uphills, or have knackered knees...

...but your point is taken


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

I am Spartacus said:


> if you need a 26" gear to get up a hill... then you have clearly bonked and need to call for a taxi home



bit harsh...

...you might be unfit, like me, or have loads of luggage aboard and are climbing an alpine pass, or just not used to cycling long uphills, or have knackered knees...

...but your point is taken


----------



## Landslide (18 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> ...go for a Rohloff, rediscover simplicity...



For all their external lack of multiple cogs, I'm pretty sure I'd never describe a Rohloff as simple!!!


----------



## Landslide (18 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> ...go for a Rohloff, rediscover simplicity...



For all their external lack of multiple cogs, I'm pretty sure I'd never describe a Rohloff as simple!!!


----------



## Hacienda71 (18 Jan 2010)

+1 for a triple


----------



## Hacienda71 (18 Jan 2010)

+1 for a triple


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jan 2010)

You could have the gearbox up the front end.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jan 2010)

You could have the gearbox up the front end.


----------



## Ian H (18 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> Wow. Thumbs up all 'round then.
> 
> What kind of blocks do you guys run at the back in conjunction then?
> I think I might be sold! . Yay indeed.



On the audax machine, 46/36/28 at the front, I run a 13-26 cassette. I dislike wide-ratio cassettes. On the road bike I run the same cogs but with 52/42 on the front.


----------



## Ian H (18 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> Wow. Thumbs up all 'round then.
> 
> What kind of blocks do you guys run at the back in conjunction then?
> I think I might be sold! . Yay indeed.



On the audax machine, 46/36/28 at the front, I run a 13-26 cassette. I dislike wide-ratio cassettes. On the road bike I run the same cogs but with 52/42 on the front.


----------



## GrasB (18 Jan 2010)

I personally find that navigating 2 chainrings & double shifting far simpler than navigating a triple & doing smaller steps when double shifting. What you have to understand is that every setup you can have is a compromise & I simply find that a compact chainset for me has less compromises that I notice. So it really does depend on how you ride & what your fitness/strength level is.


----------



## GrasB (18 Jan 2010)

I personally find that navigating 2 chainrings & double shifting far simpler than navigating a triple & doing smaller steps when double shifting. What you have to understand is that every setup you can have is a compromise & I simply find that a compact chainset for me has less compromises that I notice. So it really does depend on how you ride & what your fitness/strength level is.


----------



## just jim (18 Jan 2010)

Couldn't you put a cassette with a wider ratio on the back and pair it up with a long caged rear derailleur? Just wondering, since I've gone for the compact double choice myself!


----------



## just jim (18 Jan 2010)

Couldn't you put a cassette with a wider ratio on the back and pair it up with a long caged rear derailleur? Just wondering, since I've gone for the compact double choice myself!


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

I once set up a bike with it's standard double 52/42 and 7 speed Megarange block.

It was a 14 – 34 screw-on freewheel.
That gave a one off, bailout low gear of 33". A much more cost effective option than getting a 30 tooth chainring triple to get 32" with a 25 tooth sprocket.

The problem was,, when the chain was running on the Megarange sprocket, the rear mech chattered because it was pushing the chain onto the sprocket teeth.
That ratio wasn't used very often, so I just 'put up' with the noise.


----------



## MacB (19 Jan 2010)

just noticed that Spa are doing a new 9 speed cassette with a range 12-36 - aimed at the 29er market but would imagine it'll work well with a standard double.


----------



## De Sisti (19 Jan 2010)

All of my bikes have triples. The "sportive" one has a 50/34/26 chainring and a 9 speed 12/13/15/17/19/21/23/25/28 cassette.

Best of both worlds I suppose. 

_(And no, I don't have any problems shifting between the front chainrings)._


----------



## wafflycat (19 Jan 2010)

Mine all have triple chainsets. 

Triples & doubles come and go with fashion. Currently the fashion is for double 'compact' chainsets. I am glad I am not bothered by fashion. I need and like a triple chainset.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (19 Jan 2010)

i think the snobbery about triples comes about because you don't see the pros using them (although indurain used to, apparently).

of course, if had a mechanic who would fit the perfect ratios for each day's ride, i wouldn't need a triple, but until then…


----------



## Ian H (19 Jan 2010)

alecstilleyedye said:


> i think the snobbery about triples comes about because you don't see the pros using them (although indurain used to, apparently).



Yes, but they're racing. No one here's talking about racing bikes.


----------



## Bloke (19 Jan 2010)

Another question - are the new triples compatible with a ten speed block yeah? And what kind of redundancy do you have in the gears - can you be in the smallest ring on the front and smallest at the back, and largest at front and back or is that too much crossover? - Can the middle ring at the front use all ten ratio's at the back?


----------



## Ian H (19 Jan 2010)

I set mine up as a fairly close-ratio double plus an escape ring. So in other words my set-up is closer to racing, if you ignore the granny ring, than your wide-ratio compact.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (19 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> Another question - are the new triples compatible with a ten speed block yeah? And what kind of redundancy do you have in the gears - can you be in the smallest ring on the front and smallest at the back, and largest at front and back or is that too much crossover? - Can the middle ring at the front use all ten ratio's at the back?



yes. the length of the rear mech will determine how big a big sprocket you can handle. a short arm mech is reckoned to be good to about 27, but i've seen a clubmate with 34 on a long armed mech. my tiagra groupset came with a long armed mech.


----------



## Greenbank (19 Jan 2010)

It's all about what it'll be used for.

For 10 mile TTs and fast training round Richmond Park or the Surrey Hills I'll use the Wilier with a compact double. Most of the time I'd be on the big chainring and only on the smaller chainring for the hills. A triple on these kinds of rides would be overkill, I just wouldn't use the small chainring.

If I'm on a hilly 300km Audax that goes the length of the peak district twice (South to North to South) then I'll take the triple. Most of the time I'll be on the middle chainring with the big chainring for long downhill sections and the small chainring for grinding up the hills.

For me, a compact setup for these rides start off ok but then get annoying once I get tired and I want to flick between gears that are just below the bottom of the large chainring.

A 100 mile sportive is somewhere in between, so I'd probably err on the side of a compact rather than a triple. But if I was buying one bike to do more varied types of riding, including slogging up and down hills in the depths of winter, it'd be a triple.


----------



## GrasB (19 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> Another question - are the new triples compatible with a ten speed block yeah?


Yes



> And what kind of redundancy do you have in the gears - can you be in the smallest ring on the front and smallest at the back, and largest at front and back or is that too much crossover? - Can the middle ring at the front use all ten ratio's at the back?


The manufactures considered wisdom is you lose the top 3 gears on the bottom chainring, the top & bottom gear in the middle chainring & the bottom 3 gears on the top chainring. Usually you can get away with a losing 2 gears on the top & bottom chainrings with a full cassette selection from the middle without things getting noisy.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

alecstilleyedye said:


> i think the snobbery about triples comes about because you don't see the pros using them (although indurain used to, apparently).
> 
> *of course, if had a mechanic who would fit the perfect ratios for each day's ride,* i wouldn't need a triple, but until then…



_Become_ a mechanic who fits the perfect ratios for the day's ride.

