# Double Vs Triple Crankset



## Rockass (Apr 28, 2011)

I have_ a double now _which is great unless a 20+ wind hits me in the face while going up a hill then I hit a wall.
Does anyone else have this experience or have a triple insight. Groovy.
I have always had a triple on my MTB so I'm use to it too.


----------



## Andy69 (Jun 14, 2008)

I will never have a bike that doesn't have a triple


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

I ride a compact double. Triples blow my knees apart.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I have a triple and like it fine. Frankly I only use the granny gear on one cycling trip per year where grades can go from 15-20% for extended periods.

You might want to consider a compact double which has smaller chainrings than a standard crankset. Your small front chainring will be a 34 instead of a 39 with a standard. (I am assuming your current setup is a standard)

With a compact and an 11-28 you should be able to climb most anything.

Changing to a triple gets expensive as in addition to the crankset you would have to change the derailleurs and left hand shifter.


----------



## Rockass (Apr 28, 2011)

Current stock rig now has: Shimano
Crank: TruVativ Touro 2.0, 34/50 teeth
Rear Cogs 9-speed, 12 - 25 teeth


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Rockass said:


> Current stock rig now has:
> Crank: TruVativ Touro 2.0, 34/50 teeth
> Rear Cogs 9-speed, 12 - 25 teeth


You already have a compact crank. The 34x25 gear is pretty low by some standards. Just how steep are these hills? If you need just a little lower, a cheaper fix is a new cassette. If you get something with a 28, that gets you about the same low gear as you'd have with the 30 ring on a triple with your existing 25 cog.


----------



## Rockass (Apr 28, 2011)

I've been a lazy ass and got outta shape. 1 Knee is banged up from MTB too.
So the fault is mine.
Cassette sounds right.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Rockass said:


> I've been a lazy ass and got outta shape. 1 Knee is banged up from MTB too.
> So the fault is mine.
> Cassette sounds right.


You can go up to a 32 in back if you have SRAM and want to use a midcage rival RD. I went from a triple to compact with the midcage rival RD. I only use the 32 cassette on rides (10% of the time) where I know there are steep grades. The rest of the time it's the 11-28.

Try the 11-28 first.


----------



## T0mi (Mar 2, 2011)

I don't see the point in a triple except for climbing in trees. With such lower gear available, you would probably go faster walking.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Rockass said:


> I've been a lazy ass and got outta shape. 1 Knee is banged up from MTB too.
> So the fault is mine.
> Cassette sounds right.


No need to apologize, and no "fault" involved. We need the gears we need, and the only silly ones are the folks who won't get what they need because they're concerned about how it will look.

I do think a cassette change is the place to start. Easy and cheap, and might be enough. You can always change out the crank later if you need to.

BTW, I think everybody is under-geared if they hit a 20 mph wind on a climb. I wouldn't want to carry around the gear I'd need to spin that. I just stand up and grind it out, That's a little thing that MTBers who take up road don't always realize -- it's okay to stand, even for long stretches.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

a standard 53/42/whatever road triple kinda sucks compared to a standard 53/39 double- you end up with a big middle ring that pretty much forces you to use the granny... Replace the 42 ring with a 39 and you'd be happier. 

A 48/38/28 triple is pretty nice- 10-tooth difference between each ring keeps shifting pretty simple, as you've found on your MTB. You do lose the big ring, so you lose the perceived benefit of a 53/11...

Compact 50/34 is great for range BUT it can be a PITA to shift- you've got to shift a lot more than before- the 34 isn't high enough for speed, the 50 isn't low enough for climbing so you end up shifting the front a lot more, usually paired with 2 cogs up or down in the back.


----------



## Rockass (Apr 28, 2011)

"Standing on the peddles" is the right answer _on most tough climb..._ Take, the burn..


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

T0mi said:


> I don't see the point in a triple except for climbing in trees. With such lower gear available, you would probably go faster walking.


I'm currently in a quandary. When I run I take long steps. My friend on an internet message board told me to take shorter steps and increase my cadence especially up hills. Would a triple help me?


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

T0mi said:


> I don't see the point in a triple except for climbing in trees. With such lower gear available, you would probably go faster walking.


It's always interesting to me when people think they know which gearing is most useful for others based on their own.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

I've noticed a new trend.

5-10 years ago, you could get a very nice bike and component group with a triple, they were very, very common around here (very hilly). Many "ultegra" and "dura ace" type bikes with triples. Many of us middle aged recreational riders who like good gear but aren't monsters fitness-wise and on the downhill slope of our peak. Have the money, love the sport, need the gears. Simple: high quality triple drivetrain = fun.

Now, especially with Sram hitting the market so big, the OEM bikes have very, very few triple offerings. Many people say you can get "just about" the same low gear with a compact double, but the fact is, the 30t triple will give you 1-2 lower gears with any given cassette than the 34t compact double.

I have nothing absolute against the compact double - it makes sense beyond just the style-vanity thing (which I still think is the main reason roadies don't like triples). There is rationale for settling on marketing simply double shifters and FD's.

So the solution I see creeping into the market is the compact double with a very wide cassette - 11 or 12 - 28 is almost standard, with 32 or even larger becoming pretty common on OEM rides, often with a MTB rear derailleur when needed. Not a bad solution, and will in fact get you the low gears if you need them. 

But the trade off is the beauty of the middle ring, very little front shifting needed on many rides, much fewer double shifts needed. Trade this for the so-called weight savings of the double crank. Also sacrifice tight rear sprocket changes, bigger jumps with the wider cassette. And the weight savings - I have to wonder. I acknowledge that a triple crankest is heavier than a same-grade double. But, then you add the large cassette sprockets and a possibly heavier rear derailleur to match the gearing. Which really is the better solution?

Just some ramblings, the both work fine.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

nOOky said:


> I'm currently in a quandary. When I run I take long steps. My friend on an internet message board told me to take shorter steps and increase my cadence especially up hills. Would a triple help me?


