Allez '09 - dble or triple?

[Steve Austin]

Have you got an opinion why a triple is the right thing or are just sniping at my opinion>

what validity has your sniping got in beginners?

 

[water]

Have you got an opinion why a triple is the right thing or are just sniping at my opinion>

what validity has your sniping got in beginners?

Read the whole thread and,who knows,you may see what my 'complaint' is!!

 

[Steve Austin]

Water, your only contribution to this thread is to dis-agree with my suggestion.

What is your opinion? You have yet to give one...

if you are only intent on sniping others opinions without giving one yourself then maybe you would be better off in 'politics and life' not beginners

 

[Tim Bennet.]

The belief that a triple is 'unnecessary' is a widely held view.

I just wish the followers of this dogma wouldn't hold mass meetings to share their beliefs on so many hilly rides such as the Phil Liggett or Fred Whitton. It's really hard to cycle past when they're walking all over the road pushing their exotic machines and mumbling their mantra "triples are unnecessary, triples are unnecessary, triples . . . . ."

However, it's the compact and wide spaced rear cassette that are the true abominations. A marketing ploy to exploit the vanity of the masses. Why anyone would champion such a mishmash of awkwardly spaced gears is beyond me. And it's not that no one can tell it's not a real road set up; compact chainsets and dinnerplate rear sprockets can be spotted at exactly the same distance as a triple. But at least the triple riders have preserved a decent set of road ratios and convenient changes, simply adding an extra 'bail out' option. The compact, like all compromises, is a mish mash jack of all trades and master of none.

 

[water]

Water, your only contribution to this thread is to dis-agree with my suggestion.

What is your opinion? You have yet to give one...

if you are only intent on sniping others opinions without giving one yourself then maybe you would be better off in 'politics and life' not beginners

Jeez, it's pretty obvious I would have thought.Read what I have written.No, I don't advocate triples for everyone Smokin Joe.Thats the whole point.I'm off to work now .Have fun

 

[Steve Austin]

What a valid contribution you have made to this thread Water

 

[numbnuts]

I think triples are unnecessary on the road

Try riding up hills with emphysema it’s a triple and riding or ending up a couch potato

 

[Westwardbound]

I'm sorry for (re-?)starting what is clearly a bone of contention amongst the cognisenti ! I think I can see both sides of the argument/discussion, but all I can usefully say is that I have really enjoyed both rides I have had so far - about 5 miles last night with my youngest daughter at almost walking pace (she is a novice cyclist, not having cycled more than "round the square" - about 100m - in one go before), and 12 miles in an hour's session this morning. My first times on a bike in 20 years. And I suppose that's all that really matters.

 

[toontra]

Glad you're enjoying it! As has been said, if in doubt get a triple (especially if you're new to cycling). It's not only the "how low can you go" gears that you benefit from - the gearing is generally spaced better overall.

As I said, there aren't any downsides apart from minor ones of weight and setup. No-one has put forward a good case against them, other that "they look a bit crap". Bike snobbery at its worst IMO.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Glad you're enjoying it! As has been said, if in doubt get a triple (especially if you're new to cycling). It's not only the "how low can you go" gears that you benefit from - the gearing is generally spaced better overall.

As I said, there aren't any downsides apart from minor ones of weight and setup. No-one has put forward a good case against them, other that "they look a bit crap". Bike snobbery at its worst IMO.

Not so. Much of the sneering at triples comes not because people have anything against them, but because when ever the subject comes up we have to put up with the scathing rubbish about "exploding knees" and "walking up hills while those in the know ride gaily past us".

If anyone wants a triple then by all means get one, but many of us get by quite nicely on a double or even a single without any detriment to our health or speed.

 

[fossyant]

53 x 39 front and a 13 x 21 rear - and I live on the edge of the Pennines.

And that's dropping from a 42 to a 39 in more recent years due to age !

Depends upon your style - the 39 x 21 will get me up everything, but I'm a grinder - I've climbed the Snake with Longers on his 25 - he was sat down and riding a good rpm, and I was out of the saddle for ages - no real advantage to either of us - it's a personal style. The pro's spin the gears up the mountains though !

 

[Smokin Joe]

The pros spin the gears up the mountains alright, but they spin 39*19 or 21, not 28*32

 

[water]

What a valid contribution you have made to this thread Water

Right,just in from work and apologise for the 'brevity' of the last couple of posts I made this morning before having to rush out.
Yes,I have made a valid contribution I believe,certainly more valid than yours.The simple point I was trying to make,unsuccessfully it seems,was the unhelpfullnes of your blanket statement 'triples are just unnecessary on the road' comment [and similar stuff from others] to someone you know nothing about and who was unsure of what gearing he should go for.What is it about this that is so hard to grasp and accept?.You never asked him any questions about his fitness/age/health/aims etc yet confidently dismiss a triple chainset as unnecessary not just for you,which is fine by me, but for him too and apparently the entire cycling population![Or was that last bit one of Smokin Joes pearls of wisdom?].The implication seemingly being that triples are for wimps.This is riding a bike we are talking about here.You know,getting out in the fresh air and enjoying the countryside and a bit of excercise.I don't hold out any hope that you or Smokin Joe will actually think about this and agree we are all different and that 'one size does not fit all'.
But who knows....................

PS.Just as my cage has not been rattled I genuinely have no wish to rattle anyone elses.

 

[toontra]

Not so. Much of the sneering at triples comes not because people have anything against them, but because when ever the subject comes up we have to put up with the scathing rubbish about "exploding knees" and "walking up hills while those in the know ride gaily past us".

If anyone wants a triple then by all means get one, but many of us get by quite nicely on a double or even a single without any detriment to our health or speed.

I see you totally ignored the content of my post that you quoted. How about quitting the bitching are directly address my point - apart from a small amount of extra weight and the setting up, what is there against a triple? I've stated the plusses - higher/lower gears and a better gear spread. Now you state the minuses and maybe we'll get somewhere.

When I made my original post I bore in mind the actual OP's requirements and situation - i.e. effectively a "new" cyclist living in a town with very steep hills. You seem to have ignored this and merely trotted out your personal preference (prejudice).

BTW, bear in mind we're in the beginners section.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

i no longer count myself a beginner and am happy to keep the triple as it gives me gears to spin up hills, gears to pound along the flat at 30mph, and everything in between. the extra weight is negligible (if i was that fussy i'd diet properly), and if i was worried about looking uncool on a triple, i would also have to contend with my age etc and would never get anywhere.
as a tubby bloke in lycra is uncool regardless of the number of chainrings, i went for function as form made no difference.
horses, as they say, for courses.