All the calculation software is on the internet.


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 Jan 2010)

Triple is fine on a Road bike and offers more flexibility over uncertain terrain or when you're knackered etc. with very little downside.
Compacts have IMO a nasty hole in the their ratios requireing more double shifting than a triple and frankly I can't be arsed to mess about with 2 levers to find the next gear I want.
Triples, hubs and fixedwheels are the only decent gearing options unless you're racing!


----------



## MacB (20 Jan 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> Triples, hubs and fixedwheels are the only decent gearing options unless you're racing!



what about a super compact, say 26/42 or 29/44, this gives pretty darn close to a Rohloff and avoids double changes as the inner would only be a bail out.


----------



## Ian H (20 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> what about a super compact, say 26/42 or 29/44, this gives pretty darn close to a Rohloff and avoids double changes as the inner would only be a bail out.



So effectively a single ring with a granny. The only trouble for me would be the need for a wider-ratio cassette. I like narrow changes and the ability to keep a constant cadence - keeping the rhythm going.


----------



## Bloke (20 Jan 2010)

THanks for all the answers lads. Appreciate it.

One more for ye:

The advantage of a compact for me was that all I had to buy was the two front sprockets and fit them, everything else stayed as it was. So it was a cheap and effective mod.

-With the triple, is it as simple as that? I'm getting from some of the posts that the rear mech might be triple specific. - Is the front derailleur specific as well for dealing with three ratios?

-I suppose what I'm asking is, if I go for a new bike with a triple and I fancy changing back (to a double or compact), does it entail purchasing a whole new chainset?


----------



## Greenbank (20 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> -I suppose what I'm asking is, if I go for a new bike with a triple and I fancy changing back (to a double or compact), does it entail purchasing a whole new chainset?



Depends on exactly what make/model/year of gears you have, but you may need to buy a new:-

* rear mech - triples mean there is a greater difference between the smallest and largest chainrings meaning that the rear mech has to be table to take up a larger amount of slack chain. This is the 'capacity' of a rear mech. In general, you'll probably need a new rear mech if the existing one is a short cage. Medium cage you might be ok swapping between compact and triple. Long cage you'll be fine. If you have a triple and go to compact then you'll be fine, there's no problem running a compact with a long cage rear mech (although the purists will scoff at anything but a short cage rear mech).

* bottom bracket - triples often require a different length bottom bracket axle as they need to be slightly further out and have a larger Q-factor. A double or compact may work on it but will not be perfectly aligned.

* front mech - sometimes you might need a new front mech for a triple, but a triple front mech should handle a double.

* front STI/Ergo lever - sometimes you'll need to change the ergo/STI lever too if you move from double to triple or vice versa, as you don't want to be able to over-shift and ship the chain

Again, this is a generalisation as Shimano/Campag/SRAM, groupset name (105/Ultegra/Centaur/Veloce/Red/Force/etc) will differ, even from year to year.

So, no, it's not just as simple as swapping the chainset over.

A good bike shop will be able to help you. A crap bike shop will too, but their advice might be rubbish.


----------



## GrasB (20 Jan 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> Triple is fine on a Road bike and offers more flexibility over uncertain terrain or when you're knackered etc. with very little downside.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Triples, hubs and fixedwheels are the only decent gearing options unless you're racing!


This is a personal view, IME the extra shifting complexity of a triple is a real downside as I have to think much more about chainring selection. The only triple which kinda works for me is a 26/36/48 but then I so rarely use the 26t chainring don't see much point.



> Compacts have IMO a nasty hole in the their ratios requireing more double shifting than a triple and frankly I can't be arsed to mess about with 2 levers to find the next gear I want.


I find I need to double shift on triple chainring swaps anyway. Maybe having bar-end shifters at my finger tips on bull horns or up until recently grip shifts on flat bars means that double shifting is double shifting be it a 1 or 10 gear change at the back. Not having used STIs or thumb shifters in a long time maybe that does limit your ability to double shift smoothly but I just don't know.


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> This is a personal view, IME the extra shifting complexity of a triple is a real downside as I have to think much more about chainring selection. The only triple which kinda works for me is a 26/36/48 but then I so rarely use the 26t chainring don't see much point.
> 
> 
> I find I need to double shift on triple chainring swaps anyway. Maybe having bar-end shifters at my finger tips on bull horns or up until recently grip shifts on flat bars means that double shifting is double shifting be it a 1 or 10 gear change at the back. Not having used STIs or thumb shifters in a long time maybe that does limit your ability to double shift smoothly but I just don't know.



Of course it's a personal opinion... most are!

I find with a 52/42/30 and a 11 to 25 rear, medium cage mech the shifting is really easy peasy... but that's just my opinion... so there


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2010)

Really honestly seriously, do people really think about what gear they are in? I just go by feel, of my legs ansd lungs and heart, and sound of the chainset and mechs; if it is quiet on we go.

I've got sora on my tourer/road/utility bike and someone, riding something much more up market, once criticised the shifter for not having a numeric display on them. Do you really need an arrow and a number to know where you are, and what your options are, gear wise?

As most of my cycling in recent years has been on mtb's if I need to know what gear I'm in to that level of precision then something has prob gone wrong in which case I'll look at the cassette or the chainrings.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

The gears you NEED.

1/ A gear which allows you to ride at the Maximum efficiency speed at YOUR natural cadence.

2/ A gear to ascend a 5% hill.

3/ A gear to get up a 10% hill.

4/ A gear to get up a 12% hill.

5/ A gear to get up a 14% hill.

6/ A gear to get up a 16% hill.

7/ A gear to get up a 20% hill.

Any others are a luxury.

Gear 1/ can be determined by assessing YOUR natural cadence, power output at that cadence and the Roadload curve of your bike.

The other gears can be determined two ways. I prefer the old method because the other method involves even more maths.

As you can see, you only NEED seven gears, which can be sorted on a single ring and cassette with seven sprockets, custom built to your results.
The cassette may have nine. That means you could have two gears which are higher than 1/ for favourable wind conditions and slight descents.


----------



## MacB (21 Jan 2010)

So a 40t ring and 12-34 cassette you reckon then Jim?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The gears you NEED
> 
> ....
> 
> Any others are a luxury.



Great post. Don't the gears you need vary with the load you are carrying and to a lesser degree the strength of your legs?


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> So a 40t ring and 12-34 cassette you reckon then Jim?



Workable.

How heavy is the bike?


----------



## MacB (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Workable.
> 
> How heavy is the bike?



Doesn't exist yet but would be 30lbs plus


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> Doesn't exist yet but would be 30lbs plus



For a 30lb er, I'd go for a 36 ring to a 11-34 Shimano XT cassette.