You want to use your third leg for running? That sounds unpleasant.

Hey, TOmi, Alberto Contador was riding around in Italy last week, scouting the big climbs for the upcoming Giro. He was riding a triple, the wimp. No word on whether he walked any of it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Andy69 said:


> I will never have a bike that doesn't have a triple


And I'll never have a bike that HAS a triple...


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

I suppose the weight-weenies and the uninformed will always look down their elitest noses at those of us who ride bikes with triple chainrings and I could not care less. The bike magazines are just as bad. I no longer subscribe to Bicycling because its writers seem to take great joy in putting down triples and those of us who use them at every opportunity.

At the age of 70, I still average 6,000 miles per year on a Cervelo R3 and would have had to have given up cycling years ago if not for the granny gear option of a triple. Nothing you can put on a bike makes it easier on the knees (except, perhaps Speedplay pedals). With the derailleur properly adjusted a triple is just as trouble-free as any double and the few ounces that middle ring adds to a bike is insignificant. I actually have four bikes and all have triples. I call the LeMond below my Mount Mitchell bike. In addition to a triple crank, it has mountain bike derailleur and a 12-34 cassette out back.

Triple cranks forever:thumbsup: 

/


----------



## Rockass (Apr 28, 2011)

*Lemond = respect*


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

I have two road bikes. One has a triple, one has a compact double with an 11-32 cassette. I like both, and use each for different reasons. The triple is on a full-on touring bike. The compact is on my commuter/weekend bike. I recently got that one put together, and I don't know if I will ever ride a "standard" road bike configuration again.

LONG LIVE 9-SPEED!!!!!!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

stumpbumper said:


> I suppose the weight-weenies and the uninformed will always look down their elitest noses at those of us who ride bikes with triple chainrings and I could not care less. The bike magazines are just as bad. I no longer subscribe to Bicycling because its writers seem to take great joy in putting down triples and those of us who use them at every opportunity.
> 
> At the age of 70, I still average 6,000 miles per year on a Cervelo R3 and would have had to have given up cycling years ago if not for the granny gear option of a triple. Nothing you can put on a bike makes it easier on the knees (except, perhaps Speedplay pedals). With the derailleur properly adjusted a triple is just as trouble-free as any double and the few ounces that middle ring adds to a bike is insignificant. I actually have four bikes and all have triples. I call the LeMond below my Mount Mitchell bike. In addition to a triple crank, it has mountain bike derailleur and a 12-34 cassette out back.
> 
> Triple cranks forever:thumbsup:


Just because some of us prefer a double, or a compact double, that makes us "uninformed?" I'm really curious why you assume that people who dislike triples are "uninformed" or "elitest weight weenies?" Some of us are strong enough to ride compact or standard gearing, even in steep terrain, so why wouldn't we?

Your opinion that a triple is the way to go is only true in your own little world.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Just because some of us prefer a double, or a compact double, that makes us "uninformed?"


No, from the original text, looking down your nose at people riding triples makes you uniformed. So do you look down at those riding a triple?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> No, from the original text, looking down your nose at people riding triples makes you uniformed. So do you look down at those riding a triple?


Only when they claim it is the "only way to go."

I personally believe everyone is able to ride compact double gearing in all but the absolute steepest conditions. Even moreso with the new Apex gearing. I personally believe that triples should be reserved for radonneuring.


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Just because some of us prefer a double, or a compact double, that makes us "uninformed?" I'm really curious why you assume that people who dislike triples are "uninformed" or "elitest weight weenies?" Some of us are strong enough to ride compact or standard gearing, even in steep terrain, so why wouldn't we?
> 
> Your opinion that a triple is the way to go is only true in your own little world.


I have no problem with people who dislike triples but I am sick and tired of being criticized and even ridiculed for using one. Perhaps I did not do a good enough job of getting that point across in my original post.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

stumpbumper said:


> I have no problem with people who dislike triples but I am sick and tired of being criticized and even ridiculed for using one. Perhaps I did not do a good enough job of getting that point across in my original post.


If you're getting criticized or ridiculed for it, that's an issue of the group you ride with, not what you ride.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> I personally believe that triples should be reserved for radonneuring.


That pretty much settles the uniformed question.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> That pretty much settles the uniformed question.


So it's uninformed for me to have the OPINION that most people are stronger than they believe and are able to push slightly larger gears?

Sounds like you're just a touch closed minded there.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> So it's uninformed for me to have the OPINION that most people are stronger than they believe and are able to push slightly larger gears?
> 
> Sounds like you're just a touch closed minded there.


It's 1984 all over again. It's closed-minded to believe there is a range of abilities, terrains, and riding styles that would warrant the widest possible choice in equipment selection; while it's open-minded to believe that one knows exactly what some anonymous other rider needs by way of gearing. I love it.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Just because some of us prefer a double, or a compact double, that makes us "uninformed?" I'm really curious why you assume that people who dislike triples are "uninformed" or "elitest weight weenies?" Some of us are strong enough to ride compact or standard gearing, even in steep terrain, so why wouldn't we?
> 
> Your opinion that a triple is the way to go is only true in your own little world.


reading comprehension fail.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*This is amusing to listen to.*

Please carry on



robdamanii said:


> Only when they claim it is the "only way to go."
> .


I will note for the record that you are the only one on this thread who used the phrases, "only way to go" and "way to go."


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Rockass said:


> Current stock rig now has: Shimano
> Crank: TruVativ Touro 2.0, 34/50 teeth
> Rear Cogs 9-speed, 12 - 25 teeth


Since you have a 9 speed, I would recommend one of the "Century Special" cassettes from Harris Cyclery with a 30T cog. I suppose a MTB cassette would be an option too.


----------



## Barry in GA (Jan 19, 2009)

The purpose of gears is to match the power source to the load as efficiently as possible.

