Bianchi double or triple?

[c2c]

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.

lol......marvelous

 

[Randochap]

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.

I am assuming that most people don't have the massive quadriceps that you boast.

I am assuming that most people do not find it the best use of their energy grinding up hills in a high gear.

I am assuming that most cyclists make use of the gears on their bike ... unless they ride fixed -- which maybe you should consider as you "never need [your] lowest gear."

I also assume that the OP, in asking about gearing for long-distance, will use something along the lines that most long-distance riders have adopted.

For myself, and 99% of the long-distance riders I ride with, when we hit a steep grade 700 kilometres into a 1200km brevet, there isn't a gear made that's too low.

Of course, we're not heroes and we avoid vertical cliff faces unless we have a rope and a good selection of cam nuts.

 

[marinyork]

I think you do understand Randochap, the issue is basically whether the "bailout" is necessary. The bikes I've looked at have 34/50 or there abouts on the front and 12-25 at the back.

I don't really know about gearing for long distance. I'm wanting something that'll be a lot better on 50-100 mile rides. It's not flat round here climbs on those sort of distances can tot up to between 5000-10 000 feet (depending whether you did the entire 100). I have a 28/38/48 triple at the moment with 37mm tyres and barely ever use the lowest 3 gears.

 

[Noodley]

My advice: have a cake Go for a 'standard' double with 13-29.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

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

rubbish, i'm afraid. i have a triple on one bike and a double on the other. 30-42-52 on the triple and 42-52 on the double, both with 25-13 cassettes at the back. in other words, the triple is as fast as the double top end, with additional lower gears for when the hills get steep. and the biggest drop when changing down is the equivalent of two gears, hardly the problem a compact can have with a drop from a 50 ring down to a 34.

horses for courses, of course, but chose your crankset by use, riding style etc, not prejudice.

 

[marinyork]

My advice: have a cake Go for a 'standard' double with 13-29.

What sort of bike had you in mind?

 

[alecstilleyedye]

My advice: have a cake Go for a 'standard' double with 13-29.

with a long rear mech, i presume.

 

[marinyork]

I still think a standard is stretching it a bit. That's slightly more gear inches than I have at the moment on the middle cog. Can't really imagine doing too many of the city's hills on that, but the compact I think so.

 

[Fab Foodie]

My GiantTCR1 has a Triple and I'm glad of it. Whilst in my formative years I went everywhere on my 42/15 fixie almost breaking my back in half hauling up hills I now find with age comes wisdom and a granny gear on a road-bike is a useful thing, for:
When you're at the end of a long day.
When you're cold and tired.
When you're carrying more than a multi-tool and a tube.
When its very hot and humid.
When you're not feeling 100%.
If your weight blossoms as mine has over the past 4 years
When you want to look at the scenery not the metre of tarmac ahead of you.

It gives you more options for the unexpected and there are some climbs around that are phenomenally steep in places even in the UK.
I like triples, I like the narrow spacing of the 52/42/30 chainrings compared to the double shifting hole of 50/34 or 36 (and jayce a 52T triple will give a higer top-end than a 50T compact... not much, but higher nonetheless, a 'standard' road double of 53/39 will just be a Gnats bigger than most road triples). I really don't see any great disadvantage of a triple.

Giant, Trek, Bianchi, Specialized, Focus all make nice roadies with Triples...

 

[Crackle]

The triple will almost certainly give you a closer spaced block, so even if you don't need the lower gears, you'll have more gears to tune your cadence with. If you ever tour, those lower gears will be handy too.

 

[Noodley]

What sort of bike had you in mind?

I have a Bianchi, I fitted 13-29 for hills. It has worked for me, apart from on the most steep or long rides. But you stated you have another bike to cope with these, as do I. "Compact" is for those who are not prepared to admit thy need a triple

 

[MacB]

I still like JohnyC's versions of doubles here:-

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29436&page=8

repeat his set up for 44/28 rings with a 9 speed cassette, maybe 11-34, and you can cover most stuff with your outer ring and have the inner as an overdrive for steep/tired moments. Gives you 22 to 109 inches and, unless racing, I wouldn't imagine the steps/cadence would be an issue. My current bike is a triple 30/42/52 yet the outer ring remains untouched, except for testing purposes. The middle ring runs up to 95 inches but I haven't needed to go beyond 82 inches yet, this gets me to 33mph b4 spinning out. A 44 outer, in a double, is giving you 109 inches which, by my reckoning, means you won't spin out til beyond 40mph.

I suppose the final decision is really how close you need the steps in the gears. If you don't need them really close then some calcs based on JohnyC's methodology could result in a great setup, with minimal need for front gear changes. Though you do have to accept that your main ring can reach all 9 gears without excessive wear

 

[Noodley]

Can I just point out that "closer spaced blocks" are bollocks.

It's all hype.
When I was 13 I had a 5-speed and it got me up the same hills as I get up now. With bigger spaces.

Thank you.

 

[MacB]

Can I just point out that "closer spaced blocks" are bollocks.

It's all hype.
When I was 13 I had a 5-speed and it got me up the same hills as I get up now. With bigger spaces.

Thank you.

Ah, but you weren't a self deluding middle aged guy with racing fantasies then

 

[Noodley]

Ah, but you weren't a self deluding middle aged guy with racing fantasies then

But I had the legs.

Still do <drifts off wiftfully....>