That has a 64" gear which would give me 82 cadence at 15.5 mph.
It would be in seventh position, which is where it's supposed to be on a 9 cassette.


----------



## TheDoctor (21 Jan 2010)

I'd go triple myself - you may not often need the inner ring but when you need it, you're stuffed if you haven't got it!!
For Alpine stuff I'll always gear as low as possible - I've gone as low as a 25" gear before. And used it.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

Cranksets with two chainrings were developed a long time ago when rear freewheels had two or three sprockets. They were a way of doubling the numbers of gears on the bike.

Today, we have triples. 

My triple is set up so my 'cruising' gear is in the middle of the ratios associated to the middle chainring.
For the majority of my riding, I only need to flick the rear changer.

I have the middle seven sprockets on the nine cassette going to the middle chainring.

I have engineered the gearing so 65" ( my Max efficiency gear ) is the middle of the whole series of fifteen ratios.

Only when there is a fierce tailwind I use the large ring, and up steep hills I use the small ring.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

To expand on this theme.

For choosing the low gears, there is an old bit of witchcraft which is so simple, it defies belief.

It is however, based around a 'half decent' cyclist.

In years gone by, the gears would be fitted, the rider told where the hills are and it wouldn't be long before he became a 'half decent' cyclist.

Today, newbie buyers of bikes don't seem to have the time or willpower to become a 'half decent' cyclist by the 'ride up grades, don't ride upgrades' method, so we see Compacts and Triples on Roadrace bikes.

To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

Don't get me wrong, triples are welcome in the Touring and Audax fraternities. 

I draw the line at Sportives of less than 100 miles. These are 'mock races' where a time is scored and a medal given depending on the rider's result. All publicity denies they are races, but any event where a timing is scored is as much a race as anything, encouraging competitive spirit.
Anyone riding a Sportive with triple should be riding an Audax instead attempting to get round at the Max speed limit.

I say this because Sportives cost multiples of the price of Audaxes. If you need to pack a triple on a Sportive, you may as well save a lot of cash and go on the Audax.

Even if you do finish a Sportive in good time with a triple, you will be thought of as 'taking the easy option' by the others and there will be no kudos at the finish.

So if Sportives are your bag, consider the lack of kudos you'll get if you go with a triple.


----------



## I am Spartacus (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Today, newbie buyers of bikes don't seem to have the time or willpower to become a 'half decent' cyclist by the 'ride up grades, don't ride upgrades' method, so we see Compacts and Triples on Roadrace bikes.To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.


oi , mush, 
I like me compact
B)


----------



## GrasB (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.


So a 39/53 & 12-27 block is for a strong cyclist but a 34/50 with 11-23 block is for a lazy/weak cyclist?.... something doesn't quite work there! Let me explain; the 'double' setup gives you 38 to 116" & the compact is 39 to 120"


----------



## MacB (21 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> So a 39/53 & 12-27 block is for a strong cyclist but a 34/50 with 11-23 block is for a lazy/weak cyclist?.... something doesn't quite work there! Let me explain; the 'double' setup gives you 38 to 116" & the compact is 39 to 120" B)



I think he meant to say lazy AND weak, not or


----------



## GrasB (21 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> I think he meant to say lazy AND weak, not or


Kinda immaterial, as the compact setup gives more gears across a marginally higher & wider ratio set.


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Today, newbie buyers of bikes don't seem to have the time or willpower to become a 'half decent' cyclist by the 'ride up grades, don't ride upgrades' method, so we see Compacts and Triples on Roadrace bikes.
> 
> To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.



Load of old old-bollocks alert...


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Great post. Don't the gears you need vary with the load you are carrying and to a lesser degree the strength of your legs?



Don't encourage him...B)


----------



## Dave5N (21 Jan 2010)

No


----------



## Dave5N (21 Jan 2010)

Sorry, that didn't answer the OP properly.

Nay.


----------



## Bloke (21 Jan 2010)

I personally couldn't give a fiddlers for what others think of my achievements or my gearing, I just want to enjoy my cycling on a bike that's ideally set up for me & the way I ride. I love spinning a constant hummingbird cadence and adjusting my pace incrementally and constantly with my gears. I live in the foothills of the Dublin and Wicklow "mountains" so I actually can't go for a spin without encountering hills, which suits me cos I like 'em and consider them great value-for-time-spent training. If I'm on a flat or rolling ride I'm on the gears all the time, spinning at my highest comfortable cadence, so I hate the fact that when I hit a steep hill my only option is to clunk into 1st and slog in the saddle or stand on the pedals. I'd dearly love to have lower ratios to play with, keep my cadence up and climb the hill faster and more efficiently as a result.


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> I personally couldn't give a fiddlers for what others think of my achievements or my gearing, I just want to enjoy my cycling on a bike that's ideally set up for me & the way I ride. I love spinning a constant hummingbird cadence and adjusting my pace incrementally and constantly with my gears. I live in the foothills of the Dublin and Wicklow "mountains" so I actually can't go for a spin without encountering hills, which suits me cos I like 'em and consider them great value-for-time-spent training. If I'm on a flat or rolling ride I'm on the gears all the time, spinning at my highest comfortable cadence, so I hate the fact that when I hit a steep hill my only option is to clunk into 1st and slog in the saddle or stand on the pedals. I'd dearly love to have lower ratios to play with, keep my cadence up and climb the hill faster and more efficiently as a result.



I like you bloke... you talk sense... you'll have to stop that on CC!


----------



## zacklaws (22 Jan 2010)

An excerpt from "Pro Secrets", part of an article by Greg Lemond:-

"*Use Appropriate Gears. *If your favourite pro climber uses a 39x21 tooth gear on a given climb, why are you tackling a similar gradient in the 23?

*Example! *Look at it this way: Pro riders can be competitive on any climb if they produce 6-7 watts of power per kilogram of body weight. If they weigh 70kg (154 pounds) they need to churn out 420 - 490 watts. The average pro can generate more than 400 watts on medium length climbs. Lance Armstrong generated in excess of 500 watts in a 35 to 40 minute climb. The average masters-age racer in contrast, manages 250 to 300 watts.

So the question becomes: If Lance put out almost twice as much power on a climb, why are you using a gear only 2 teeth easier?

Get a 27 tooth big cog, or swallow your false pride and invest in a triple crankset. Then you'll be able to keep your cadence above 80rpm, save your knees and climb faster than you would if you were slogging away in the 23"



I think that about sums it up, who can argue with someone who was better than all of us ever will be.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (22 Jan 2010)

Don't be swayed by real science, rational thought and experience! 
Not when so much 'real' knowledge is available (whether you like it or not) from internet gurus and endless old gits in cycling clubs up and down the country.


----------



## wafflycat (22 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> To expand on this theme.
> 
> For choosing the low gears, there is an old bit of witchcraft which is so simple, it defies belief.
> 
> ...