A 25 year old, flat-bellied limber-backed racer wannabe riding a 15 pound carbon rocket in a pace line on flat terrain has very different gearing requirements than an old (64) semi-clyde (200 +/-) with two artificial hips and a surgically repaired back riding hilly (not long, but steep) terrain.

I need a gear combination that provides something less than 30 gear-inches to ride the Arabia Mountain trail system in southeast Atlanta. On the other hand, the Silver Comet Trail is railroad flat and a SS would be OK.

A 50/34 compact double with a 12-32 or 11-34 cassette gives the necessary granny gear, but the gaps between gears are awfully big. What works for me is a 48/36/24 triple with a 12-23 cassette. It means a little extra weight (I don't care) and more Q-factor (doesn't bother me), but the result is lots of gears, small gaps between gears and no gear overlaps.

There is no such thing as perfect gearing; just the best compromise for the rider, bike, terrain and conditions.

Just my opinion, YMMV.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Camilo said:


> I've noticed a new trend.
> 
> 5-10 years ago, you could get a very nice bike and component group with a triple, they were very, very common around here (very hilly). Many "ultegra" and "dura ace" type bikes with triples. Many of us middle aged recreational riders who like good gear but aren't monsters fitness-wise and on the downhill slope of our peak. Have the money, love the sport, need the gears. Simple: high quality triple drivetrain = fun.
> 
> ...


Yep. my bike is a 2004 Trek 5900 Super Light Project 1. I got it with with Rolf Prima Elan wheels, Easton carbon bars, Arundel carbon cages. Speedplay X1's and ...DuraAce 7803 (triple). You don't see a $5-$6k bike with triples these days.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Rockass said:


> I have_ a double now _which is great unless a 20+ wind hits me in the face while going up a hill then I hit a wall.
> Does anyone else have this experience or have a triple insight. Groovy.
> I have always had a triple on my MTB so I'm use to it too.


I wouldn't choose to ride a double unless 

1) I was strong enough to run whatever low gear came with a cassette having one tooth jumps up to the 19 cog. With 10 speeds that means a 21, 23, or 25/26 large cog with an 11, 12, or 13 starting cog respectively. With only 9 cogs you get a 19, 21, or 23.

2) The chain rings were close enough together in size that I wasn't stuck riding with noisy chain lines and excessive double shifting. 

Living in Boulder, CO during the 8 speed era I realized that a triple would let me have both a low gear like 42x28 or 39x27 for rides headed west into the Colorado Rockies and one tooth jumps up to the 19 cog (I never needed a high gear bigger than 52x14 or 50x13) for plains rides east without swapping cassettes (riding to lunch hour rides with extra cogs, chain whip, cassette tool, and 1" wrench would suck) and built up a bike with 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21. It was wonderful. 

After wearing out my last 8 speed cassette I found Campagnolo had discontinued the combination so I upgraded to 9 speeds 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23. Then I wore out my big ring and bottom bracket and switched to a 50-34 compact crankset because 34x23 is close enough to 30x21 and two rings are better. Same range, same spacing, not the same thing. Rather than spinning 40x17 in the middle of the cassette at 17-19 MPH I'm using the equivalent 50x21 or 34x14 which are just one cog from the cassette end and noisier. Where double shifts on the triple were both exceedingly rare and done in one lever motion (Campagnolo shifters go up to three cogs bigger or five smaller at once), there are terrain/wind/fatigue or rest day combinations that have me doing a lot of double shifting which takes two shoves on the right lever going from 34x14 to 50x19. I'll put a triple on the next time I wear out parts for that reason alone.

I could upgrade to Campagnolo 11 speed and run 46-36x12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 which matches the range, cog spacing, and ring spacing I had in the 8 speed era with a triple; although I'd now like lower gears to haul my 30 pounds of beer belly up mountains which would mean compromises with only 11 cogs and a double crank that I don't want to live with. 13 or 14 cogs would make me happy but I don't want to wait until 2034 (8 years separated 10 and 11).

People (especially bike company employees and the magazines they buy advertising in) write about how we no longer need road triples (which mean making and stocking more bike, derailleur, crank, and even shifter SKUs) now that they're selling wide-range doubles which pair a 50-34 crank to a
11-12-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32 cassette.

While that sort of wide spacing is fine for going grocery shopping with your wife lots of cyclists don't think it feels to good when working hard.

If I needed the range I'd much rather have 

53-39-24x12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 

and if I was both really big and headed for insanely steep hills I could run a 24x32 low gear which would take a 45 cog to match on a 110mm BCD compact double.

While the triple weighs 100g more for the same quality, the speed penalty would only reach .1% if I carried my bike straight up a ladder.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> It's 1984 all over again. It's closed-minded to believe there is a range of abilities, terrains, and riding styles that would warrant the widest possible choice in equipment selection; while it's open-minded to believe that one knows exactly what some anonymous other rider needs by way of gearing. I love it.


I never said he "has to run a double." I simply said that a large majority of people riding a triple are perfectly capable of running another gearing very comfortably. The expanded range of doubles, due to compact gearing and large cassettes has relegated the triple to loaded touring, where absurdly low gears are necessary fro dragging a 50 pound bike up any wall you may encounter. For 95% of people, there's no point in the redundant gears and triple specific parts when you can ride very comfortably on compact double gearing. If you are physically unable to hack that marginal difference in gear inches, get a triple. Hell, I've known about half a dozen riders in the past couple years that have forsaken triples for compact setups, and not a single on of them is looking back and saying "that was a bad idea."

One poster admitted that he's pissed off he has to keep justifying his use of a triple, which is his right to be. However when it's been demonstrated that the triple is really unnecessary with the current choices, then it becomes much harder to justify its use beyond "I like it better." Sure, that's perfectly acceptably, but it doesn't stop people from questioning. And currently, compact gearing with wide range cassettes are becoming the norm, so people are conditioned to choose what is the norm. Like it or not, if you choose to be outside that normal group, you'll have to defend your choices.

