# What's Up with the Triple Stigma?



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

I have one, and I will never, ever, ever get a double, no matter how much crap the guys give me for having one. Heck, when I'm climbing hills with 11+ % pitch the whole way, I wish there was such thing as a quadruple.  

What puzzles me is why (most of) the men seem to be soooooooooo against triples. One of the guys I ride with all the time, a good climber, gripes every time he sees me spinning away at 85+rpm on hills whilst he has no choice but to mash. (He gets especially annoyed when I pass him. tee hee). So at the top of the hill, my lungs are hurting a little, but my legs are fine while his legs are pretty fried. YET he still holds onto his double for dear life.

What gives? Do you guys really look down on other guys for having a triple? I certainly don't think any less of anyone, male or female, for having one. Whom I secretly laugh at are guys who hammer out of the saddle just to pass me only to blow up so bad that they can hardly hold their lines only a few hundred yards later.  My riding buddies encourage me to say "la la la" as I pass these guys, but that would be too mean.


----------



## Browns (Jul 6, 2004)

The common excuse is that all a triple does is add weight. And look bad. And pro racers don't use them. And if the pro's don't need them why should we mere mortals need them? 

However, there are days when I am mighty glad to have the extra gears when going up.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Why do you care what anybody else thinks?


----------



## Gunther (Jul 28, 2004)

*I'll Second That!*



wipeout said:


> Why do you care what anybody else thinks?


 . . . especially if you're spinning past those struggling to keep the crank ticking over on a steep climb. 

My own reasons for the double have to do with ease of shifting. I simply prefer the simplicity, speed, whatever of a double ring setup. My only basis of comparison is a 10-year old mountain bike with a triple. Maybe a newer road triple would change my mind (doubtful). I find it easier to mount a 12-28 cluster. There aren't many paved roads that can't be comfortably climbed with a 39x28 combo.

GtB


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

cloudatlas said:


> ...
> What puzzles me is why (most of) the men seem to be soooooooooo against triples. ...


I’m not sure but my best bet is that the testosterone and intelligence levels are not balanced right.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Unsure of themselves they take it out on you.....*



cloudatlas said:


> I have one, and I will never, ever, ever get a double, no matter how much crap the guys give me for having one. Heck, when I'm climbing hills with 11+ % pitch the whole way, I wish there was such thing as a quadruple.
> 
> What puzzles me is why (most of) the men seem to be soooooooooo against triples. .


...if you let them.

OTOH I have a triple on all my derailleur bikes but my wife who I ride with all the time no longer has a triple on her usual derailleur bike (abet 650c wheels). Still the point is to set up YOUR bike the way that works for YOU and not someone else.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*No logic, all perception.*

cloudatlas: You're puzzled because you're looking for answers in the place where facts reside. It's not about facts, it's about perceptions. Short of wearing a jersey with "I'm Not a Pro!" printed on the back, the triple is the most effective way to advertise amateur status. And that is its problem. With a high seat, low bars and a full team kit one could actually be mistaken for a pro - but never while spinnnig a triple. The kid who shouts: "Look. Dad! It's Lance!" would quickly be corrected with a short "No way! Didn't you see that guy had a triple?"

After reading your post celebrating the triple, I again was tempted to drive to the bike shop and get one. And again, I will not. I'll hang up my 53-42 bike forever before I get a triple.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*You see?*

Size matters


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*Ride what works for you.*

You get the last laugh when you pass these people on the climbs, and have the gas to enjoy the downhill on the other side. 

As for looking like a pro, anybody that has a clue will realize that there aren't too many pros riding through suburban "Woebegon". The'll be training, racing etc. with their teams. 

Bob


----------



## catboy (Sep 16, 2004)

some say weight, others cite asthetics...

as far as i'm concerned, whatever you like is fine by me; it's your bike, your money, and your legs.

i just don't think they're really that necessary for probably 95% of the riding 98% of us do. as mentioned earlier, there's really not much a 39x28 gear will get you up. cassettes are cheaper and lighter than a triple crankset. hell, everybody but shimano now makes compact cranks too! 

i'm not gonna lie; if i'm lined up and look over at some dude with a triple, it's very easy to visualize putting him behind me...bike racing is very much a head game; EVERY advantage helps!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*One word...........*

ego!

My experience is that all the reasons in the world that are expressed come down to not wanting to be called a woss. Pure and simple.

Most common explanations:
1.) It weighs more
2.) It shifts finicky
3.) I don't need it? (LOL)
4.) Real riders don't need it
5.) Racers don't need it
6.) I don't like the way it looks.

I always laugh to myuself, especially when I see someone with a double struggling up a hill.

Me, I use a triple whenever I go to the hills, Why?

1.) I live in the flatlands, and need all the help on the hills I can get.
2.) I'm a spinner. Spinners need more low gears than mashers to maintain the same speed. A Triple = more lower gears.
3.) I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I love when someone gives me crap for having a triple and then i ride them off my wheel later in the ride (after the hills have killed them) (Yea I have an ego too, it just manifests itself differently).

Ride what works for you.

Len


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Apparently works in reverse, too.*



> _i'm not gonna lie; if i'm lined up and look over at some dude with a triple, it's very easy to visualize putting him behind me...bike racing is very much a head game; EVERY advantage helps!_


Now I know why my triple-equipped, 69-year old riding partner has such an easy time putting away doubles half his age in sprints.


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*Amen*



Len J said:


> ego!
> 
> I love when someone gives me crap for having a triple and then i ride them off my wheel later in the ride (after the hills have killed them) (Yea I have an ego too, it just manifests itself differently).
> 
> ...


Oh, yeah! I actually prefer it when guys underestimate my strength because I'm a girl, have a triple, etc. etc. only to crush them like grapes on hills or flats (okay... so mostly on hills) or hearing them gasping for air/wincing in pain just to keep up with me. hehehehehe. 

I've always been competitive, but almost always against myself. I try to beat my own record in terms of speed & endurance, but it also feels great to pass people in the process.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

cloudatlas said:


> "............. but it also feels great to pass people in the process."


Easpecially when those that you pass combine both arrogance and ignorance.

LOL

Len


----------



## catboy (Sep 16, 2004)

i couldn't help noticing that in several of the replies above, those currently riding and touting triples are also very eager to tell everyone how well they actaully ride, how strong they are, and how much they enjoy putting people who give them flack in their place ...

hmmm...

interesting.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Pretty sure my next bike will have a triple. I can still get up any hill with my double, but it's getting harder each year. I don't race so why should I not have a larger range of gears anyway?


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*Well, to be fair*



Len J said:


> Easpecially when those that you pass combine both arrogance and ignorance.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Len


I supposed I would underestimate myself if I were an experienced biker because everything about me screams newbie: 1. I carry a camelback (my bike is too small to accommodate 2 water bottles) 2. I always have that darn chainmark on my right calf - sometimes on my left calf. Don't ask me how. 3. I'm a complete spazz on a bike. 

Nonetheless, the guys put up with me because I ride with heart.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Shhhh*



catboy said:


> i couldn't help noticing that in several of the replies above, those currently riding and touting triples are also very eager to tell everyone how well they actaully ride, how strong they are, and how much they enjoy putting people who give them flack in their place ...


You were not supposed to notice that part of the post. This was supposed to be one of those *me too* post where everyone feels good about themselves and agrees with the original poster. Remember it is the fast, strong people who are evil in this case. 



cloudatlas said:


> ...I certainly don't think any less of anyone...
> ...Whom I secretly laugh at are...
> ...that would be too mean.


Instead just talk about them behind their back.

Ride what fits your ability, terrain and riding style.


----------



## Pistard (Feb 28, 2005)

cloudatlas said:


> One of the guys I ride with all the time, a good climber, gripes every time he sees me spinning away at 85+rpm on hills whilst he has no choice but to mash. (He gets especially annoyed when I pass him. tee hee)QUOTE]
> 
> Sorry dude, but if you're passing a guy on an 11% climb in the granny ring then he's not a very good climber.....


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

SkidMarx said:


> cloudatlas said:
> 
> 
> > One of the guys I ride with all the time, a good climber, gripes every time he sees me spinning away at 85+rpm on hills whilst he has no choice but to mash. (He gets especially annoyed when I pass him. tee hee)QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Unfortunatly.......*



catboy said:


> i couldn't help noticing that in several of the replies above, those currently riding and touting triples are also very eager to tell everyone how well they actaully ride, how strong they are, and how much they enjoy putting people who give them flack in their place ...
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> interesting.


saying something toungue and cheek doesn't translate well on the internet. Sorry if it came across as bragging it certainly wasn''t intended that way. 

In addition, my experience is that those that give me the hardest time about my triple, either 1.) know me and look for any chance to give me crap, or 2.) judge me because I have a triple (which means they are usually not experienced enough to realize that a triple or a double is only a tool and that sometimes a rider can look one way and ride another.) In either case, being a guy, I enjoy it if I can occasionally ride them off my wheel (In some cases that is not much to brag about ).

It's all good.

Len


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Minimalist said:


> Great, you got the point.
> 
> It's not about good climbers who don't need smaler gears, it's about guys who's ego is too big to admit that they would be better off with a triple AND give people a hard time when they ride a triple.


Unless you are doing lots of racing and/or live in the flat midwest the advantages of a triple are probably going to outweigh the slightly sloppier shifting and increased weight. If I would have had a triple on last week's Ride the Rockies I would have used it. As it was, I was grinding away in my 39x26 at 7mph. Not good on the knees.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Just out of interest, how many times does anyone ACTUALLY get any flak for riding a triple?

Seems to me that those who ride triples are always keen to point out how much more efficient they are, how they can spin up hills, yada yada yada. But I have never seen or heard anyone give it out to a triple rider.