You are Bobby Clamp and ICMFP!


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

Bloke said:


> I personally couldn't give a fiddlers for what others think of my achievements or my gearing, I just want to enjoy my cycling on a bike that's ideally set up for me & the way I ride. I love spinning a constant hummingbird cadence and adjusting my pace incrementally and constantly with my gears. I live in the foothills of the Dublin and Wicklow "mountains" so I actually can't go for a spin without encountering hills, which suits me cos I like 'em and consider them great value-for-time-spent training. If I'm on a flat or rolling ride I'm on the gears all the time, spinning at my highest comfortable cadence, so I hate the fact that when I hit a steep hill my only option is to clunk into 1st and slog in the saddle or stand on the pedals. I'd dearly love to have lower ratios to play with, keep my cadence up and climb the hill faster and more efficiently as a result.









Here's the route I rode the day before the TdF in '98.

I was on my old 22.5lb Pug with a 38 x 23 lowest. I had to use it 'cus a group of lads from Essex who I rode with were totally shagged and I wasn't going to leave them.

So you've go plenty of hills.

Wish I could get to some hills like that in half an hour. Birmingham and the West Midlands are as flat as a pancake.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2010)

If I did a big long sportive on a triple and got round faster than some person with a double and they sneered at the triple that is their problem not mine. They lost. I don't expect them to congratulate me for having smarter tactics and better technology than them.

I've had similar on shorter rides.... 
He's got mudguards. 
Yeah and a rack. 
Bloody Tourist what was his time? 
Faster than yours so shut up.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

Serious now.

Let’s take the favourite 10% gradient.

For example, a cyclist rides along at 18.5 mph and is putting 200 Watts into it.

Climbing up the 10%, his speed will reduce to one third ( 6.2 mph ) and the power required will approximately increase by 50% to 300 Watts.

What gear is required to ride at 6.2 mph at 80 cadence? It happens to be 27” or a 28 chainring to 28 sprocket 1:1 ratio.

How many ROAD bikes have this gear? Only very recent ones where the manufacturers have identified their customers haven’t much cycling experience.

The normal situation is that a 10% hill will be climbed in something like a 40” gear, 30 ring to 20 sprocket, or 39 ring to 27 sprocket, or other combinations with 34, 36 and 38 tooth chainrings.

So does it matter what size chainring the bike has?

Let’s go mental and try a 20 % hill.

Speed will be something like 3 mph at 300 Watts into the cranks. The bike will need a gear down at 21”, or 28 ring and 36 sprocket for the rider to turn the cranks at 50 rpm.

Only Touring and MTBs have these kind of gears.
Roadies are seen struggling at 35 rpm on a 30 ring and 27 sprocket.


Climbing up hills steeper that 8% at 80 cadence is really ‘out of the question’ on a road bike, even one with a 30 ring and 27 sprocket.

And the way to have a 30 tooth chainring, is to fit a triple.


----------



## MrRidley (22 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Serious now.
> 
> Let’s take the favourite 10% gradient.
> 
> ...



That must be where i'm going wrong Jimbo, i have none of the above combo's on my road bike (30,42,52) (12-25) so that explains why i'm crap going up hills.


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 Jan 2010)

bhoyjim said:


> That must be where i'm going wrong Jimbo, i have none of the above combo's on my road bike (30,42,52) (12-25) so that explains why i'm crap going up hills.



 Me too


----------



## Bloke (23 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Here's the route I rode the day before the TdF in '98.
> 
> I was on my old 22.5lb Pug with a 38 x 23 lowest. I had to use it 'cus a group of lads from Essex who I rode with were totally shagged and I wasn't going to leave them.
> 
> ...




That's my back yard!  -I've been lazy over christmas but generally I'm up and down those hills three times a week, on a compact. And perfectly manageable (once I'm fit). I just like the idea of the triple and I think I'm gonna give it a shot. - It's not like I need 10 gears that are lower than my compact first gear, but two or three would be great. - I can still choose to climb in the equivalent of my current first gear, but I'll have the option on shorter sharper sections to climb at a higher cadence.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

bhoyjim said:


> That must be where i'm going wrong Jimbo, i have none of the above combo's on my road bike (30,42,52) (12-25) so that explains why i'm crap going up hills.



Are you a total dimwit?

Your bike has a 30 ring and 21 sprocket which is 38". You should fly up a 10%.


----------



## HJ (26 Jan 2010)

Riding a triple is better than walking...


----------



## Fab Foodie (26 Jan 2010)

HJ said:


> Riding a triple is better than walking...


Amen to that.


----------



## GrasB (27 Jan 2010)

I think we've missed something, if you really want a wide gear range you can't do much better than a Rolhoff with a 'classical double' 39/53... with 700x23c tyres & a 16t rear sprocket that's 18 to 128 inches. You can go for a 'cross 38/46 w/17.5"-111" or 39/54 w/18"-130" both of which give you a slightly more even ratio set but are a little harder to come by cheaply. Go to the hills & spin because 18" = 5.3mph @ 100rpm


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

I have found that on the same hill, in the same gear, I can ride faster if I stand up and 'Honk'.

I also find it is difficult to honk at 100 rpm, so I don't use gears that make me spin at over 80 rpm.

For 5.3 mph, I would use a higher gear and alternate between sitting and honking. Speeding up when honking and slowing when sitting.

I also found that saddle soreness starts earlier after I have ridden up a hill at 100 rpm, so I don't do it.

To these ends, the 32" lowest on my triple will get me up a 16% at 40 rpm.

5.3 mph at 100 rpm would be a 22 ring to 33 sprocket; and be applicable to a 12% hill.


----------



## Greenbank (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> 5.3 mph at 100 rpm would be a 22 ring to 33 sprocket; and be applicable to a 12% hill.



For an average rider (weight, height, etc) 5.3mph up a 12% hill requires about 245W. Good work if you can keep that up!

(Plugging figures into: http://web.archive.org/web/20071212072421/http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm )


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

Greenbank said:


> For an average rider (weight, height, etc) 5.3mph up a 12% hill requires about 245W. Good work if you can keep that up!
> 
> (Plugging figures into: http://web.archive.org/web/20071212072421/http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm )



For a fully laden tourer with a Rolhoff, I had it more like *3*45 W. 

Nearly 'flat out'.


----------



## TheDoctor (28 Jan 2010)

FFS, jimbo, does it really matter?
Does anyone actually give a monkeys precisely how much power you need to get up a 1:12 at 5.3 mph with a Rolhoff?
The OP asked about a triple on a road bike...