And J, you're absolutely right, nobody specifically said "the only way to go." However I consider "triples forever" and "never ride anything but a triple" as synonymous.

My opinion? Triples belong on touring bikes unless you absolutely require one on a road bike (as one poster pointed out with his 70 year old knees.) Compact doubles will be more than sufficient for almost any rider out there, with the exception of those who ride and train excessively, and choose standard double gearing. In all honesty, my guess is that triples will basically become extinct in any high end form in the next few years, replaced completely by the compact double and wide range cassette.


----------



## DonDenver (May 30, 2007)

Barry in GA said:


> .....There is no such thing as perfect gearing; just the best compromise for the rider, bike, terrain and conditions.


Fair and balanced


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*robdamanii is right!*

Triples are for grossly overweight, out of shape, over the hill old men, or wimps! :biggrin5: On a sub 20 pound road bike? Are you kidding?

A few years ago, at the age of 63, I broke down and replaced my freewheel gears with a 13-28. Couldn't find another 13-26.  52-43 in front, that's right *43 inner ring.*. Nice gear. I use it more than a 39, much less a wimpy 34, gimmie a break. Sure, its work getting up some of these short climbs, but so what? Keep an even stroke and you're knees will be just fine. Pays to get the heart rate up once in a while! No pain no gain. Suffering makes you better!

Have to agree, triples are fine on MTBs and for loaded touring in the mountains, but nobody needs them on the road. Even compact gearing is market driven coddling for the masses. For years, nobody found anything wrong with 52-42 rings and 28 in back. On bikes that were 5 pounds heavier than today. What happened?


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> What happened?


people got smarter


----------



## Elfstone (Jun 27, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> And I'll never have a bike that HAS a triple...


Me too, not now, not ever...

Peace


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Nah.*



JCavilia said:


> people got smarter


They just wimped out. :biggrin5: Forgot that riding a bike occasionally requires effort, and that's the reward!

Now it's all prissy, "Oh! I don't think I can make it up those awful hills without a triple!"

And, "Gosh! 20 pounds! That's kind of heavy! How'm I gonna make it up the hills on such a heavy bike? With no triple?"

C'mon fellas, are we mice or men?


----------



## Rockass (Apr 28, 2011)

Remind me not to use the word VS again.
It's ..Gear Wars.
Darth Vader VS Obi wan Kenobi.
Peter Pan Vs Capt Hook
Gen Lee Vs Gen Grant
ect...
Drink a cold one already, gang.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Rockass said:


> Remind me not to use the word VS again.
> It's ..Gear Wars.
> Darth Vader VS Obi wan Kenobi.
> Peter Pan Vs Capt Hook
> ...


Or Bernard Hinault vs.Andy Schleck?

Eddy Merckx vs. Mark Cavendish? :biggrin5:

Not too long ago, men raced as men, not spoiled kids! :ihih:

The choice is obvious!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Only when they claim it is the "only way to go."
> 
> I personally believe everyone is able to ride compact double gearing in all but the absolute steepest conditions. Even moreso with the new Apex gearing. I personally believe that triples should be reserved for radonneuring.


Sorry but the use of everyone in your response here does show that your opinion is uninformed. I'll give you 2 examples

- cyclist lives in the flat part of the country but wants to have a bike he can take to the mountains periodically........no compact will have low enough gears for someone who never rides in the mountains.

- cyclist has an average speed and normal cadence where a 50/34 compact has him cross chained the vast majority of the time.

I have a bike set up with a 50/39/28 triple that I use the few times a year I travel to the mountains. I also use the bike as my bad weather bike....the normal 50/39 works perfectly and the granny is there'd when I need it.

I love when I get on a ride with this bike and get attitude from someone who thinks riding a triple is a sign of weakness.......especially when I ride them off my wheel.

It's nice having choices. 

I've never understood the triple condesension.

Len


----------



## zender (Jun 20, 2009)

This whole argument depends on what kind of shape you are in. If you can sustain a respectable 3W/kg at 50-60 rpm for a half an hour and recover for the next climb, then no need for a triple IMO. If you don't like to mash gears and spin instead, a triple is for you. Completely anecdotal, but I've never had someone blow by me on a sustained climb in the small ring of a triple but have been left standing still by plenty of guys and gals riding doubles.

Lately, I've noticed more mt. bikes getting away from a double+bash ring (which I prefer for the kind of terrain around me) and running 1x9. Completely doing away with the front shifting mechanism is pretty slick. Been wondering about trying something like this on a road bike with a long-cage rear and a 11-32. Probably not ideal for long pulls on flat terrain.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

> A few years ago, at the age of 63, I broke down and replaced my freewheel gears with a 13-28. Couldn't find another 13-26.


Lots of people are just like you, too weak and/or heavy to combine conventional road double rings with cogs suitable for fast flat-land hammering like a 13-19 freewheel.

Why is it OK to work around the problem with pie-plate sized cogs in back but not to add a third smaller ring up front?



> 52-43 in front, that's right *43 inner ring.*.


When you're 3-4 cogs shy of modern times and running a reasonable road freewheel like a 13-19 you need the big small ring ring to get reasonable overlap between rings to avoid a lot of double shifting.



> Nice gear. I use it more than a 39, much less a wimpy 34, gimmie a break. Sure, its work getting up some of these short climbs, but so what? Keep an even stroke and you're knees will be just fine. Pays to get the heart rate up once in a while! No pain no gain. Suffering makes you better!


Right! So man-up, get some real road cogs like 13-19, and add a 32 tooth triple conversion ring (probably takes a longer bottom bracket spindle too) so you can suffer more with the bigger low gear.



> For years, nobody found anything wrong with 52-42 rings and 28 in back.