I think triple riders have a problem with their own self image; you think people are down on you, so you gotta tell us why they're great. You ever hear a double rider needing to justify his/her choice?

Fine, ride a triple, if it suits you great. But STFU about it.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

olr1 said:


> Just out of interest, how many times does anyone ACTUALLY get any flak for riding a triple?
> 
> Seems to me that those who ride triples are always keen to point out how much more efficient they are, how they can spin up hills, yada yada yada. But I have never seen or heard anyone give it out to a triple rider.
> 
> ...


Did you actually READ the first message in this thread?


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

I did, did you?


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Well,*

as far as 'flack' goes, it's also because all of the "racing" setups have doubles, and the 'non-racing' have triples, like the above posters mentioned... this leads to, in my looking-around-bike-stores experience, that $500-800 bikes will more often have a triple, and the $1200+ bikes (roadies, that is, not tourers or mtbs) tend to have doubles. I'll admit, I think trips look fuggly.

My only experience with a triple was this Sora-equipped Fuji I rode for ~500 miles in like 2 months, before I 'really' got into road biking. It shifted like crap. I have no idea which was the 'crap' factor.

Yeah, I'm a 'spinner' to, but even on the steepest sustained climbs (I don't live in flatlandia, either,) usually 39x26 is too much mechanical advantage and I just lose efficiency, and in the shorter 12-15%(guessing) sections, it just makes sense to stand for a few strokes. Life would be different, I'm sure, on a 500-mile tour with a 35-lb bike with loaded with 50lbs of panniers, etc.

If these people are collapsing on the climbs and have a double, perhaps they just aren't in good enough shape to handle the climb regardless of their gear. I mean, it takes the same number of watts to get over a hill regardless of your gearing, right?


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*interesting... can you explain*



Argentius said:


> Yeah, I'm a 'spinner' to, but even on the steepest sustained climbs (I don't live in flatlandia, either,) usually 39x26 is too much mechanical advantage and I just lose efficiency


Can you explain what you mean by "39x26 is too much mechanical advantage"? As compared to what? 

To be honest, I don't know what gears I do have; I vaguely remember someone telling me that it goes down to 21. Not sure, though. In so far as shifting, I think it shifts fine (it's a Shimano Ultegra), but this is my first road bike, so I wouldn't know any better. 

It's funny that you think a triple looks fugly. Being a newbie, they all look the same to me.  Perhaps I'll change my opinions later as I learn more about bikes.


----------



## mness (Feb 9, 2005)

*Triples only on $800 bikes? Are you kidding?*



Argentius said:


> as far as 'flack' goes, it's also because all of the "racing" setups have doubles, and the 'non-racing' have triples, like the above posters mentioned... this leads to, in my looking-around-bike-stores experience, that $500-800 bikes will more often have a triple, and the $1200+ bikes (roadies, that is, not tourers or mtbs) tend to have doubles. I'll admit, I think trips look fuggly.
> 
> My only experience with a triple was this Sora-equipped Fuji I rode for ~500 miles in like 2 months, before I 'really' got into road biking. It shifted like crap. I have no idea which was the 'crap' factor.
> 
> ...


Triples come on MANY bikes in the $2000-$3000 range, Trek Madones, most LeMonds, Specialized, etc. Sorry, where I ride (San Francisco area), many hills are 2000 feet in 5 or 6 miles, and if you don't have a triple or a compact double, and aren't a pro, you'd be hurtin'. You can't just "stand for a few strokes" and get up.


----------



## toast (Jan 6, 2005)

*Sort of*



Argentius said:


> Yeah, I'm a 'spinner' to, but even on the steepest sustained climbs (I don't live in flatlandia, either,) usually 39x26 is too much mechanical advantage and...
> I mean, it takes the same number of watts to get over a hill regardless of your gearing, right?


Same number of watts, but Lance and friends can put those watts out twice as fast as the average rec rider, so the average rec rider needs half the gear (mechanical advantage) to spin the same cadence at half the speed.

If lance uses a 39-21 on some hills to maintain 90 rpm, then the average rider needs a 39-42 (ie triple) to maintain the same cadence at half the speed. A good amateur racer migh make 75% of lance's power, so a 39-29 would be fine. Fudge that a little and most strong riders can be happy with a 39-25. 
And if an "average" rider doesn't mind spinning 45rpm, he can use a 39-21 also. There are also people that enjoy the sport that probably make 1/5 of Lance's power. They might be happiest with mountain bike ratios like 22-34 even on the road.
To each his own...


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

Argentius said:


> as far as 'flack' goes, it's also because all of the "racing" setups have doubles, and the 'non-racing' have triples, like the above posters mentioned... this leads to, in my looking-around-bike-stores experience, that $500-800 bikes will more often have a triple, and the $1200+ bikes (roadies, that is, not tourers or mtbs) tend to have doubles. I'll admit, I think trips look fuggly.
> 
> My only experience with a triple was this Sora-equipped Fuji I rode for ~500 miles in like 2 months, before I 'really' got into road biking. It shifted like crap. I have no idea which was the 'crap' factor.
> 
> ...


AFAIK it's most efficient to maintain a cadence of about 92 rpm's. I hope I'm wrong but you have a good chance of being totally broke from paying for all your knee surgery by age 30. But if you are lucky you can still afford the $800 bike.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Ouch!*



cloudatlas said:


> only to crush them like grapes . . .


This has serious implications! Just what part of them are you "crushing like grapes"?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Minimalist said:


> AFAIK it's most efficient to maintain a cadence of about 92 rpm's.


Most efficient cadence has been measured to be around 60-65 rpm. Efficiency isn't everything.


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*bwwahahahahahahaha*



Kerry Irons said:


> This has serious implications! Just what part of them are you "crushing like grapes"?


It took me a few seconds to get this, but when I did, I almost spit up my tea. (mostly milk & sugar, but tea nonetheless).


----------



## Pistard (Feb 28, 2005)

Minimalist said:


> Great, you got the point.
> 
> It's not about good climbers who don't need smaler gears, it's about guys who's ego is too big to admit that they would be better off with a triple AND give people a hard time when they ride a triple.


No, I didn't miss the point, you missed *my* point. The original poster claims to pass a "good climber" in his granny ring. If he was such a good climber then he wouldn't need a granny ring for an 11% climb, and he certainly wouldn't get passed by a guy in the granny ring. So it *is* about "good climbers", or more acurately, bad climbers being called good climbers to add extra effect to the defense of being a big pu$$y and needing a granny ring.

This is sport people. Athletic endevours. What's with all the touchy feely Oprah rubbish? Get real. To even ride a bike you need some ego, some drive, some animalistic instinct. Otherwise we'd all be posting in the knitting forum.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

SkidMarx said:


> No, I didn't miss the point, you missed *my* point. The original poster claims to pass a "good climber" in his granny ring. If he was such a good climber then he wouldn't need a granny ring for an 11% climb, and he certainly wouldn't get passed by a guy in the granny ring. So it *is* about "good climbers", or more acurately, bad climbers being called good climbers to add extra effect to the defense of being a big pu$$y and needing a granny ring.
> 
> This is sport people. Athletic endevours. What's with all the touchy feely Oprah rubbish? Get real. To even ride a bike you need some ego, some drive, some animalistic instinct. Otherwise we'd all be posting in the knitting forum.


Man, you need to read cloudatlas' posts again.  

When I have to mash up a hill my knees hurt, when I spin in my granny ring they don't. I want to believe that this is the smarter choice but you could also say, it's my animalistic instincts off survival.

BTW. I could get (almost) the same gearing with a 12-27 cassette but like a 12-23 better. So, you think a cyclist with a 27 is a pu$$y?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Now that I think about it.*

When we see folks at one of the rides we enjoy doing (very long and very hilly) without a triple we don't expect to see them again. Either they are long gone off the front because they are young and in very good shape or they are long off the back because they aren't prepared for the ride.

Pretty much all the riders around here that impress us with their skill, strength and experience run triples.

However gearing just isn't worth talking about with folks that show up on these rides, either they can handle the routes or they soon stop showing up.

It is called Darwinism.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*triple triple toil and triple*

The deal is kind of being skipped. Big Mig was offered a triple. He refused. His ego prevented him from admitting hey, this could work. The Angliru did see some pro teams using triples.

There is this really weird and oft missed notion that the deal with climbing in a race is gee, getting to the top in an ammount of time that is quicker than your opponent. So, what your body a tripallows is what works. If its le, great. If its a double great. If its a 56x11, you are a liar.

Ride for joy. Ride because its fun. If its a triple, great. There are some folks who have an idea about what a bike should be. Oddly, they are not riding your bike. You are. If you get folks telling ou how fast they are and what they can do, the axiom is that 1 winter of hard training on your part would probably turn them into that odd Jeopardy Category: Things you drop like a rock on a climb.......


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*Oy Vay!!*



SkidMarx said:


> No, I didn't miss the point, you missed *my* point. The original poster claims to pass a "good climber" in his granny ring. If he was such a good climber then he wouldn't need a granny ring for an 11% climb, and he certainly wouldn't get passed by a guy in the granny ring. So it *is* about "good climbers", or more acurately, bad climbers being called good climbers to add extra effect to the defense of being a big pu$$y and needing a granny ring.
> 
> This is sport people. Athletic endevours. What's with all the touchy feely Oprah rubbish? Get real. To even ride a bike you need some ego, some drive, some animalistic instinct. Otherwise we'd all be posting in the knitting forum.