----------



## GrasB (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I have found that on the same hill, in the same gear, I can ride faster if I stand up and 'Honk'.
> 
> I also find it is difficult to honk at 100 rpm, so I don't use gears that make me spin at over 80 rpm.
> 
> ...


blah blah woof woof... Personally I've consistently found I can climb faster for longer spinning than honking & when climbing fatigue sets in I don't drop nearly as much speed. So thing is jimbo it gives you far more options than a cassette/chainring combination. There's nothing stopping you from honking up a hill using a 32" gear & there's nothing stopping me spinning up at 80-100ppm which is what works for me.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> FFS, jimbo, does it really matter?
> Does anyone actually give a monkeys precisely how much power you need to get up a 1:12 at 5.3 mph with a Rolhoff?
> The OP asked about a triple on a road bike...



Up to now, every reader on this forum has had my help ( some of the brighter sparks might even understand it ) for FREE.

That stops now.

No more gearing, power, calories, windchill, physiology... blah blah, woof woof....


----------



## MacB (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Up to now, every reader on this forum has had my help ( some of the brighter sparks might even understand it ) for FREE.
> 
> That stops now.
> 
> No more gearing, power, calories, windchill, physiology... blah blah, woof woof....




How about a 11-34 with a compact 26/42 Jim? ultimate touring/social option, or nonsense?


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> How about a 11-34 with a compact 26/42 Jim? ultimate touring/social option, or nonsense?



Sorry McB, you won't catch me out that soon...

TheDoctor seems to think he's the spokesman for the whole membership.

If there is anyone interested, PM me.


----------



## TheDoctor (28 Jan 2010)

Ohhh, get her!!
*gets handbag*

EDIT - No Jim, I just happen to disagree with you.
It's not a personal attack, however much you might try to spin it as one.
I'm not arrogant enough to think I have all the answers.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> Ohhh, get her!!
> *gets handbag*
> 
> EDIT - No Jim, I just happen to disagree with you.
> ...



What do you disagree with?


----------



## TheDoctor (28 Jan 2010)

You.


----------



## MrRidley (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Are you a total dimwit?
> 
> Your bike has a 30 ring and 21 sprocket which is 38". You should fly up a 10%.



Have you factored in wind conditions, dodgy knees etc, maybe if we were all smart arses like you there would be no need for forums like this.

Signed 

Dimwit


----------



## Greenbank (28 Jan 2010)

Looks like some people have forgotten the motto of this place.

Or they've just forgotten to take their pills this morning.


----------



## MacB (28 Jan 2010)

Lighten up folks, Jimbo brings the magic for the dedicated to work things out Some of the more uncouth, like me, may just say you've got 3 options:-

1. you're serious, or fit enough, or will be fit enough, that big road gears make sense.
2. you're never going to use those big gears but status means you want them, you wouldn't be seen dead with a compact or a triple. 
3. you don't give a stuff about the status you just want gears that'll work with you. So you gear a bike from 20 to 100, or less, inches and crack on.

Option 2 will see rarely or never used gears at the top, option 3 may see rarely or never used gears at the bottom. I know which one makes more sense


----------



## rich p (28 Jan 2010)

I have no objection to Jimbo posting his smoke and mirrors codswallop but he should try not to get riled when others disagree with him; it borders on the arrogant.


----------



## steve52 (28 Jan 2010)

i have a compact ,and wish id gone for a tripple


----------



## mickle (28 Jan 2010)

Triple on a tourer, double on a road bike. *IT'S THE RULES! *

Move along please folks, nothing to see here.


----------



## mickle (28 Jan 2010)

And, triples make your rear derailleur look stoopid. Which should be enough reason for anybody.


----------



## MacB (28 Jan 2010)

mickle said:


> And, triples make your rear derailleur look stoopid. Which should be enough reason for anybody.



sorry Mickle but, aesthetically, a derailelr looks pretty stupid any way you cut it


----------



## I am Spartacus (28 Jan 2010)

mickle said:


> And, triples make your rear derailleur look stoopid. Which should be enough reason for anybody.


'bout time someone stated the truth


----------



## MacB (28 Jan 2010)

I am Spartacus said:


> 'bout time someone stated the truth



what, like a Rohloff makes it look even better?


----------



## I am Spartacus (28 Jan 2010)

Who mentioned the war?


----------



## I am Spartacus (28 Jan 2010)

Long cage dérailleurs have all the appeal of a baboon's piles.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

rich p said:


> I have no objection to Jimbo posting his smoke and mirrors codswallop but he should try not to get riled when others disagree with him; it borders on the arrogant.



http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3523

Here's a link with some smoke and mirrors I frequently keep going back to, to restock my codswallop.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jan 2010)

This isnt jimbo, it's his son sat infront of his PC ( Apple rules ).

he's gone to check the dinner.

This forum is PANTS.


----------



## MacB (28 Jan 2010)

I am Spartacus said:


> Long cage dérailleurs have all the appeal of a baboon's piles.



must be an awareness thing, I couldn't even tell you what most peoples deraillers look like.


----------



## mickle (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> This isnt jimbo, it's his son sat infront of his PC ( Apple rules ).
> 
> he's gone to check the dinner.
> 
> This forum is PANTS.



As if.


----------



## goo_mason (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> This isnt jimbo, it's his son sat infront of his PC ( Apple rules ).
> 
> he's gone to check the dinner.
> 
> This forum is PANTS.




This forum is actually TROUSERS. Fact.


----------



## rich p (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3523
> 
> Here's a link with some smoke and mirrors I frequently keep going back to, to restock my codswallop.



You're missing the point again. It's not the cod science I object to, it's your arrogance, intransigence and refusal to see the other person's point of view.


----------



## GrasB (28 Jan 2010)

Just had a thought, Rolhoff with a 32/39/53 triple 13t sprocket & 700x28c tyres delivers 18.5-160" gearing. So now we have MacB's desire for a more bail-out gears than you should ever need & Jimbo's desire for big gears that he can push at 40ppm.


----------



## lazyfatgit (28 Jan 2010)

away and boil yer head ya bampot


----------



## MacB (28 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> Just had a thought, Rolhoff with a 32/39/53 triple 13t sprocket & 700x28c tyres delivers 18.5-160" gearing. So now we have MacB's desire for a more bail-out gears than you should ever need & Jimbo's desire for big gears that he can push at 40ppm.



Sorry mate, that's sacrilege, you can't mess up the beautiful lines of a Rohloff with multiple chainrings, I'm not going to sleep properly now you've put that image in my head.

By the way it's more bail out gears than YOU would ever need, for the rest of us mere mortals............................


----------



## GrasB (28 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> Sorry mate, that's sacrilege, you can't mess up the beautiful lines of a Rohloff with multiple chainrings, I'm not going to sleep properly now you've put that image in my head.


Oh yes you can & I will   



> By the way it's more bail out gears than YOU would ever need, for the rest of us mere mortals............................


With all due respect, 50ppm on an 18.5" gear is sub-3mph speed... imho if you need a gear that's lower than you've got serious problems as I doubt you'd be able to get off & push!


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> No more gearing, power, calories, windchill, physiology... blah blah, woof woof....