Apart from wanting to swap on tighter freewheels for flatter rides.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Use whatever it takes for you to keep on enjoying the sport of cycling. My only problem with the whole debate whenever it pops up is the "you'll wreck your knees riding a double" which is complete bs.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Sure!*



zender said:


> This whole argument depends on what kind of shape you are in. If you can sustain a respectable 3W/kg at 50-60 rpm for a half an hour and recover for the next climb, then no need for a triple IMO. If you don't like to mash gears and spin instead, a triple is for you. Completely anecdotal, but I've never had someone blow by me on a sustained climb in the small ring of a triple but have been left standing still by plenty of guys and gals riding doubles.
> 
> Lately, I've noticed more mt. bikes getting away from a double+bash ring (which I prefer for the kind of terrain around me) and running 1x9. Completely doing away with the front shifting mechanism is pretty slick. Been wondering about trying something like this on a road bike with a long-cage rear and a 11-32. Probably not ideal for long pulls on flat terrain.


This is a late development in hybrid marketing: single chainring, I think 42 in front, and 8 speeds in back, maybe 13-32. Fine.

Lots of luddites now going to single speeds and fixies. 42-48 up front and 16-18 in back. Maintenance free drivetrain, and strong legs develope! Good for ya cycling ability. Fitness, too! :thumbsup:

I could put an old 44 t. chain ring back on the race bike, and do away with the 52-42. 44-26 would handle anything in Northern Virginia on a sub 20 pound racing bike. 44-13 would get the leg speed up, and I'd actually use that gear once in a while. 50 is a little too high. 34 is ridiculous. It puts all the rear gears too low. 

The thing I've found about gearing, is, if you practice spinning, keeping your leg speed up, the hills are manageable while working hard. I can still do the climbs around here in 42-23 on one bike, or 43-28 on the other, without slowing under 6 mph, no matter what. There was a thread not long ago where riders said they routinely slowed to 4 mph. I don't know how they could do that, but it has to be the lower gearing that makes that happen. I'd be stalling out at 4 mph and would have get off the bike and walk.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> They just wimped out. :biggrin5: Forgot that riding a bike occasionally requires effort, and that's the reward!
> 
> Now it's all prissy, "Oh! I don't think I can make it up those awful hills without a triple!"
> 
> ...


"requires effort." Wow! I didn't realize that bikes with triples pedal themselves up the hills! I'd better get one, ASAP!

You can put out just as much effort with a lower gear. You'll just be turning a higher cadence. Which obviously make you a wimp, but also might save your knees so you can keep riding for a long time.

The logical conclusion of your argument is what the old-timers said in the 30's: derailleurs are for old or sick people. Real men ride fixed gear bikes up and down the mountains.

FWIW, my road bike still has a standard 52/39 double. And I ride some pretty steep stuff, And I do more than half my riding on fixed gears. And I'll be 61 in a couple of weeks. But if and when I think a triple is appropriate for my needs, I'll get one. And I'll not stupidly disparage people for choosing equipment appropriate to their circumstances.


----------



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

It's a pride thing. Think about it, who wants to be the loser that needs a 30t granny gear? That implies weakness. Not that its true, some people just don't have the knees for it anymore or may need to get into better shape first.

Also true with stems. Who wants to be the guy with three spacers under a 10 degree stem that's been flipped up?

Such silliness.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Len J said:


> Sorry but the use of everyone in your response here does show that your opinion is uninformed. I'll give you 2 examples
> 
> - cyclist lives in the flat part of the country but wants to have a bike he can take to the mountains periodically........no compact will have low enough gears for someone who never rides in the mountains.
> 
> ...


Fitness is fitness Len, you know that. If you can hammer 25mph on the flats, you can climb hills. Maybe not quickly, but you can do it.

Cross chaining is not nearly the evil that it once was. With thicker, stiffer chains maybe so, but modern chains, no problem (except possible noise.)



> Bicycle shops commonly recommend against "cross-chaining" which is using the smallest rear cog with the smallest front ring, or the largest rear cog and the largest front ring. Bicycle chains are quite flexible, and will work well at various other then perfectly straight. Cross-chaining is primarily an issue when the chain hits the front rings. As a simple rule, if a gear combination causes a rubbing problem, avoid that gear.


http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/chainline-concepts

I agree with you it's nice having choices, but a triple is 95% redundant in the gearing it offers. There is really no reason to have one unless you have a medical reason (back/knee surgery, even though the idea of turning big gears ruining your knees is debatable) or a psychological reason to run something like that (or you're dragging 50 pounds of camping gear up a 20% grade.)

Really, it's pretty simple: if you don't have the fitness to push a 34/34 (26.3"), how is a triple going to help? You'd be better off spending an extra hour riding and get a little stronger instead of spending a couple hundred bucks on a new crank, shifter, front derailleur...although plenty of people will take the easy way out and just throw some money at it. 

Oh well, it's a personal decision. The condescension comes from people who refuse to see that the triple has become a dinosaur, and really offers little to no benefit to the typical road cyclist.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> The thing I've found about gearing, is, if you practice spinning, keeping your leg speed up, the hills are manageable while working hard. I can still do the climbs around here in 42-23 on one bike, or 43-28 on the other, without slowing under 6 mph, no matter what. There was a thread not long ago where riders said they routinely slowed to 4 mph. I don't know how they could do that, but it has to be the lower gearing that makes that happen. I'd be stalling out at 4 mph and would have get off the bike and walk.


Sorry, fred, that makes no sense to me. In a 42x23, if you're going 6 mph, you're grinding 42 rpm, not "spinning" with your "leg speed up." You're suggesting that if you had a 34x26, so that 6mph would get you 58 rpm, you'd be likely to go slower because of the lower gear? 
That's mind games.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Here's the thing....*



Drew Eckhardt said:


> Lots of people are just like you, too weak and/or heavy to combine conventional road double rings with cogs suitable for fast flat-land hammering like a 13-19 freewheel.
> 
> Why is it OK to work around the problem with pie-plate sized cogs in back but not to add a third smaller ring up front?
> 
> ...