I'm with Minimalist. 
1. I'm a "she."
2. I never wrote that I passed my "good climber" friend on that 11+% hill. My mentor (with a double) & I are the only nut jobs who even climbed that thing. 
3. If you can spin on a 11+% hill with a double, wow. Hats off to you, lad. 
4. I have some ideas of why my riding buddies won't get a double. 
5. But I agree with your last paragraph. All the boys I ride with have the ego, the drive, the killer instinct. Otherwise I wouldn't ride with them.


----------



## Pistard (Feb 28, 2005)

Minimalist said:


> Man, you need to read cloudatlas' posts again.


I did. And his subsequent posts. The guy's a clown. Starts a thread going on about how great his granny ring is and then later on admits he has no clue what gearing ratios he actually has.

My bigger issue though is with this guy going on about how he's so crap that he needs a granny, but yet he's so awesome that he drops his ace mountain goat of a friend.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*uh NO*



Argentius said:


> as far as 'flack' goes, it's also because all of the "racing" setups have doubles, and the 'non-racing' have triples, like the above posters mentioned... this leads to, in my looking-around-bike-stores experience, that $500-800 bikes will more often have a triple, and the $1200+ bikes (roadies, that is, not tourers or mtbs) tend to have doubles. I'll admit, I think trips look fuggly.
> 
> My only experience with a triple was this Sora-equipped Fuji I rode for ~500 miles in like 2 months, before I 'really' got into road biking. It shifted like crap. I have no idea which was the 'crap' factor.
> 
> ...


The gearing inches for a specific ratio and the cadence can produce any wattage range you can imagine. As far as the same watts etc etc. NO Thats not correct. You might want to take the riders weight and fitness level into account. OF COURSE, thats what you meant right? I mean in depth replies with the grounded science you recall must be the results of objective tests. Right?


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

cloudatlas said:


> I'm with Minimalist.
> 1. I'm a "she."
> 2. I never wrote that I passed my "good climber" friend on that 11+% hill. My mentor (with a double) & I are the only nut jobs who even climbed that thing.
> 3. If you can spin on a 11+% hill with a double, wow. Hats off to you, lad.
> ...


LOL. I'll repeat my question: "Why do you care what other people think?"


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Browns said:


> The common excuse is that all a triple does is add weight. And look bad. And pro racers don't use them. And if the pro's don't need them why should we mere mortals need them?
> 
> However, there are days when I am mighty glad to have the extra gears when going up.


Excuse me, but many pro races do use triples - Check out all the triples used on the Angliru climb in the Vuelta.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Many pro races use triples?

Like 'many' girls find me attractive....

Triples get used maybe once a year, on steep climbs in long stage races. Maybe a total of 20kms per season.

Ride what you want, but stop justifying your use of a triple; it's ok, we don't mind.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

SkidMarx said:


> I did. And his subsequent posts. The guy's a clown. Starts a thread going on about how great his granny ring is and then later on admits he has no clue what gearing ratios he actually has.
> 
> My bigger issue though is with this guy going on about how he's so crap that he needs a granny, but yet he's so awesome that he drops his ace mountain goat of a friend.


First, you didn't read the posts very well. He's a "she". 

Second, your post about a triple user is a "pu$$y" is as clownish to me as other posts are to you. People have all sorts of reasons to ride what they ride. Some make sense to you, some to me and some not even to themselves.  But there is no reason to look down on anybody.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> Many pro races use triples?
> 
> Like 'many' girls find me attractive....
> 
> ...


If you'd be using a triple, you'd be clearly in touch with your female site and way more successful with the girls.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

olr1 said:


> Many pro races use triples?
> 
> Like 'many' girls find me attractive....
> 
> ...


I never said I rode a triple, did I? My main ride is a fixed gear, my other bike has a double. I'm glad you agree that pro's use triples, if necessary - whats the big deal? You sound like you have a problem with that.


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*well...*



wipeout said:


> LOL. I'll repeat my question: "Why do you care what other people think?"


I was genuinely curious to know how bad the triple stigma really is among men. Is it to a point where it would preclude my "mountain goat" friend from even considering a triple? I tried to think like a man but couldn't.  Some of the responses here have more than cleared up my question.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

No thanks!

Then I'd have to remember how to do all that sex stuff; lifes too short.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

I've been known to tease occasionally for triple-use, but it's all in good fun. I actually don't look down on anyone for whatever they use, unless they're total d*ckheads to begin with. There are certainly times when I could have used a triple, but whatever, those are few and far between.

2 reasons I don't use a triple:

1) I want to continue to improve as a cyclist. If I have a bail-out gear, then I will surely use it. I'd rather crunch through the steep stuff and work on strengthening my riding. Now, if I wanted to take a bike tour of some sort, then that would be a different story, because I wouldn't want to fry myself on some climb and not be able to finish.

2) A LITTLE bit of a appearance-related ego. A little bit.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> No thanks!
> 
> Then I'd have to remember how to do all that sex stuff; lifes too short.


Just get their numbers and send them to me.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*I love to watch these topics.*

They always develop with 3 basic groups. The adamant "my way is the only way" types, the folks who just don't care, and the folks who try to enlighten the "my way is the only way" types (not necessarily to change their minds). I'll admit to having been in the first catagory mentioned from time to time. And looking back, at times I probably could use a good wet-noodle lashing for it. I'll add my .02 now.

Now for the issue. The equipment we use suits the riding we do, and various conditions that exist (often physical condition- not just fitness, body type etc). I'd agree that for the 150lb racer, a double is probably the best way to go. Less to clutter their lives, less weight (albeit not allthat much weight), easier shifting, and it looks like the other racers' bikes. 

There are others who love to cycle and don't race (probably at least 75% of the riders out there). Some ride triples, some ride doubles, some think all of those who ride gears are nuts and ride one speed, some ride bikes that are designed to do things some of us wouldn't want to do, like go down a mountain side (on pretty technical terrain) at speeds in excess of 50MPH. Those guys are also racers, usually only have a single on the front, and I don't care who you are, you wouldn't want to ride those bikes uphill (even an overpass). I love road riding, but I'm not exactly suited to race. This is probably due to spending too much time with large free-weights in my youth (and now to not enough time with weights or on the bike...). 

So the moral of my story is: don't judge someone else by your standards. Don't expect someone who doesn't race to care about what a racer thinks about their ride (that would go for equipment choice, set-up and position on the bike).

As for the only bikes in the shop with triples being $500-$600, not here. We sell the vast majority of our bikes with triples. Everything from a $600 entry-level to the $7000 Litespeed Vortex. We have plenty of racers in our shop, and have to listen to the why does anybody ride a triple statement whenever they're around when we're building up a pricey bike with a triple. We just nod and go about our work. Some of the guys in the shop race. Some don't. We all ride, just for different reasons.

Ride what works for you. Don't expect someone else to ride what you do.

Bob


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*Well said, Bob*

That's why my next bike will also have a beautiful triple, no matter how much DrRoebuck teases me. Clearly, I'm not one of those "total d*ckheads" that he's mentioned.


----------



## czardonic (Jan 11, 2002)

There are many reasons why a rider my want to challenge himself or herself by using a triple, singlespeed, fixed-gear etc.

Doubles aren't just for racers and poseurs and triples aren't just for newbies and oldsters. If you have this much time to ponder the issue, its time to shift up out of that granny ring. . .


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

cloudatlas said:


> That's why my next bike will also have a beautiful triple


Will it also have one of those plastic things on the rear wheel?


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*hah, I figured*

that might light a couple of fires. 

As far as 'same watts,' I'm an idiot, I needed to say "mass equal, two riders need the same total number of watt-hours to climb a particular hill, regardless of gearing."

Are triples useful? Clearly, the answer is "for some people, in some situations." No one would challenge that! For the climbs in my area, at my weight / age / fitness level, they're not. That's probably WHY most of the bikes equipped with both triple cranks and dropped bars in the bike shops in my area are the low-brow ones. No, I didn't say ya COULDN'T find a high-end trip, or low-end double, just from my hunt-for-a-bike.

By 'too much advantage,' I mean that if I'm turning my 'granny' gear - 39 x 26 - up most of the moderate climbs in my area (that would be Skyline/Vista ave type ones; I don't know the numbers on 'em), if I upshift one or two cogs, stand for 6-10 strokes and accellerate and sit back down, I find I feel no more exhausted, but I'm doing much more (physics) work.

I know that there's an element of crankarm length in this mechanical advantage game, too, but I don't know what it is.


----------



## cloudatlas (Apr 30, 2005)

*I think so...*



DrRoebuck said:


> Will it also have one of those plastic things on the rear wheel?


But I daresay I can bribe you with 10,000 loaves of choco banana bread to take that plastic thingy off. I suspect that I'll manage to cut one of my fingers off if I try to do it myself.


----------



## Pistard (Feb 28, 2005)

cloudatlas said:


> I'm with Minimalist.
> 1. I'm a "she."
> 2. I never wrote that I passed my "good climber" friend on that 11+% hill. My mentor (with a double) & I are the only nut jobs who even climbed that thing.
> 3. If you can spin on a 11+% hill with a double, wow. Hats off to you, lad.
> ...


Sorry, missed the bit about you being a laydie [sic]. Not important re:triples and my point. You DID say that you needed the granny for an 11% climb, implying it was the steepest/hardest climb you do (just confirmed because you and your "mentor" (LOL - your posts get funnier each time) are the only "nutjobs" who can climb it -- WTF? are you serious? Sorry to burst your bubble but 11+% is not that steep), and you DID say that you drop your "good climber" friend who rides a double. I simply combined the 2 into a worse case scenario. Now you're saying that's not the case, which only leads me to conclude that you ride up a hill with a grade of *less than* 11% in the granny ring all the while dropping a "good climber" in a standard double.