Is that a promise?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (28 Jan 2010)

goo_mason said:


> This forum is actually TROUSERS. Fact.



lycra tights actually…


----------



## r0bbti (28 Jan 2010)

steve52, can you tell me why?
I am just about to buy a new road bike and had pretty well decided on a specialized roubaix with a compact 34/54 chainring and 12/27 cassette. that gives me way more gears than my current 42/52 and 12/24 set-up.
I don't really understand this gearing in inches thing - in laymans terms, roughly how many more "easier" gears would I get on an average triple than a compact (as above)?


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2010)

34/54, you mean 34/50 right?

The difference between a compact & double in gears is dependent on the cassette, in ratio drop it will always be around the 15% mark. With a 12-27 cassette you gain 1 gear, for a typical 11-21 through to 12-25 you'll gain 2 gears apart from the rather rare 12-21 where you'll gain 3 gears.

Gearing inches are a good thing to get your head around, they let you compare gear ratios removing the problems of changing wheel sizes etc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> what, like a Rohloff makes it look even better?



serious question... are Rohloff's really as good as some make out? A real serious competitor to derailer gears or a draggy high maintenance expensive failure prone box of garbage.

cos I'm might seriously think about a rohloff equipped mtb becuase I am sick of rear mechs getting full of crap and along with front mechs not shifting properly.


----------



## wafflycat (29 Jan 2010)

Didn't Mark Beaumont, the guy who did the record-breaking cycle around the world have a Rohloff hub on his steed? 

Just checked - indeed it was so.

He had to resort to unplanned maintenance of said hub on several occasions IIRC from the TV progs.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Jan 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Didn't Mark Beaumont, the guy who did the record-breaking cycle around the world have a Rohloff hub on his steed?
> 
> Just checked - indeed it was so.
> 
> _He had to resort to unplanned maintenance of said hub on several occasions_ IIRC from the TV progs.



Interesting. unplanned maintenance, sometimes with a birmingham spanner or similar, is not entirely unheard of with derailer equiped mtb's.....


----------



## wafflycat (29 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Interesting. unplanned maintenance, sometimes with a birmingham spanner or similar, is not entirely unheard of with derailer equiped mtb's.....



Indeed this is true, but as the entire purpose of MB going for a Rohloff was the supposed utter reliability of it, it let him down an awful lot over the trip. He always seemed to be needing to fiddle with it.


----------



## adscrim (29 Jan 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Indeed this is true, but as the entire purpose of MB going for a Rohloff was the supposed utter reliability of it, it let him down an awful lot over the trip. He always seemed to be needing to fiddle with it.



Indeed, but the need to fiddle with ones equipment is not always due to faults with said equipment!

Didn't James Bowwhatshisface use a Rohloff belt drive? I was under the impression they were supposed to be more reliable in general but maybe more importantly, more difficult to break (vs it being very easy to bend a rear mech).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Jan 2010)

time to start a new thread I think......


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Jan 2010)

r0bbti said:


> steve52, can you tell me why?
> I am just about to buy a new road bike and had pretty well decided on a specialized roubaix with a compact 34/54 chainring and 12/27 cassette. that gives me way more gears than my current 42/52 and 12/24 set-up.
> I don't really understand this gearing in inches thing - in laymans terms, roughly how many more "easier" gears would I get on an average triple than a compact (as above)?




have a go with Sheldons gear calculator.

select 'Gear Inches' then plug-in your chainring sizes and select your rear cassette options.

The calculator will give you a ratio which demonstrates the differences between gears and the range between highest and lowest gears for a given set-up.

Thus compare 52/42 & 12-24, with 50/34 & 12-27 and also a triple of 52/42/30 &12-25 or 12-27 Cassettes to see the range and spacing between the gears.

Sheldon also explains gear inches elsewhere on his site. The calculators fun and useful, it also shows gear overlaps or where you have the same gears duplicated which might not be a good thing!


----------



## HJ (29 Jan 2010)

Move along now, move along, it is time this thread was moved to Room 101


----------



## jimboalee (29 Jan 2010)

HJ said:


> Move along now, move along, it is time this thread was moved to Room 101



Why?

Jimbo might butt in and say something like "try looking for a website calculator that tells you what gears you need on your bike for a hill of x% gradient".



Carry on lads, He's not.


----------



## P.H (29 Jan 2010)

wafflycat said:


> He had to resort to unplanned maintenance of said hub on several occasions IIRC from the TV progs.



I think you're mistaken.
He did have several problems with wheels, which made him question the choice of hub as he couldn't just swap wheels.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Jan 2010)

I use a triple on my Race Bike. I hear you say ! Its got sweet F.A to do with looks. I don t drive and sometimes find it hard to cadge a lift, which means I ride to alot of my local events,which sometimes can be upto 1 1/2 hours away. The triple allows me to do this. Add to this the fact there are some rather large hills around here.

Years ago (in the south -east anyway) my father tells me all "men" did it that way. There s no "rules" only fashion.

I use a double on my training bike for other reasons 53/42 with a 12/25 cassette. The triple is a 53/39/30 with either 12/23 or a 12/25 depending on event.

Who on earth in their right mind would want to use a gearboxes with wide ratios when they could have three with close ones.

The reason a lot of roadies frown on them is it comes from the world of mtb " and that would never do! wouldn t be seen dead and all that".

If your that much of a style Icon that you hate the look of rear mechs ride asingle speed.

Oh and by the way as some of you know the race bikes got S60s as well so put that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Who on earth in their right mind would want to use a gearboxes with wide ratios when they could have three with close ones.


Cause navigating a triple quickly is slow & requires thinking where a Rohloff gives you access to 14 gears instantly & if it's not quite right you can use the front chainring to give you 6.5-7% gearing steps? Since I'm now logging cadence & road speed I can see how I shift & it seems like I tend to do 2t jumps when going through the gears most of the time & it's only when I'm on a staticish cruise speed that I'll change in 1t steps. In short it looks like a Rohloff with a 38/46 chainring setup really makes sense for me.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Jan 2010)

What about when your climbing ?


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> What about when your climbing ?


When you ride an 79" gear up a 5-15% gradient suddenly exact gear becomes rather less than relevant... certainly not the quickest way to climb for me but I can do it though I will zig-zag a little on the steepest parts.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Jan 2010)

Using a triple can be tricky if you go about it the wrong way. Forget about gear inches and similar ratios. What you need to focus on is the chainwheel. Its simple after that.


----------



## Tollers (29 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Serious now.
> 
> Let’s take the favourite 10% gradient.
> 
> ...