First, I'm neither weak nor heavy, suckah! My whole point about 'wimping out" with granny gears! Train up, people! Lose that dead weight. Get stronger.

You have a point about straight block freewheel gears and a granny gear in front to extend the range as wide as with "pie plate" gears in back. :biggrin5: But I'd rather have closer spacing chainings, like 42-52 or 44-52 and slightly wider spacing in back, to avoid double shifting, which is what you have to dot with 39-52!  A gear chart will show the jump is so huge in front, you have to also shift to a different cog in back to pickup cadence! Of course, a triple with a nice 42, 43 or 44 wouldn't do that, and the granny gear would be great as a bailout on climbs. But heck, I never see any of the club riders go up the climbs in much less than their 39-17s! They're cranking about the same as I used to with my 44-23!

I like pie plate gears. They last significantly longer than smaller gears and they're easier to turn. Francesco Moser broke the hour record with 55-17. He also found pie plates easier to crank than what others were using. This is what I have against 11 t. rear cogs. Ridiculous. Nobody can turn them with anything larger than a 50, if that. I'd much rather ride with a 53-14, probably about the same gear.

Remember "half step" gearing? That was overlapping the gears so that each gear in back would be right between the two gears in front. The gears overlapped, but no combination was exactly the same. You could shift up front or in back depending on how far you wanted to go, never having to double shift. That's completely lost with today's schemes.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Really, it's pretty simple: if you don't have the fitness to push a 34/34 (26.3"), how is a triple going to help? You'd be better off spending an extra hour riding and get a little stronger instead of spending a couple hundred bucks on a new crank, shifter, front derailleur...although plenty of people will take the easy way out and just throw some money at it.
> 
> Oh well, it's a personal decision. The condescension comes from people who refuse to see that the triple has become a dinosaur, and really offers little to no benefit to the typical road cyclist.


10 cogs are good when they trade 12-15-17-19-22-24 for the same range tighter spaced 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 plus a 100 gram weight penalty.

3 rings are bad when they trade 50-34 x 11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32 for the same range tighter spaced 53-39-24 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 plus a 100 gram weight penalty.

Why (unless you're a bike company looking to reduce SKUs)?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

JCavilia said:


> ..You can put out just as much effort with a lower gear. You'll just be turning a higher cadence. Which obviously make you a wimp, but also might save your knees so you can keep riding for a long time...


How fast are you going up that climb in that granny gear? Can you get 6 mph out of it? Or does your cadence settle into a "comfortable" 60 rpm as you crawl up that mountain? :biggrin5:

My knees are in great shape. I ruined the right one running 30 years ago, so took up bicycling. When I finally learned to spin, the knees rehabilitated to the point I can now hop up bleachers like a kid. Smooth, circular cranking is the secret to longevity, as well as powering slightly larger gears up hills.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*Math and logic lessons*



Fredrico said:


> This is what I have against 11 t. rear cogs. Ridiculous. Nobody can turn them with anything larger than a 50, if that. I'd much rather ride with a 53-14, probably about the same gear


50x11 is fully 20% higher than 53x14. Pie plate gears are "easier to turn?" You're playing mind games with yourself - NTTAWWT.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*You're right.*



JCavilia said:


> Sorry, fred, that makes no sense to me. In a 42x23, if you're going 6 mph, you're grinding 42 rpm, not "spinning" with your "leg speed up." You're suggesting that if you had a 34x26, so that 6mph would get you 58 rpm, you'd be likely to go slower because of the lower gear?
> That's mind games.


With the 42-23, I find it very difficult to slow less than about 9 mph! :biggrin5: Lose too much leg speed! Boy does that heart rate go crazy! But with the 43-28, that's a reasonably smooth 60 rpm at 7 mph. By the same logic, I'd say with a granny gear, at comparable cadence, it would be slower!

Yes, entirely reasonable one could sustain 6 mph in 34x26 cranking 58 rpm. But let me ask you this. How long can you climb at 90 rpm, in any gear?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> 10 cogs are good when they trade 12-15-17-19-22-24 for the same range tighter spaced 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 plus a 100 gram weight penalty.
> 
> 3 rings are bad when they trade 50-34 x 11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32 for the same range tighter spaced 53-39-24 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 plus a 100 gram weight penalty.
> 
> Why (unless you're a bike company looking to reduce SKUs)?


I'll ask you the same question: Why?

If ratios that tight are so important, why do we not see professionals (who are a WHOLE lot more discerning than you or I in terms of technique) riding triples in the mountains with 11-21s?

The whole idea that "super tight ratios" are paramount is laughable. When climbing close ratios don't mean much (1 tooth differences aren't going to help you going uphill.) On the flats, it's certainly not difficult to find a comfortable cadence with 2 or even 3 tooth jumps in cogs. If you're going to ride exclusively flat roads, swap to a close ratio cassette (if it's that important to you.) If you're climbing, spread your ratios out a bit to get a lower gear. 

So I go back to, why bother with a triple? So you get tighter ratios, half your gears are redundant and useless and you have to shift multiple gears to get any meaningful difference in gear inches while climbing (isn't that what we're discussing here? Hitting headwind on the climbs?) You get marginally better ability to fine tune cadence on perfectly flat rides.

As a manufacturer you have to produce an entire second line of triple specific parts, which adds yet more parts that have to be designed, manufactured, stocked and shipped. That's a pain in the butt on the manufacturing side when only a small group of people will be buying them.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Ironic post of the month. Lol. 