So let me re-state for a final time: IF YOUR FRIEND CANNOT HAUL HIS/HER ARSE OVER A HILL OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 11% IN A STANDARD DOUBLE QUICKER THAN YOU CAN IN THE GRANNY RING THEN HE/SHE IS NOT A GOOD CLIMBER BY ANY DEFINITION. You simply hyped up the scenario to validate your use of a triple..... but this is all a moot point because you have since admitted to being completely ignorant of the basics of gear ratios and what exact ratios you have on your bike. Hope your mentor isn't mentoring you in bike riding.... you need a new sensei to guru you about that....

Actually this whole thread has to rank as one of the most bizarre I've read.... people making nonsense claims about triples saving knees, people claiming that riders on doubles get crucified in endurance rides (I think you'll find that even with a granny they'd get slaughtered - it's called poor conditioning), people fluffing their physics and getting power and energy confused and spewing rubbish about "mechanical advantage"..... totally insane. The only people who made sense to me were the "pro double" lot... Put it in the BIG RING boys (and girls of course) !!!!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*you just do not get it do you?*



SkidMarx said:


> Sorry, missed the bit about you being a laydie [sic]. Not important re:triples and my point. You DID say that you needed the granny for an 11% climb, implying it was the steepest/hardest climb you do (just confirmed because you and your "mentor" (LOL - your posts get funnier each time) are the only "nutjobs" who can climb it -- WTF? are you serious? Sorry to burst your bubble but 11+% is not that steep), and you DID say that you drop your "good climber" friend who rides a double. I simply combined the 2 into a worse case scenario. Now you're saying that's not the case, which only leads me to conclude that you ride up a hill with a grade of *less than* 11% in the granny ring all the while dropping a "good climber" in a standard double.
> 
> So let me re-state for a final time: IF YOUR FRIEND CANNOT HAUL HIS/HER ARSE OVER A HILL OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 11% IN A STANDARD DOUBLE QUICKER THAN YOU CAN IN THE GRANNY RING THEN HE/SHE IS NOT A GOOD CLIMBER BY ANY DEFINITION. You simply hyped up the scenario to validate your use of a triple..... but this is all a moot point because you have since admitted to being completely ignorant of the basics of gear ratios and what exact ratios you have on your bike. Hope your mentor isn't mentoring you in bike riding.... you need a new sensei to guru you about that....
> 
> Actually this whole thread has to rank as one of the most bizarre I've read.... people making nonsense claims about triples saving knees, people claiming that riders on doubles get crucified in endurance rides (I think you'll find that even with a granny they'd get slaughtered - it's called poor conditioning), people fluffing their physics and getting power and energy confused and spewing rubbish about "mechanical advantage"..... totally insane. The only people who made sense to me were the "pro double" lot... Put it in the BIG RING boys (and girls of course) !!!!


I agree in part that any claim to any piece of equipment being "better" is pretty much wrong.

However, you are flying the BS skies pal. 11% is not a joke. Where in the US do you ride where 11% is not a real climb? If you have won a best in age or a team record on Mount Washiongton or if you have even finished it, fine. BUT, you are blowing smoke. If you have to stay with the equipment and not talk about ride times, you are doing what you state you detest. Bragging. 

Ride the bike.


----------



## Rthur2sheds (Jul 30, 2004)

who the heck cares what other people think?

truth is, while folks may tease on boards like this, very few riders actually ever say anything to people who ride triples when they see them in person... just like very few people actually sass riders who wear sleeveless jerseys when they see them in person. 

passive-aggressive-roadie neurosis

just ride... screw the wanna-be's


----------



## Snowbird (Jan 14, 2002)

Many of the red states have legislation to ban triples.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

SkidMarx said:


> Sorry, missed the bit about you being a laydie [sic]. Not important re:triples and my point. You DID say that you needed the granny for an 11% climb, implying it was the steepest/hardest climb you do (just confirmed because you and your "mentor" (LOL - your posts get funnier each time) are the only "nutjobs" who can climb it -- WTF? are you serious? Sorry to burst your bubble but 11+% is not that steep), and you DID say that you drop your "good climber" friend who rides a double. I simply combined the 2 into a worse case scenario. Now you're saying that's not the case, which only leads me to conclude that you ride up a hill with a grade of *less than* 11% in the granny ring all the while dropping a "good climber" in a standard double.
> 
> So let me re-state for a final time: IF YOUR FRIEND CANNOT HAUL HIS/HER ARSE OVER A HILL OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 11% IN A STANDARD DOUBLE QUICKER THAN YOU CAN IN THE GRANNY RING THEN HE/SHE IS NOT A GOOD CLIMBER BY ANY DEFINITION. You simply hyped up the scenario to validate your use of a triple..... but this is all a moot point because you have since admitted to being completely ignorant of the basics of gear ratios and what exact ratios you have on your bike. Hope your mentor isn't mentoring you in bike riding.... you need a new sensei to guru you about that....
> 
> Actually this whole thread has to rank as one of the most bizarre I've read.... people making nonsense claims about triples saving knees, people claiming that riders on doubles get crucified in endurance rides (I think you'll find that even with a granny they'd get slaughtered - it's called poor conditioning), people fluffing their physics and getting power and energy confused and spewing rubbish about "mechanical advantage"..... totally insane. The only people who made sense to me were the "pro double" lot... Put it in the BIG RING boys (and girls of course) !!!!




1.) You still didn't get it. It's not about double/triple it's about the gear ratio. 
2.) 11% not steep? Hogpen Gap from the TdG is a 7% climb and is rated as a cat 1 climb. 
3.) Who are you to tell me how my knees feel?


----------



## sarah (Jul 29, 2004)

*I have a Triple...*

and I'm a girl, and I like to spin. No one looks down on me for having one. I have noticed that I haven't been using the granny gear very much as of this year. I have been trying to force myself to use my middle ring more and more, and i've become a better climber. I do ocassionaly use my granny, but usually when i'm riding by myself, or the hill is real steep. If I drop down to the small ring in a group ride or in a race, I will probably get dropped. 

I just finished a race on sunday, with some pretty good hills and noticed that I didn't use the granny gear once. There is nothing wrong with having a triple, it's a preference thing. Sure the pro's don't use them, but in all honesty how many of us are going to go pro?? (No offense to those that are/want to).

I did order up a new bike last week. It comes with a compact crank, 36/50 with a 12/26 cassette. I'm on a 12/25 now with my triple. I'm a little nervous that I won't be able to push those gears, but you never know until you try. It is nice to know you always have a saftey net with a triple.

Sarah


----------



## Pistard (Feb 28, 2005)

ttug said:


> However, you are flying the BS skies pal. 11% is not a joke.


Never said it was a "joke". I said that it isn't that steep, and it's not. To consider oneself a "nutjob" for even attempting it is the joke.



ttug said:


> Where in the US do you ride where 11% is not a real climb?


Where have I ridden? Well, I would tell you, but that would be bragging now wouldn't it... something I was careful not to do because I'm not that fond of pi$$ing contests and it's not about whose better than who. Since I haven't stated any of my biking accolades then accusing me of bragging is a bit 'tarded, no? But you seem to think bragging is NOT talking about ride times? Nice logic.

So, my point still stands. The original poster questions the social stigma of triples without even understanding gear ratios and then falsely accolades her friends as good climbers to trump her own position.

As far as triples themselves go then I think they're a waste of space on a road bike: In years I've riding I've been all over England and Wales up many 20+% hills. I've ridden the Alps and currently ride Mont Royal in Montreal. All on a double. Easily. I don't think I'm great for doing so, but it gives me enough expeience to say that a granny ring on a road bike is pointless. But if you want to ride one then go for it. I couldn't care less. My beef is with the original poster being a dithering idiot.


----------



## catboy (Sep 16, 2004)

sarah said:


> and I'm a girl, and I like to spin. No one looks down on me for having one. I have noticed that I haven't been using the granny gear very much as of this year. I have been trying to force myself to use my middle ring more and more, and i've become a better climber. I do ocassionaly use my granny, but usually when i'm riding by myself, or the hill is real steep. If I drop down to the small ring in a group ride or in a race, I will probably get dropped.
> 
> I just finished a race on sunday, with some pretty good hills and noticed that I didn't use the granny gear once. There is nothing wrong with having a triple, it's a preference thing. Sure the pro's don't use them, but in all honesty how many of us are going to go pro?? (No offense to those that are/want to).
> 
> ...


as your fitness improves and you start to get your legs under you, i'd bet the 36/50-12/26 combo will suit you perfectly! remember, it takes years to really physically develop as a racer. 

perhaps that is the key factor here: you are an aspiring racer, not a recreational citizen...it sounds like you're anxious to ditch the triple as you get stronger! in that regard, right or wrong, a triple does imply that the rider is a novice.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*answer the question*



SkidMarx said:


> Never said it was a "joke". I said that it isn't that steep, and it's not. To consider oneself a "nutjob" for even attempting it is the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bragging (choose a metric) assumes I care. I do not. I do not in any way believe you nor do I think you have any credibility. There are no 20%+ climbs ALL OVER Britain proper that come close to the length and duration of those of the Angliru. Wales???? Where in Wales? Lived there. So, either we live on different planets, use differing math bases, OR you are making this up. 

I mean you say it is easy right? So, it must be childs play. Ratios, time, your weight, etc etc etc 

WHERE ARE THESE CLIMBS ? 

You have ridden the Alps?????? Could you be a bit more vague. Are you repeating Ventoux or are you pushing the foothills that rarely exceed 5%???????

WHERE ARE THESE CLIMBS ?


----------



## Pistard (Feb 28, 2005)

Minimalist said:


> 1.) You still didn't get it. It's not about double/triple it's about the gear ratio.
> 2.) 11% not steep? Hogpen Gap from the TdG is a 7% climb and is rated as a cat 1 climb.
> 3.) Who are you to tell me how my knees feel?