Sure. Your calculations are sound (i've just built my own model to check). However, you have made 3 huge assumptions in your modelling:

1) The rider max mean power output over the long hill is 300w. The riders real mean climbing power and weight are critical inputs to this calculation.
2) The rider slows to 6.2mph (a conveniently nice round 10kph )
3) You chose the " fit rider in cycling clothes on a good touring bike" assumption. Which is probably reasonable generalisation, but not for all of us. My cycling weight (including bits is less than 80kg)

When i think about my riding as a reasonably athletic sort of guy going up a 10% hill with my compact 34x25 gearing, i can maintain an 76 cadence at 8 mph burning a heavy 340 watts. Not easy, and i'd prefer to go slower with a 34x27 but it's definitely not "out of the question for me to climbing up hills steeper that 8% at 80 cadence even one with a 30 ring and 27 sprocket".


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Using a triple can be tricky if you go about it the wrong way. Forget about gear inches and similar ratios. What you need to focus on is the chainwheel. Its simple after that.


See that's the problem with triples, because they have a fair amount of overlap working out what chainring to be on is a pita. With a compact setup it's high or low simple.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Jan 2010)

Exactly the same with a triple with an extra low gearbox can t see the problem. Look at the terrain select the ring use the cassette simple.


----------



## Tollers (29 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Climbing up hills steeper that 8% at 80 cadence is really ‘out of the question’ on a road bike, even one with a 30 ring and 27 sprocket.





bhoyjim said:


> That must be where i'm going wrong Jimbo, i have none of the above combo's on my road bike (30,42,52) (12-25) so that explains why i'm crap going up hills.





jimboalee said:


> Are you a total dimwit?
> 
> Your bike has a 30 ring and 21 sprocket which is 38". You should fly up a 10%.



Hold on. I read this as you saying that you can't go up anything steeper than 8% with gearing higher than 30x27 (i'm not sure where that statement came from, or if it's just a poorly phrased joke). Bhoyjim then points out that his gearing is higher, but then you shot him down (rudely) for listening to you and state the opposite to your original statement.

Think you should say sorry Jimbo!


----------



## GrasB (30 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Exactly the same with a triple with an extra low gearbox can t see the problem. Look at the terrain select the ring use the cassette simple.


50t chainring with a 13-26 cassette I have 12 to 36 (42mph for short periods) in theory on the flat in my comfort zone. The 34t chainring covers from 23mph (26mph) down. As I'm comfortably working on the top chainring for most of the time dropping to the bottom gives me the extended range I want.

The complication of a triple comes in that with the 52t chainring I'm dropping out of my comfort zone at 14mph, which is a little to high really. Then with the middle chain ring though I can sustain 26mph for reasonable periods that's at higher ppm so I've got to swap chainrings to put in some real power if I want to accelerate quickly from around 18mph up, now I can drop as low as 9mph in the middle chainring but for me that's a middle-of-nowhere speed. On the bottom chainring I'm tapping out for sustained cadence at 19mph which doesn't give a comfortable overlap with the top chainring.

The result is I'm always finding on a triple I'm having to put more thought into chainring selection & I swap chainrings more often. The triples more annoying ratio set is made to feel even more problematic when I can use a 13-29 cassette on a 34/50 compact without any noticeable ratio holes to my legs which gives me basically the same bottom end as the 30:26 combination & down hill scope for well passed 40mph.

Please take into consideration I'm talking about the way I ride & how the gear ratios work for me. I'm comfortable sustaining 120ppm & can hold 135ppm for short but sustained periods on the flat, when going down hill I can sustain 140-150ppm.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Jan 2010)

With ref. to the OP. Although my example may be extreme. The principle remains the same. After upto two hours or + flat out I still want to get home in one piece hence the triple. He wants to use aflat block on sportives etc. and have the insurance to get home. A compact is not the way to go.

How come you can get your head round all this theory,yet the selection of ring on a triple seems to bemuse you.


----------



## GrasB (30 Jan 2010)

If I paraphrase my original reply I said "do what you think will work".



lukesdad said:


> How come you can get your head round all this theory,yet the selection of ring on a triple seems to bemuse you.


No, the bemusement is yours because you can't understand there is another solution to the problem that works for me & it's not your solution. I don't say riding on a 34/50 with 13-29 block is the ultimate solution & no one should use anything other than that, I say it works for me. What you're trying to tell me is that a setup *I've tried & found doesn't work for me* I should be using.

See with a triple I found a 13-29 block has ratio holes in it, this isn't true for a 34/50 setup. Back on the triple while a 13-26 doesn't have these holes it doesn't give me any low-end gearing advantage over the 34/50 compact & pushes the ratio sets about enough that I'm often finding my self between chainrings in my riding. The result is a natural match for my riding is found on the compact so I ride quicker, more smoothly, for longer & enjoy the ride more. With a triple I have to try & remember if that hill ahead was a 5% or 7% gradient to work out which is the right chainring, if I'm doing that I've not got the right setup.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Jan 2010)

So what should the OP do in your opinion then ?


----------



## wafflycat (30 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Using a triple can be tricky if you go about it the wrong way. Forget about gear inches and similar ratios. What you need to focus on is the chainwheel. Its simple after that.



I've never had any problems using triples.


----------



## wafflycat (30 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> See that's the problem with triples, because they have a fair amount of overlap working out what chainring to be on is a pita. With a compact setup it's high or low simple.



Then you are overcomplicating things. I've never had any problems *ever* using a triple...


----------



## GrasB (30 Jan 2010)

By the sounds of it stick to what he's got:


Bloke said:


> I have a road bike and for the last year have been *using a compact, which I find fantastic*. Seems to me though that a high quality triple chain ring, with a relatively flat block at the back would offer the greatest flexibility of all - you could spin up all but the hardest of climbs and not lose out on top end gearing either.


Though I think the underlined bit is incorrect assuming a 34t compact v's 30t triple bottom chainring. As the difference between 30:27 & 34:27 @ 80ppm in still air is a 0.5% gradient.


----------



## GrasB (30 Jan 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Then you are overcomplicating things. I've never had any problems *ever* using a triple...


Not really, I've just found consistently a triple leaves me between 1 set of 2 chainrings, on my old 8 sp setup I had a similar issue & was always swapping between the middle & top chainrings & the same on the 10sp setup. This changing has been eliminated by using a compact.


----------



## Fab Foodie (31 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> The result is I'm always finding on a triple I'm having to put more thought into chainring selection & I swap chainrings more often. The triples more annoying ratio set is made to feel even more problematic when I can use a 13-29 cassette on a 34/50 compact without any noticeable ratio holes to my legs which gives me basically the same bottom end as the 30:26 combination & down hill scope for well passed 40mph.
> 
> Please take into consideration I'm talking about the way I ride & how the gear ratios work for me.



And here I agree to a certain extent.
We don't all cycle the same way. Whether GrasB is typical or aytipical of most road-bike cyclists would take some research. I always hated 53/39 set-ups as I always found a big hole where I there should have been the gears I needed, hence a lot of double shifting for good progress.

My own experience shows I like short gaps between chainrings, so 50/40/30 is good and I've found 52/42/30 actually better (42x15 is my fixed wheel fave), the 30T is a granny anyway so I don't mind the bigger drop there. Unlike GrasB I find that simply dropping from 52 to 42 provides ME with a useable transition, but I can imagine it not suiting everybodies style (I don't spin much).