Len



robdamanii said:


> Fitness is fitness Len, you know that. If you can hammer 25mph on the flats, you can climb hills. Maybe not quickly, but you can do it.
> 
> Cross chaining is not nearly the evil that it once was. With thicker, stiffer chains maybe so, but modern chains, no problem (except possible noise.)
> 
> ...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Len J said:


> Ironic post of the month. Lol.
> 
> Len


Oh boy, I've been called ironic. My life is complete now.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Not at all.*



JCavilia said:


> 50x11 is fully 20% higher than 53x14. Pie plate gears are "easier to turn?" You're playing mind games with yourself - NTTAWWT.


Ok, the 50x11 is a higher gear. But I wouldn't be able to push it. I could go just as fast in 53x14, at higher cadence!

I swear I read about Moser choosing the "pie plate" gears because he thought he could turn them more easily. Something about leverage or chain resistance or something like that! Next time you're out, try comparing say, 39-14 with 52-18. They're about the same gear inches. I think the 52-18 is slightly easier to "stay on top of.".


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Len J said:


> Sorry but the use of everyone in your response here does show that your opinion is uninformed. I'll give you 2 examples
> 
> - cyclist lives in the flat part of the country but wants to have a bike he can take to the mountains periodically........no compact will have low enough gears for someone who never rides in the mountains.
> 
> ...


I don't condescend on guys who have triples. I just think they're redundant and unnecessary, as robdamanii says. I've never had trouble going up mountains with two chainrings and nothing more than a 28 in back. I went up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5500 ft. 22 miles, a couple of times with 44-22 lowest gear. No problem. Club riders I've ridden with never go into their most inner cogs going up the hills. They'd get dropped. One thing for sure, you'd never ride me off your wheel in your granny gear! :biggrin5:


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> I went up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5500 ft. 22 miles, a couple of times with 44-22 lowest gear.


So as a point of reference, have you ever ridden the Fedaia?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I don't condescend on guys who have triples. I just think they're redundant and unnecessary, as robdamanii says. I've never had trouble going up mountains with two chainrings and nothing more than a 28 in back. I went up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5500 ft. 22 miles, a couple of times with 44-22 lowest gear. No problem. Club riders I've ridden with never go into their most inner cogs going up the hills. They'd get dropped. One thing for sure, you'd never ride me off your wheel in your granny gear! :biggrin5:


here we go again, mt Wilson as a reference for climbs. It's not a steep mountain no matter how many times you try to pretend you are a bad ass for having ridden it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> here we go again, mt Wilson as a reference for climbs. It's not a steep mountain no matter how many times you try to pretend you are a bad ass for having ridden it.


5500 feet, son! The last 6 miles sure was steep! Coulda used a granny on those last 4 or 5 switchbacks! :biggrin5:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> 5500 feet, son! The last 6 miles sure was steep! Coulda used a granny on those last 4 or 5 switchbacks! :biggrin5:


stop being a p*ssy and go ride some real climbs. 
You take something that is rather flat and then pretend it's the standard everyone else has to live by.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Nope.*



asgelle said:


> So as a point of reference, have you ever ridden the Fedaia?


How was it? Did you need a 30-28, or was a 39-27 sufficient? :yesnod:

Sheryl Crow went up Alp D'Huez in 40 minutes. I don't think she had a granny gear. What is that, 22 switchbacks? 6 miles? How hard could that be?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hey, come up with something better!*



den bakker said:


> stop being a p*ssy and go ride some real climbs.
> You take something that is rather flat and then pretend it's the standard everyone else has to live by.


How about 6 miles, a bit steeper grade, up into the Hollywood Hills to that observatory? Did that with 44-22, too! No problem. If the mountain had been twice as high, I could have kept going! :biggrin5:

Sorry, but the biggest mountain around here is Sugarloaf, and its about 800 feet.  A sprint to the top!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> How about 6 miles, a bit steeper grade, up into the Hollywood Hills to that observatory? Did that with 44-22, too! No problem. If the mountain had been twice as high, I could have kept going! :biggrin5:
> 
> Sorry, but the biggest mountain around here is Sugarloaf, and its about 800 feet.  A sprint to the top!


go ride a real mountain and come back to us.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*What are you talking about?*



den bakker said:


> go ride a real mountain and come back to us.


5500 feet isn't a mountain? Look, if a car can go up, a bicycle can go up. If its steeper than that, ya gotta take a cable car--or hike.

But go ahead, tell me me what its like to climb a "real" mountain!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> 5500 feet isn't a mountain? Look, if a car can go up, a bicycle can go up. If its steeper than that, ya gotta take a cable car--or hike.
> 
> But go ahead, tell me me what its like to climb a "real" mountain!


you could start off with the one Asgelle suggested, otherwise look up the giro profile this year there are plenty to take from. 
And nobody calculates the climbing to wilson from sealevel. Doing that mt lemmon would be 10 000 feet. 
But why bother? in 6 months you're back saying how awesome you are climbing mt wilson in a 44/22 (where others are big ringing it btw) and thereby declaring that's all everyone will ever need.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

robdamanii said:


> Only when they claim it is the "only way to go."
> 
> I personally believe everyone is able to ride compact double gearing in all but the absolute steepest conditions....


well, your earlier statement may or may not have been uninformed, but this one certainly is. 

There's only one ignorant, uninformed attitude in this endless debate - and that's thinking that I or you or anyone has any idea what best suits other people. 