1) Yes. You are exactly right. It is very easy to get the right gear ratio with a double. You wrote this earlier, but for some reason you prefer a tight freehub on the back so you then "need" that 3rd ring up front. But ultimatly it's very easy to get all the ratios you need with a double, and even more so nowadays with the availability of 8, 9 and 10 sprocket freehubs. I get it just fine.... tell the original poster because she's the one who admits to not knowing what gear ratios she has.

2) It's also many, many kms long, which is what makes it 1st cat (note: not even a HC). So, no, 11% is not THAT steep. It's steep, but not THAT steep. I've ridden the alps. It's the length, not the slope that makes them hard. I get that just fine... do you?

3) I'll bet the root cause of your knee pain is not gear ratio. If your knees are already shagged and cause you pain when you climb then you're one of the few people who have a legitimate need for very low ratios on the hills (along with MTB'ers and those hardcore tourists with those wicked heavy panniers).


----------



## sarah (Jul 29, 2004)

Thanks for the vote of confidence Catboy!!

I just started racing more this year. It's my third season on a road bike. Everyone keeps telling me i'll manage just fine with the compact. I figure it can only make me stronger 

Sarah


----------



## 7eap4a (Sep 4, 2003)

*I dunno...*



SkidMarx said:


> Actually this whole thread has to rank as one of the most bizarre I've read.... people making nonsense claims about triples saving knees, people claiming that riders on doubles get crucified in endurance rides (I think you'll find that even with a granny they'd get slaughtered - it's called poor conditioning), people fluffing their physics and getting power and energy confused and spewing rubbish about "mechanical advantage"..... totally insane. The only people who made sense to me were the "pro double" lot... Put it in the BIG RING boys (and girls of course) !!!!


I ruined my knees skiing. While there are so many reason I prefer a double, my knees overrule all of them. I find that the triple lets me do the more difficult climbs with fewer aches later. My own experience is that saving knees is far from nonsense.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

SkidMarx said:


> 1) Yes. You are exactly right. It is very easy to get the right gear ratio with a double. You wrote this earlier, but for some reason you prefer a tight freehub on the back so you then "need" that 3rd ring up front. But ultimatly it's very easy to get all the ratios you need with a double, and even more so nowadays with the availability of 8, 9 and 10 sprocket freehubs. I get it just fine.... tell the original poster because she's the one who admits to not knowing what gear ratios she has.
> 
> 2) It's also many, many kms long, which is what makes it 1st cat (note: not even a HC). So, no, 11% is not THAT steep. It's steep, but not THAT steep. I've ridden the alps. It's the length, not the slope that makes them hard. I get that just fine... do you?
> 
> 3) I'll bet the root cause of your knee pain is not gear ratio. If your knees are already shagged and cause you pain when you climb then you're one of the few people who have a legitimate need for very low ratios on the hills (along with MTB'ers and those hardcore tourists with those wicked heavy panniers).



Yes, my knees are already bad from years of riding a 35 lbs. (sometimes more when I was touring with paniers) SS and other sports. I still can and do ride shorter climbs up to 1/2 mile that are 20% or higher in my middle ring (which is a 42) but on longer climbs my knees start hurting. It's not just the grade it's a combination of grade and length. So, yes I understand it but your last post was the first indication that you understand it as well.  I just enjoy the tight gearing for most of my riding and have the extra low gears when I need them. Other people may have better knees but not the legs. As said before, there are many good reasons people ride what they ride and it doesn't make them a pu$$y. Finally, this is the beginners board. Flaming the OP for not knowing everything about gear ratio makes you look bad. At least IMHO.

BTW. I'm planning to ride the Alps next year. Any tips?


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

One thing I cannot let pass is the 'My knees are bad because I ride/rode big gears thing.'

Cycling even with big gears is a relatively low weight bearing activity; the mechanical efficiency of the gearing system makes it so. Your bad knees are much more likely to be related to something other than cycling, whether it be disease or lifestyle or just old age and poverty.

The association between big gears and bad knees does not hold up to any scientific scrutiny, so please don't perpetuate this myth.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wrong wrong wrong*



olr1 said:


> One thing I cannot let pass is the 'My knees are bad because I ride/rode big gears thing.'
> 
> Cycling even with big gears is a relatively low weight bearing activity; the mechanical efficiency of the gearing system makes it so. Your bad knees are much more likely to be related to something other than cycling, whether it be disease or lifestyle or just old age and poverty.
> 
> The association between big gears and bad knees does not hold up to any scientific scrutiny, so please don't perpetuate this myth.


My right knee will be a TJR in probably 20 years. My left knee is not much better. When I finally was able to walk without dragging a foot after 3 years, I spent oh gee, another 3 years with another set of docs on how to get physical fitness and not cripple myself.

Wanna know a funny thing, they all did advocate some form of cycling. However, every one of them advised no over stressing due to exertion etc etc. Big gears, mean exertion. Sorry. 

So yes, if you do not have a perfect fit, and just happen to be riding a regular good old fashioned bike for fun and push dumb gears, your knees can get hurt. In fact, they will continue to hurt. SO, even more impetus was on me to get a fit and be really careful about gears etc etc. 

So, since you have no specialized medical training, and no real experience with rebuilding knees, I think YOU need to stop perpetuating data which by and large is complete garbage, at least to the set of docs I know and every other physical rehab I went to and oh yeah, all my strength coaches too. OR, golly, I have seen the light and they were all wrong. Nahhh


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

[*I]So, since you have no specialized medical training, and no real experience with rebuilding knees*, I think YOU need to stop perpetuating data which by and large is complete garbage, at least to the set of docs I know and every other physical rehab I went to and oh yeah, all my strength coaches too.[/I]

Wrong on both accounts. I have over 15 years in exactly this field, that's actual hands on personal experience, not 'the doc said'.

If you compare the strain on knee joints while cycling with the strain from basic activities of daily living, I think you will find that the cycling bit is much less stressful.

What I am saying is that there is a common myth among cyclists that pushing big gears will lead to knee damage. I can find no evidence that this is the case, so I do not believe it. The advice you have been given by your medics is aimed at reducing the load on already damaged knees, and is perfectly sensible, but this in no way confirms the myth.

Do you have high blood pressure too?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*which field*



olr1 said:


> [*I]So, since you have no specialized medical training, and no real experience with rebuilding knees*, I think YOU need to stop perpetuating data which by and large is complete garbage, at least to the set of docs I know and every other physical rehab I went to and oh yeah, all my strength coaches too.[/I]
> 
> Wrong on both accounts. I have over 15 years in exactly this field, that's actual hands on personal experience, not 'the doc said'.
> 
> ...


You are a doc? Yes or No? 

My experience does not at all go with what you are saying which is great. BUT, I do dimly recall that in the 6+ years of all that pain that gee, you can have knees get pretty messed up by improper stress even while cycling. 

I ask this for a very specific reason. Namely, improper position on the bike and big gears do damage. However, what if a person has "bad knees" and does not know that until, wow, I pushed huge gears and bam. Would nt you agree that golly, those gears brought on the injury?


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

In the field of Joint replacement. No not a doc; hence the time to cycle. I work alongside the docs who do, and I see/help insert standard knee replacements for older people as well as knee reconstruction for sporting injuries.

If 'big gears' caused irrepairable damage to knees we would be seeing a large number of ex-cyclists, given that both cycling and bigger gears were more prevalent in the past. This is not the case. Cycling seems to have a protective effect; we rarely see problems with cyclists, and those that we do see have other signs of joint damage to smaller joints in the hands and shoulders, suggesting that a disease process unrelated to cycling is at work. 

Of more interest to me are the traumatic reconstructions we do; one of my friends ended up with a leg 2 inches shorter following a cycling/vehicular accident. After major reconstructive surgery he walks with a pronounced limp, but can dish out the pain on the chain gang like no-one else.

Let me stress again that I do not believe that big gears cause knee damage; it's a myth that is accepted by many cyclists with no basis in fact.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

MB1 said:


> When we see folks at one of the rides we enjoy doing (very long and very hilly) without a triple we don't expect to see them again. Either they are long gone off the front because they are young and in very good shape or they are long off the back because they aren't prepared for the ride.
> 
> Pretty much all the riders around here that impress us with their skill, strength and experience run triples.
> 
> ...


Aren't you the one that commented about how much faster you rode recently on a route with fixed rather than the same route with gears and then said all of us with gears should just try to push it out going up the hills rather than shifting down?


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> [*I]So, since you have no specialized medical training, and no real experience with rebuilding knees*, I think YOU need to stop perpetuating data which by and large is complete garbage, at least to the set of docs I know and every other physical rehab I went to and oh yeah, all my strength coaches too.[/I]
> 
> Wrong on both accounts. I have over 15 years in exactly this field, that's actual hands on personal experience, not 'the doc said'.
> 
> ...


Granted I have no medical background but logic is telling me (and you actually proof it with your comments), that it's not a good idea to push big gears. Maybe pushing big gears is not the initial cause of the damaged knee, but pretty much everybody is likely to have damaged knees. You may not notice it (and it might even be undetectable with todays methods), but some sort of damage is there. It might be from falling as a kid or just the wrong turn getting up in the morning. So why wouldn't I want to reduce the load on my knees so these (minor) damages don't become worse?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*so........*



olr1 said:


> In the field of Joint replacement. No not a doc; hence the time to cycle. I work alongside the docs who do, and I see/help insert standard knee replacements for older people as well as knee reconstruction for sporting injuries.
> 
> If 'big gears' caused irrepairable damage to knees we would be seeing a large number of ex-cyclists, given that both cycling and bigger gears were more prevalent in the past. This is not the case. Cycling seems to have a protective effect; we rarely see problems with cyclists, and those that we do see have other signs of joint damage to smaller joints in the hands and shoulders, suggesting that a disease process unrelated to cycling is at work.
> 
> ...