Having said all that.... I've rarely heard anyone complain about a triple set-up, but know plenty who find Compacts hard to live with. In addition it's easy to convert from a Triple to a compact, but expensive to do it the other way around. For those 2 reasons I would always proffer the advice to somebody relatively inexperienced to opt for a triple over a compact as the safest bet.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (9 Feb 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Exactly the same with a triple with an extra low gearbox can t see the problem. Look at the terrain select the ring use the cassette simple.



i think of my 30/42/52 triple as a normal double with an extra granny ring for climbing. on the flat i use exactly the same ratios as when riding my other bike with a standard 42/52 double.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Feb 2010)

alecstilleyedye said:


> i think of my 30/42/52 triple as a normal double with an extra granny ring for climbing. on the flat i use exactly the same ratios as when riding my other bike with a standard 42/52 double.



I think of my 30/42/52 ( with a 9 cassette ) as a 42 ring with 7 gears ( the middle 7 ). There are some higher gears with the big ring and some lower gears with the little ring.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (9 Feb 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I think of my 30/42/52 ( with a 9 cassette ) as a 42 ring with 7 gears ( the middle 7 ). There are some higher gears with the big ring and some lower gears with the little ring.



the trick is avoiding big-big and small-small, especially the latter as i've known the chain jam between the sprocket and chainstay…

but essentially that's a good way to think of it on varied terrain.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Feb 2010)

alecstilleyedye said:


> i think of my 30/42/52 triple as a normal double with an extra granny ring for climbing. on the flat i use exactly the same ratios as when riding my other bike with a standard 42/52 double.



Exactamundo.
Always preferred 52/42 over 53/39 which to me has too big a gap between rings, the 10T difference between 52 and 42 is a useful interval for my style and cadence of riding.
The 30T is just like a crawler gear.


----------



## Halfmanhalfbike (9 Feb 2010)

Bloke said:


> Wow. Thumbs up all 'round then.
> 
> I must admit I love the idea of having that flexibility to maintain your speed but double your cadence, it seems pointless to just default to 1st gear at the foot of every climb and slog all the way up.
> 
> ...



On my big bulky Tourer I have 48/38/28 with a 30-11 on the back. On my Cannodale Synapse I have 50/39/30 with 26 - 12 on the back. I also have a Spesh Allez compact with runs a 50/34 with a 25 - 12.

All of them get me up any hill (at least so far  )


----------



## jimboalee (9 Feb 2010)

I don't mind 'Whole step', 'Double step' or even 'Alpine' chainsets.

Never had a 'Half step'.

You just have to remember where the combinations are, so when you shift rings, you get the chain up or down the correct number of sprockets.


----------



## PpPete (9 Feb 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I think of my 30/42/52 ( with a 9 cassette ) as a 42 ring with 7 gears ( the middle 7 ). There are some higher gears with the big ring and some lower gears with the little ring.



With you there Jim. It's how I try to ride.... with the intention of only ever wearing out and replacing the middle ring.

But exactly what is a "half step" "single step" "double step" let alone an "alpine"?
Could you explain please - or link me to somewhere it's explained ?


----------



## Carboncyclestore (9 Feb 2010)

I have always had a triple on my road bike.

Like you I dont race I enjoy the European Raids and UK Sportives.

On the Raid Pyrenean I used the granny Ring on all the mountains and found it to be essential!! for me anyway.
On the Raid we were crossing 3 or 4 cols a day, one day we had the Cat 1 Marie Blanque, Hor Cat Aubisque and then had the Tourmalet at the end of the days riding..I rode strongly that day but honestly dont think I would have done it on a 39T.

On the U.K sportives I like to have it there if I need it which I always do because there is usually always at least 1 really steep climb.

I cant recommend a triple more from what you have said about the type of riding you do.


----------



## jimboalee (10 Feb 2010)

Carboncyclestore said:


> I have always had a triple on my road bike.
> 
> Like you I dont race I enjoy the European Raids and UK Sportives.
> 
> ...



Preparing for those climbs consists of a lot of 'leg press' in the gym, plus a few dozen 20 minute 300+ Watt sessions on the gym bike turning the cranks at 55 - 60 rpm.

A 39 x 21 should do the trick.


----------



## Sharky (17 Nov 2018)

Thought I'd take a trip down memory lane and look at some old posts.

But noticed a lot pf the posts are duplicates or even triplicates. Is it me or the site?

@Shaun 

Cheers keith


----------



## Gravity Aided (18 Nov 2018)

PpPete said:


> With you there Jim. It's how I try to ride.... with the intention of only ever wearing out and replacing the middle ring.
> 
> But exactly what is a "half step" "single step" "double step" let alone an "alpine"?
> Could you explain please - or link me to somewhere it's explained ?


https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gear-theory.html


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 Nov 2018)

@Gravity Aided
In the 8 years which has passed since @PpPete asked that question in 2010, he has gained a lot of experience  - certainly he seemed very knowledgeable as we briefly rode in company towards Moffat after dark on the second day of LEL (at about 600km). It was his second LEL.


----------



## Gravity Aided (19 Nov 2018)

I didn't catch it in 2010.
But good info for the congregation at large.


----------



## PpPete (22 Nov 2018)

Ajax Bay said:


> @Gravity Aided
> ....he has gained a lot of experience .....


But not much wisdom!
Having ridden triples for years now I'm seriously considering my options to achieve a super compact (sub-compact?) as modern RDs have a sufficient range to make life bearable with only two rings up front.
My second best road bike is now running 44-28 front (mounted on middle & inner of triple crankset, with a bashguard outer) with 11-32 ten speed cassette. Gives a very appropriate spread of gears for an old fart like me.


----------



## Gravity Aided (23 Nov 2018)

Sounds good, better than a 1-1 on the low end. You should be able to climb trees with that.


----------



## andrew_s (23 Nov 2018)

PpPete said:


> But exactly what is a "half step" "single step" "double step" let alone an "alpine"?
> Could you explain please - or link me to somewhere it's explained ?


Half step was used back when the rear was only 5 or 6 speed.
If you had a 14-28 5-speed block, the interval between gears is about 20%.
The idea was that you would have 2 chainrings 10% apart, to split the difference in a rear shift.

You'd end up shifting at the front every shift, but you'd get smaller gaps between gears.
Going down from top, you'd have a sequence like ...
48/14, 44/14, 48/17, 44/17, 48/20...

You could get special front mechs to handle the small difference between chainrings.

"Half step plus granny" was also a thing - a triple like 48/44/24, which gave close ratio cruising gears without losing the climbing gears.

"Alpine" is a smaller than compact double - something like 42/28.
It gives the climbing gears for going up an Alp, and the expectation is that you aren't racing so 42/11 is high enough for the valley roads.


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

42/52/62 triple on the road bike.


----------

