Bianchi double or triple?

[marinyork]

I've found some bikes I'd use for long distance that I actually quite like, the problem is a lot of them are doubles rather than triples, or rather limits things if I only consider triples.

Although my current bike comes in at a lowest gear with 27 gear inches I never use it and and my regular gear for steepish hills like 7.5-10% hills is actually a 42incher and flip down to 38 incher if I have problems. On a lot of these compacts the lowest gear seems to be around 36 gear inches with the second and third gears being more or less identical to my regular hill climbing gears.

Is there much point in me having a triple all this considered?

 

[MadoneRider1991]

go for a compact double

 

[Goffins]

I never even shift from the large cog even when climbing.
Can't really see any point in the triple myself.

 

[jayce]

A tripple is slower on top end go for a double

 

[Randochap]

I never even shift from the large cog even when climbing.
Can't really see any point in the triple myself.

Because you can't see the use for a triple doesn't mean there doesn't exist a very good argument to adopt one.

Those with better vision, and I dare say superior pedalling technique, perceive the virtues of the triple clearly.

First of all, if one has any kind of real hills on their routes, they are not going to be standing in the big ring. If they try this, they won't endure very long. Secondly, using only the big ring is just plain inefficient. Cadence is key.

I'm not sure I understand what your original question is, marinyork. I'm not following your terminology.

Compacts generally come stock in 2 combinations: 34-50 and 36-50. Combined with a stock 27T rear cog, this gives you lows of 33" and 35." If this is low enough for the terrain and distance you are encountering, you're set.

The only question left is whether one likes the jump on the front and the double shifting this requires if you don't like the big jump.

Personally, I prefer a triple w/ Campag's lowest available gearing -- 30X29 -- which gives me a 27.7" bailout gear. That's fine for lightly-loaded randonnees. Of course, I have a bike with lower gears for loaded touring.

I discuss the options here.

 

[Randochap]

A tripple is slower on top end go for a double

This makes no sense.

 

[jayce]

This makes no sense.

a tripple is not so hard to pedal in top gear therefore you loose out on top end ,,,do you want me to draw a pictuer

 

[jayce]

a tripple has smaller chain rings so you loose out on top end ,but its easier up hills if thats what you need

 

[Randochap]

a tripple is not so hard to pedal in top gear therefore you loose out on top end ,,,do you want me to draw a pictuer

No, just get me a translator.

First off, it would be harder to pedal in "top gear." Secondly, there are a myriad configurations in triples. Thirdly, you don't "loose (sic) out" when you maintain cadence on a hill by shifting down to the appropriate gear.

So, no, I don't think any further illustration will be necessary.

 

[montage]

What actually is a "compact double" as opposed to a normal double?

 

[Randochap]

What actually is a "compact double" as opposed to a normal double?

A compact double -- as I said above -- generally comes w/ 34 or 36 tooth inner ring.

Follow the link I provided for more info.

 

[montage]

A compact double -- as I said above -- generally comes w/ 34 or 36 tooth inner ring.

Follow the link I provided for more info.

That'll teach me for not reading all the thread in detail.

Thanks

 

[dellzeqq]

the advantage of the compact double is that you can minimise the spread on the back end. If you think that a 40 inch gear is all you'll ever need then a 36/24 will give it to you - and that means that you can have a decently close 12/24 cassette, which will make gear changes less clunky.

 

[Randochap]

the advantage of the compact double is that you can minimise the spread on the back end. If you think that a 40 inch gear is all you'll ever need then a 36/24 will give it to you - and that means that you can have a decently close 12/24 cassette, which will make gear changes less clunky.

No reason you could not do that w/ a triple. Then you'd have closely-spaced rear shifting and closer-spaced front shifting, as well. It's the "clunky" front shifting on a compact crankset I don't like.

Mind you, the spread on my 13-29 -- 13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29 -- while it's not a "corn-cob," is hardly what you'd call "clunky."

 

[Goffins]

Because you can't see the use for a triple doesn't mean there doesn't exist a very good argument to adopt one.

Those with better vision, and I dare say superior pedalling technique, perceive the virtues of the triple clearly.

Assume all you want but I would never need my lowest gear and I couldn't think of going lower unless I was asked to perhaps cycle a vertical cliff face.

If he was buying a hybrid or a steel tourer I might think you have an argument but a Triple Bianchi road bike, not just pointless, it's blunt.