Look, I know you mean well and you are earnest. I bet you really do a swell job. But, YOU ARE NOT A DOC FOR JOINT REPLACEMENT, I would like to gently and kindly stress in the most abundantly kind way that I can manage that you really really need to CLOSE THE CAKE HOLE. 

I am sorry to seem abrupt, but there are no real ways to describe the utter agony that I endured due to a series of injuries to my knees and hence the JR. It hurts OK? When I aggravate or reinjure the area, the pain does NOT GO AWAY. It just sits there and really really does not cease to cause discomfort. Joyous day, it usually brings about tension headaches and a migraine too. So, I really appreciate the input, but in this specific instance for this specific experience you are not helping and could be hindering. So, given the excruciating pain I have endured with this malady, I will have to just agree to disagree and let you know that I hope you do not need to endure this kind of pain. OK? So pretty please, get some ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.........and lest I forget, keep in mind that there are us poor slobs out there who just think pain sucks and dont want anybody to endure this.

OKEY DOKEY?


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Sounds good logically.....

My problem is that the 'low gears are good for your knees' mantra is trotted out with little thought. The converse 'Big gears are bad for your knees' is accepted as gospel truth.

Neither have any grounding in fact.

The mechanical advantage allowed by cycling is sufficient to reduce the load on ones knees significantly. That this is so is borne out by the way cycling is considered a 'low impact' sport, specifically with reference to osteoporosis; the lack of loading means that cycling contributes little to a stronger skeleton.

If anyone can show me concrete, independent, scientific evidence that there is a confirmed connection between the use of big gears and knee damage, I'll eat my shorts, chamois cream dressing and all.
Until that day, I insist that there is no connection, and this is a myth.

If pushed, I would go so far as to say that pushing bigger gears will develop the surrounding connective tissue and musculature to give a protective effect. I have no evidence for this, so it should be treated as garbage until proven.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

I appreciate that you have an amount of suffering to deal with that most people cannot comprehend, but it doesn't change my initial premise; that big gears do not damage knees.

Yell at me all you like, the evidence is not there.

Incidentally, put off the op as long as you are able; knee replacements do not last long when you are still relatively active. Tell me when you've had it done and you can kick my ass for rehab.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*its your lucky day*



olr1 said:


> I appreciate that you have an amount of suffering to deal with that most people cannot comprehend, but it doesn't change my initial premise; that big gears do not damage knees.
> 
> Yell at me all you like, the evidence is not there.
> 
> Incidentally, put off the op as long as you are able; knee replacements do not last long when you are still relatively active. Tell me when you've had it done and you can kick my ass for rehab.


Actually, in a decade or two they might be able to grow me a knee from my own cells. Cool huh? However, lack of evidence does not invalidate the premise. OOOPS.

I appreciate the scientific approach you got. Its fine. But, I am sadly all tapped out in the detachment department after my last refreshing chat with yet another detached professional and that blank stare you get because a)they do not live with the pain or b)its just a job and they dont have the data yet. There is alot of love there. Pardon me, its hard to type right now because the tears in my eyes are clouding my vision while I type. My heart is just pounding piss for you right now. Oh the compassion  

I sure do hope you dont want a visual metaphor about my feelings on that one OK?  I just hope you maintain that detachment if you should ever feel a "bit of discomfort".


----------



## 7eap4a (Sep 4, 2003)

olr1 said:


> Sounds good logically.....
> 
> My problem is that the 'low gears are good for your knees' mantra is trotted out with little thought. The converse 'Big gears are bad for your knees' is accepted as gospel truth.
> 
> ...


Actually, if you do a google search, you find quite a few studies. I can't vouch for thier credibility, but as in many cases you can find data to support any position.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

We are getting off the original topic; I don't think that riding big gears mess up your knees.

As for sympathy; no, you're right, I don't think anyone involved in the medical side of it really has much sympathy/empathy. In one way it's a shame, but then again, it's just not possible to feel for everyone you see. The emotional demand would be too great; I cannot feel your anguish and pain, because I would have to feel the pain of the hundreds of people we see each year. I/we simply cannot do it.

The best you can hope for is someone who cares about doing a good job, who cares about his/her work like a craftsman, who takes pride in being as good as they can be.

Sorry, but that is the best I can honestly come up with; it is sh!tty, it probably isn't right, but it is the best I can do.

I do sincerely hope that you get the best treatment available, and that your outcome is good enough for you to return to a level of activity that you are content with. Realistically, I think you will be disappointed; knee replacements are good for little old ladies, but less so for active young men.

All the best.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> Sounds good logically.....
> 
> My problem is that the 'low gears are good for your knees' mantra is trotted out with little thought. The converse 'Big gears are bad for your knees' is accepted as gospel truth.
> 
> ...



I actually do agree with your last paragraph. But I don't need studies to know that both points are valid.  The only question is, how much load can you put on your knees that the benefits outway the damage. And that is a question that can only be answered individualy.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

I am tempted to gather together a number of 'cycling myths' and attempt to debunk them, but can only remember all the ones that I disagree with when I am drunk as a fool; need more beer!


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Sample Size*



ttug said:


> Look, I know you mean well and you are earnest. I bet you really do a swell job. But, YOU ARE NOT A DOC FOR JOINT REPLACEMENT, I would like to...


You do not need to have a medical degree to reasonably reach the conclusion that OLR did. In fact many doctors have not got a clue about cycling and whats appropriate or inappropriate. Often times the opinions the doctors express are based on myths and stuff they heard outside in the smoking hut. As an aside I am always amazed at the number of health care professionals you see smoking outside the hospital.



olr1 said:


> In the field of Joint replacement. No not a doc; hence the time to cycle. I work alongside the docs who do, and I see/help insert standard knee replacements for older people as well as knee reconstruction for sporting injuries.
> 
> If 'big gears' caused irrepairable damage to knees we would be seeing a large number of ex-cyclists, given that both cycling and bigger gears were more prevalent in the past. This is not the case...


It would seem as though OLR would have seen a large enough sample to reach the conclusion that he did. Perhaps not scientific enough for JAMA but certainly logical and probably just as accurate as some of the studies done in the medical field. Certainly the sample group that OLR sees is more representative than TTUGs single item sample group.

My wife just stands around and watches ortho doctors work too so she is just as stupid as OLR but rarely does she ever mention seeing a cyclist slide accross the table. Usually it is fat people.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

As an insult, 'You're as stupid as my wife' takes some beating; as will you when your wife finds out what you've said.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*the topic*



olr1 said:


> We are getting off the original topic; I don't think that riding big gears mess up your knees.
> 
> As for sympathy; no, you're right, I don't think anyone involved in the medical side of it really has much sympathy/empathy. In one way it's a shame, but then again, it's just not possible to feel for everyone you see. The emotional demand would be too great; I cannot feel your anguish and pain, because I would have to feel the pain of the hundreds of people we see each year. I/we simply cannot do it.
> 
> ...


I do bike, and I am as active as a father of 2 can be because, I dont push giant gears. I can do sub 5 hour solo centuries and I can still do a sub hour 40k, on my triple, on these knees. And today, there was very little pain. 

You see, thats the issue here. Listening and learning. In this instance, double and triples. I ride at the best my knees allow because I literally spent months on bikes getting ratios down. Cadence charts what speed you get how fast I could go etc etc etc After all the hype, it came down to cadence, gears and hey, its a triple. So what? I can be active, have bad knees, keep my weight down and not suffer all of the time. 

The issue again though is that out of hand, from a medical pro who cycles, you dismiss experience because you dont have the evidence. In short, you ignore what you are hearing because the science you know about does not back up what you are reading. I respect that. However, I would ask that you respect a persons experience. Which, you are not. Thats free. Next time, you can talk to my insurance co ha ha ha 

However, if you insist, I think you are wrong BUT I see why you have the opinion you do. A bit irksome you cant return the courtesy........


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

I think your case is different; you have knee damage which has caused you to gear down in an effort to limit the impact on your knees. I do respect that. In fact I admire the fact that you are continuing to cycle in the face of probably overwhelming advice not to.

My point, and I do apologise for repeating it to the point of boredom, is that the use of big gears is not a _causative factor_ in the development of knee injury. There is no evidence to support this, yet it is accepted as the truth by the majority of cyclists.

Again, I hope things work out for you.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*New Math?*



ttug said:


> ...I can still do a sub hour 40k, on my triple...


So at a 100rpm on a flat TT I would cruise along in my 52x16.

Throw in some hills and *use*the granny gear on your triple for say 3 miles of climbing:
...that's 19 minutes at 100rpm in your 30x25
...so in the remaining 40 minutes you cover 22 miles spinning your 52x12 at 100+rpm
...if I pushed 40 minutes in that gear more than my knees would be hurting

Of course maybe my math is off.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

olr1 said:


> One thing I cannot let pass is the 'My knees are bad because I ride/rode big gears thing.'
> 
> Cycling even with big gears is a relatively low weight bearing activity; the mechanical efficiency of the gearing system makes it so. Your bad knees are much more likely to be related to something other than cycling, whether it be disease or lifestyle or just old age and poverty.
> 
> The association between big gears and bad knees does not hold up to any scientific scrutiny, so please don't perpetuate this myth.


Jeffrey P. Broker, PhD:

http://www.biomech.com/db_area/archives/1996/9607sports.bio.html

"Which cyclists sustain overuse knee injuries? Cyclists of every ability level are at risk. High-level competitive cyclists (category I and II, for example) train intensely to remain at their competitive best. A large percentage of knee injuries in this population result from training errors such as too many miles, too many hills, and use of too-large gears (or too-low a pedaling rate) early in the season."

Also at:

http://www.63xc.com/joshc/kneepain.htm

"Gearing choices can become an important variable in preventing the progression of chondromalacia patella. When the leg is forcefully extended, as during a cyclist's power stoke, the knee cap acts as a pulley to transfer the large forces of the quads across the knee joint to the tibia (one of the lower leg bones). As a result, a component of the tendon forces pulls the knee towards the knee joint, greatly increasing the pressure on the back of the kneecap. This pressure can wear down the joint surfaces. Normally, a thin layer of slippery fluid lubricates the joint and prevents wear. However, during slow, forceful extensions (think big chainring grinding uphill) this fluid becomes displaced and the joint loses much of its lubrication. This is not good for your knees or pistons!"

...etc...


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> ...
> My wife just stands around and watches ortho doctors work too so she is just as stupid as OLR but rarely does she ever mention seeing a cyclist slide accross the table. Usually it is fat people. ...


Unfortunately there are way more fat people than cyclist in the US. And actually you are proofing my point. The weight (=load) is too big for the joints. Hence the insury.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Fat, Drunk and Stupid...*

...is no way to refer to my wife. She doesn't drink!



Minimalist said:


> Unfortunately there are way more fat people than cyclist in the US. And actually you are proofing my point. The weight (=load) is too big for the joints. Hence the insury.


Cause and effect. Is it the weight of 300+ pound person that caused their knee problems or their lack of physical activity and exercise? Is the load for our 300+ pounder really equal to the that of the pushing too big of gear?

This argument about pushing too big of gear is really not applicable to the decision between the triple and the double in many cases. Those folks pushing too big of gear are typically cruising along at 15mph in their big ring chanting to themselves "no pain, no gain". Short, infrequent climbing in too big a gear is not going to blow out someones knees. If you live in an area with lots of repeated climbing then you really do need to evaluate your gearing and choose a triple if appropriate. 



olr1 said:


> As an insult, 'You're as stupid as my wife' takes some beating; as will you when your wife finds out what you've said.


Most people have filters and passwords on their computers to keep the kids off the porn sites. Mine are set to keep my wife and son from seeing what I post about them in the cycling forums. You can't get in trouble if you don't get caught.


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> I think your case is different; you have knee damage which has caused you to gear down in an effort to limit the impact on your knees. I do respect that. In fact I admire the fact that you are continuing to cycle in the face of probably overwhelming advice not to.
> 
> My point, and I do apologise for repeating it to the point of boredom, is that the use of big gears is not a _causative factor_ in the development of knee injury. There is no evidence to support this, yet it is accepted as the truth by the majority of cyclists.
> 
> Again, I hope things work out for you.


Does it really matter if it is the "causative factor" or the factor that brings the injury to the surface? An injury that otherwise would have not bothered this person. Honestly I believe you are just hiding behing "there is no study". What do you need a study for? To state the obvious? You admit that pedaling with a high cedence is better, when the knee is already injured. Are you honestly saying that we are NOT injuring ("Injuries" that are undedected) our body every day? This would be absurd.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*52x14*



Keeping up with Junior said:


> So at a 100rpm on a flat TT I would cruise along in my 52x16.
> 
> Throw in some hills and *use*the granny gear on your triple for say 3 miles of climbing:
> ...that's 19 minutes at 100rpm in your 30x25
> ...


I use a 52x14 or 16 for the TT. I like the ratio as Merckx set the hour in the same 52x 14 ratio @ ~ 100 rpm this yielded me ~29.4 mph for the really flat go nuts sections. I then would switched down to a 52x16 @~100 rpm which gave me ~25.9 mph. It hurt my lungs alot but I could do it.No, it does not hurt my knees in that ratio. This is a rather flat TT I am talking about here. I still lost time on turn around and the ever present cross wind and lest I forget, my lack of fitness. 

However, the situation above assumes that I slowed to under 10 mph in the ratio given 30x25. I would not do that TT. A climb that would require that kind of ratio would not be something I would want in a TT. The remaining part of the sample above would also assume I do ~30 mph for the rest in a 52x12. Yeah, that would kill me. Sorry, that I cant do. In fact, not many folks I know personally can avearge over 30mph on the "average TT".If yoyu meet a person who claims that, they are a liar or thinking of a career in cycling. Depending on the course, I do change ratios so in short, no I dont pump the same ratio for a solid hour.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

olr1, are you going to videotape your short eating?


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

Hogwash. My knees are tender the next day after some serious climbing while standing.




olr1 said:


> One thing I cannot let pass is the 'My knees are bad because I ride/rode big gears thing.'
> 
> Cycling even with big gears is a relatively low weight bearing activity; the mechanical efficiency of the gearing system makes it so. Your bad knees are much more likely to be related to something other than cycling, whether it be disease or lifestyle or just old age and poverty.
> 
> The association between big gears and bad knees does not hold up to any scientific scrutiny, so please don't perpetuate this myth.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yup, I thought so*



olr1 said:


> I think your case is different; you have knee damage which has caused you to gear down in an effort to limit the impact on your knees. I do respect that. In fact I admire the fact that you are continuing to cycle in the face of probably overwhelming advice not to.
> 
> My point, and I do apologise for repeating it to the point of boredom, is that the use of big gears is not a _causative factor_ in the development of knee injury. There is no evidence to support this, yet it is accepted as the truth by the majority of cyclists.
> 
> Again, I hope things work out for you.


My docs told me to keep cycling, not to stop. Not a single one, without any variance said, do not bike. or Hey, I would say no......So again, you are on auto pilot.....and absent any real experience or in most cases medical skill or knowledge you rely on studies. I do not know medicine, but I do know docs. I have good docs because I did not wait for the others to advance their learning curve while I headed toward being wheel chair bound. I even had one young up and comer tell me I could not walk. Lets just say that Dr Broken Nose has a less than thriving practice........  

However, this will resolve itself. There will be a time somewhere, someplace where you will need the input of a professional. I will bet you good money that they will do their utmost to understand your problem and repeat themselves til they feel bored too. Just when you start to feel possibly irked, I want you to keep this little chat in mind. 

Good luck out there


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Ok, let me start over for the hard of thinking.....

1. There is a longstanding, pervasive, seemingly sensible myth among cyclists that pushing big gears is directly harmful to your knees.

2. Given the extent to which this is believed, there should be some evidence, some study, something somewhere which would back this up.

3. Given that gears were bigger in the past, and more people cycled more miles, there should be a noticeable group of older cyclists presenting with knee damage related to their choice (or lackof choice) of big gears.

4. To the best of my knowledge no such study or research or even anecdotal evidence exists.

5. My view is that because of this lack of evidence, and taking into account the supposition that cycling is a low-impact activity, that this is a mistake, a myth, an old wives tale.

6. The current move towards lower gearing with triples, compacts, Mountain bike style gears etc. has given this myth a new lease of life.

7. My view is that the use of 'big' gears (for a given value of big) is not directly harmful to the knees. If you are prone to or already have knee damage, it would seem sensible not to stress the joint further; so use smaller gears. Just as you wouldn't go stair climbing with a rucksack full of bricks with damaged knees...


So, no evidence; no video.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no studies out there*



wipeout said:


> olr1, are you going to videotape your short eating?



The lack of evidence with published studies would preclude this course of action.

However, I would buy the beer....


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> Ok, let me start over for the hard of thinking.....
> 
> 1. There is a longstanding, pervasive, seemingly sensible myth among cyclists that pushing big gears is directly harmful to your knees.
> 
> ...


Did you ever look/search for evidence? Did you look at the links posted? Where are your comments? Where is your evidence that big gears are not damaging knees? You have nothing - not even conclusive arguments - to support your theorie.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Minimalist said:


> Did you ever look/search for evidence? Did you look at the links posted? Where are your comments? Where is your evidence that big gears are not damaging knees? You have nothing - not even conclusive arguments - to support your theorie.


Me thinks olr1 ignored the links.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

I have a '99 Lemond Zurich double and a 2004 Lemond Zurich triple. I prefer the shifting of the double but hey, on some rides (like the Tour de Blast up Mt. St. Helens or Summit to Surf up Mt Hood) I would be suffering so bad on the climbs it wouldn't be a very enjoyable ride. I ride my double 90% of the time but on extended climbs I'll ride the triple and not feel even a little bit bad about it.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no study on that either*



olr1 said:


> Ok, let me start over for the hard of thinking.....
> 
> 1. There is a longstanding, pervasive, seemingly sensible myth among cyclists that pushing big gears is directly harmful to your knees.
> 
> ...


There is more than anecdotal evidence, you just do not read other studies that would counter your opinion. There are links posted, there are other studies. You are either too inexperienced or too inept to advance your skills so, hey, everyone else, must be wrong.

However, if we follow your model, as there are no studies on you being video taped while eating shorts, there would be no evidence and hence, it would never happen. Sound logic. Certainly.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Sorry guys, I genuinely missed the links; I was looking at the thread in hybrid mode and stepped over them.

Are those your best shot?

For a theory that every cyclist knows?


http://www.biomech.com/db_area/archives/1996/9607sports.bio.html

....suggests that the use of big gears is okay later in the season; it's a training issue rather than a problem per se.

http://www.63xc.com/joshc/kneepain.htm

_..... But excessive 'non-driving' knee movements (that is, those movements which do not directly drive the pedals) may significantly increase the risk of developing painful knee symptoms.

One of the most common of these conditions is chondromalacia patella. This affects the rear of the kneecap. In healthy knees, the rear of the kneecap is smooth in order to allow it to glide across the other bones which make up the knee joint. In chondromalacia, excessive contact pressure between the kneecap and the knee joint over time causes this smooth surface to break down. As the condition progresses there is often an increase in knee pain, especially in forceful extensions of the knee during activities like climbing stairs--or pushing big gears at low cadence._

The guy contradicts himself; non-driving knee movements increase the risk of..... yet big gear pushing; surely the number one driving knee movement is the problem?

This is common knowledge among cyclists right? This is the first thing we all learn about gearing. This is the mantra that gets handed down from old guy to newbie.

...and there is still no evidence, never mind JAMA level stuff, there is no other evidence that this is the case.

Show me.

Show me the evidence or admit I might just have a point.

It's about thinking, it's about not accepting what you get told, it's about turning up those critical faculties, about using the old grey matter.

It's also pretty boring, so this is my last post on it.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*uh no*



olr1 said:


> Sorry guys, I genuinely missed the links; I was looking at the thread in hybrid mode and stepped over them.
> 
> Are those your best shot?
> 
> ...


the material you browsed and quoted would be anecdotal, a condition you requested and are ignoring. That means you would have to do real work to refute or rebuttress what you mean.

The dullest thing on earth to date mind you, is a professional who cant cut it unless they ignore what they just dont get.  

Oh the day you require help will be one to behold indeed........  

Sorry, but that the best you can get right now. Yeah,.........ever consider your best just aint the best????


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> Sorry guys, I genuinely missed the links; I was looking at the thread in hybrid mode and stepped over them.
> 
> Are those your best shot?
> 
> ...



Man, you are a disapointment. You don't even understand that in the article you quoted the author is talking about 2 different thinks. 

Yes, I'm thinking and not accepting what you tell me. Again, you have nothing to back up your position. I truly hope you are not in any kind of medical profession.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

So neither of you can provide any sensible evidence so now you're going to abuse me personally and professionally.

Sad cases.

I really don't care if big gears do or do not damage your knees....

I'm asking you to think, that's all.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Don't need triple if you got a compact crank*

Which you see many racers using now for the hilly stages.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh my*



olr1 said:


> And your contribution to this debate?
> 
> You started off with a personal attack and have continued the theme, now suggesting that I'm not professionally up to scratch.
> 
> Sad.


I am not suggesting it, I am stating it emphatically. Oh and by the way, you also lied, this was another post after your "last" on this topic.

Look, go be professional, be detached and watch more people suffer. Seems to be the only thing you are really really good at anyway.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Eat my shorts.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*lack of evidence*



olr1 said:


> Eat my shorts.


Sorry, the lack of any evidence or study precludes this action on my part.

Although I do gather, its the best you can do.......


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> So neither of you can provide any sensible evidence so now you're going to abuse me personally and professionally.
> 
> Sad cases.
> 
> ...


What do you expect? I gave you some conclusive arguments, you even admited that they are logically correct, never came up with ANY argument yourselve other than "there is no evidence". Further more you don't understand the articles posted and accuse me of not thinking and so on. I understand that you don't want to eat your shorts (and if it helps, I'm willing to negotiate).


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh the irony*



Minimalist said:


> What do you expect? I gave you some conclusive arguments, you even admited that they are logically correct, never came up with ANY argument yourselve other than "there is no evidence". Further more you don't understand the articles posted and accuse me of not thinking and so on. I understand that you don't want to eat your shorts (and if it helps, I'm willing to negotiate).


I find it amusing that the doctor is concerned and has replied on behalf of his reputation with far more vigor than actually replying to the issue. 

Its as if, mind you, as if, his own reputation is far more important than the pain of his clients. Oh, I feel yet another wave of sympathy blinding me oh oh oh


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1, I bothered to do a search for you. I'm sure you are familiar with the "National Library of Medicine". A quick search came up with two abstracts (I'm sure there are more) that support the low cadence=bad equation. Unfortunately I'm not a member and don't want to pay for the full articles. Since you are a health professional and cyclist I'm sure you are interested in the full articles. Thought I'd let you know.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Thats a more pleasant approach.

I had a trawl through PubMed, using 'low cadence' as a search term, and then tried 'knee load pedalling' as a search.

Obviously the choice and interpretation is open to bias, but even with my mouth full of lycra, this caught my eye;

Load moments about the hip and knee joints during ergometer cycling.

Ericson MO, Bratt A, Nisell R, Nemeth G, Ekholm J.

The aim of the study was to calculate the magnitudes of moments of force acting about the bilateral hip and knee joint axes during ergometer cycling. Six healthy subjects pedalled a weight-braked bicycle ergometer at different workloads, pedalling rates, saddle heights and pedal foot position. During cycling at 120 Watts, 60 revolutions per minute with mid-saddle height and anterior pedal foot position, the mean peak flexing and extending hip load moments were 34.3 and 8.9 Nm, respectively. Mean peak flexing knee load moments was 28.8 Nm and extending moment was 11.9 Nm. Hip load moments were significantly increased by increasing the ergometer workload or pedalling rate. For knee load moments, workload was the most important factor. The flexing knee load moment did not change with changes in pedalling rate. Different saddle heights or pedal food positions had a slight but not always statistically significant influence on the hip and knee joint loads.* The maximum hip and knee joint load moments induced during cycling were small compared with those obtained during other exercises or normal activities such as level walking, stair climbing, and lifting.*


One of my ideas was that the loads imposed by cycling are lower than in normal activity; food for thought?


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> ....One of my ideas was that the loads imposed by cycling are lower than in normal activity; food for thought?


That was never argued (at least by me) and the topic. They used 120 Watss max? That's pretty low isn't it?

Try "knee pain cycling" and you'll come up with some interesting studies.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Minimalist said:


> That was never argued (at least by me) and the topic. They used 120 Watss max? That's pretty low isn't it?
> 
> Try "knee pain cycling" and you'll come up with some interesting studies.


The short-eating argument is whether or not pushing hard on big gears can lead to knee injury. Common sense would indicate that the more a knee is stressed the higher the risk for injury. I don't see how anyone can argue with that seemingly simple observation!

BTW, riding fixed gear and using my legs to stop seems to have help my knees.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

There are some more interesting things there, but still little to suggest that big gears cause injury. It seems that the 'dangerous' features of cycling are related to alignment, repetition and mobility; again my reading is as biased and objective as the next mans.


I hope I have caused you to think about the subject a little; I'm sure that there are other accepted wisdoms in cycling which are worthy of further scrutiny.

Ttug; I do my best, I don't know that I can do more than that.

Shall we leave it there?


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

wipeout said:


> The short-eating argument is whether or not pushing hard on big gears can lead to knee injury. Common sense would indicate that the more a knee is stressed the higher the risk for injury. I don't see how anyone can argue with that seemingly simple observation!
> 
> BTW, riding fixed gear and using my legs to stop seems to have help my knees.



Common sense can be wrong; the world looks flat.......

I don't want to go through it all again, but; cycling seems to stress the knees less than everyday activities, and is it likely that muscle power as used in cycling would be greater than the power a joint can handle?

Think about walking upstairs; pushing your body weight up each step using the knee as a pivot. When cycling we don't put all our weight through one leg; some weight is taken by the hands, some by the other leg; lower stresses.

Ok fellas, I've been your whipping boy for long enough today.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

The way I see it, if you don't look like this:
<img src="https://www.lancearmstrong.com/pics/2003/tdf03/ttt-wp.jpg">

Someone can always knock you down. You're gut's too big, your helmet doesn't match, you don't need a triple, your legs aren't shaved. As others have said, it's ego. There's an undercurrent of superiority complex in road cycling. My Cat number is lower than your Cat. I am more pro than you.

It's dumb. Ignore it. Educate and spread tolerance. To each his own. We're just riding bikes. Enjoy the sport and everyone who appreciates the sport.

Do not dwell on the fact that you on the triple is faster than this guy on the double. That is reverse discrimination. Fact is most guys on doubles will crush you. But that is irrelevant. If someone sneers at someone for riding a triple or mtb shoes, or a camelback or the wrong jersey... they are an Idiot.

fc


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

olr1 said:


> ...and is it likely that muscle power as used in cycling would be greater than the power a joint can handle? ...


That depends a) on your muscles and b) on your joints and can only be found out when you push it. But why would one do that? 

The "flat world" was not common sense but denying of common sense. Oh, wait, didn't you just do that?  

Just leave at this. It's not leading anywhere. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. Have a great weekend and 4th. I'm going for a ride and will use extra high cadence today.


----------



## RodeRash (May 18, 2005)

Jeez! I'm not going to wade through all the discussion, just a good sample of it. Then I'm going to add to the heap. 

Maybe the stigma on a triple comes from seeing people hitting the "granny gear" to get up a pitch that's neither steep nor particularly long. I see riders all the time sittin in the middle of a hill, "twiddling" along at 2 MPH in a gear they're turning over at about 90 RPM. 

You may as well get off and walk.  

I have a triple on a Trek 1500. I have another road bike with a double. There's a ride I do, 35 miles with a 2 mile climb on one end of the "out and back." So it's a climb to the top, run down the other side, turn around and climb back. 

I use the triple ring to give me the "right" gear for climbing. I don't pick the lowest, and I keep the speed going up the incline. I'm not sitting on my butt "twiddling" . . . HR at about 90% and I'm working. 

My triple cuts 20 minutes off this ride over the double. And I don't feel whipped after riding the triple. But the double on these climbs makes me want to find other routes to ride and avoid this ride. 

Racers don't need a triple most of the time. They don't need to rest a couple days between stages of the Tour de France either. I can't do a stage in the Tour de France, and I can use that extra chain-ring.


----------