YEs, I know you're only stating your personal belief, but that belief reflects very limited experience and knowledge of other cyclists.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

stumpbumper said:


> I suppose the weight-weenies and the uninformed will always look down their elitest noses at those of us who ride bikes with triple chainrings and I could not care less. The bike magazines are just as bad. I no longer subscribe to Bicycling because its writers seem to take great joy in putting down triples and those of us who use them at every opportunity.
> 
> At the age of 70, I still average 6,000 miles per year on a Cervelo R3 and would have had to have given up cycling years ago if not for the granny gear option of a triple. Nothing you can put on a bike makes it easier on the knees (except, perhaps Speedplay pedals). With the derailleur properly adjusted a triple is just as trouble-free as any double and the few ounces that middle ring adds to a bike is insignificant. I actually have four bikes and all have triples. I call the LeMond below my Mount Mitchell bike. In addition to a triple crank, it has mountain bike derailleur and a 12-34 cassette out back.
> 
> ...


my god man, a triple and a flipped up stem? How can you live with yourself. You need to HTFU, didn't you know that anyone could ride up any hill with a 42X25 if they just worked harder? Wait, you're 70 and know more and have ridden more than any of us! Here's hoping I'm riding 6K / year and posting on the www in 12 years when I'm 70! Congratulations on your riding and beautiful bikes.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> .... I've never had trouble going up mountains with two chainrings and nothing more than a 28 in back. I went up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5500 ft. 22 miles, a couple of times with 44-22 lowest gear. No problem. Club riders I've ridden with never go into their most inner cogs going up the hills. They'd get dropped. One thing for sure, you'd never ride me off your wheel in your granny gear! :biggrin5:


Tell me why your experience has any relevancy at all.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I don't condescend on guys who have triples. I just think they're redundant and unnecessary, as robdamanii says. I've never had trouble going up mountains with two chainrings and nothing more than a 28 in back. I went up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5500 ft. 22 miles, a couple of times with 44-22 lowest gear. No problem. Club riders I've ridden with never go into their most inner cogs going up the hills. They'd get dropped. One thing for sure, you'd never ride me off your wheel in your granny gear! :biggrin5:


Wow...doesn't condesend and then condesends in the same post.....how clever.

Next you'll be showing pics of yourself naked.

Not even a good troll.

Len


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Oh for f*cks sake.

Any drivetrain is a compromise. There is no perfect setup for everyone. That's why there are so many choices. 

Turn of the century, REAL MEN rode 45 pound fixed gear bikes up real mountains on roads most of us wouldn't ride without a dual suspension bike. They did it wearing scratchy wool gear and handlebar mustaches, with more oil in their hair than on their chain.

Until you are that hard, STFU about anyone else's drivetrain.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Lotophage said:


> Oh for f*cks sake.
> 
> Any drivetrain is a compromise. There is no perfect setup for everyone. That's why there are so many choices.
> 
> ...


I can add nthing to that.


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

Wow, some very interesting comments in this thread. Personally I am riding Compact doubles right now, 50/39 and 11-27 11sp. If I get older and feel I need a triple I hope they are still around. A very close friend of mine just did a quad century, for the uninformed that's 400 miles in 24 hours. He did it using a triple! That is is about 300 more miles than I can do in a day although I am training for a double this year. Anyone here want get on his case about riding a triple? Anyone here want to see if they can hold his wheel after 200 miles? I would venture the majority would not make it to the 200 mile mark with him. 

There is a plethora of equipment out there for each individual. Whether it be SS, Double, Triple, long cage rear derailleur, 11-21 to 13-32 rear cassette. Why would you look down your nose at what someone else rides with out knowing why they ride it? Why not just be happy they are out on a bike! Them spending their money insures that the cycling companies keep making equipment so we can all have choices like we do now.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rward325 said:


> Wow, some very interesting comments in this thread.


Not really, just the generic HTFU and having to justify what they use or don't use and why.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*In other words...*



Camilo said:


> well, your earlier statement may or may not have been uninformed, but this one certainly is.
> 
> There's only one ignorant, uninformed attitude in this endless debate - and that's thinking that I or you or anyone has any idea what best suits other people.
> 
> YEs, I know you're only stating your personal belief, but that belief reflects very limited experience and knowledge of other cyclists.


He's saying you'd be spinning out in the granny on any but the steepest grades. Zat you? If not, tell us your experiences. I'm still waiting for someone to actually describe when exactly that little ring would come in handy. All I've talked to who've had one say they've never really needed it, always been able to make it in the middle ring. :biggrin5: Sure, some of that is "pride," as it's put. But that's inevitable in the sport of cycling! Why give up unless you really have to! :thumbsup:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Thanks, Len!*



Len J said:


> Wow...doesn't condesend and then condesends in the same post.....how clever.
> 
> Next you'll be showing pics of yourself naked.
> 
> ...


Still, I wasn't condescending, merely stating my own humble experiences, the experiences of my riding buddies, and the logical conclusion! :7:


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> He's saying you'd be spinning out in the granny on any but the steepest grades. Zat you? If not, tell us your experiences. I'm still waiting for someone to actually describe when exactly that little ring would come in handy. All I've talked to who've had one say they've never really needed it, always been able to make it in the middle ring. :biggrin5: Sure, some of that is "pride," as it's put. But that's inevitable in the sport of cycling! Why give up unless you really have to! :thumbsup:


_“I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn’t it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft… As for me, give me a fixed gear!” Henri Desgrange._

If you're using gears and a freewheel, this guy thought you were a puss.

You don't like triples, we get it, move on.


----------



## Boosted333 (Mar 31, 2011)

I got rid of my triple, mainly for a smoother shifting double. Couldn't be happier. I also wanted a compact but tried a standard double and have no issues climbing (but everyone is different). Very glad I made the switch and I can't see me going back to a triple, ever. A compact when I'm older? Sure...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hey wait a minute.*



Camilo said:


> my god man, a triple and a flipped up stem? How can you live with yourself. You need to HTFU, didn't you know that anyone could ride up any hill with a 42X25 if they just worked harder? Wait, you're 70 and know more and have ridden more than any of us! Here's hoping I'm riding 6K / year and posting on the www in 12 years when I'm 70! Congratulations on your riding and beautiful bikes.


Did I say anything about this guy's triples? No. It's you who are condescending on the features of this man's bikes, upturned stems, etc. I politely kept my mouth shut. Now you bring it up, for the snotty to ridicule! :biggrin5:

In 2 years, I'll be 70. Think I'll celebrate by putting on that 44! It's great on the flats!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Gee whiz.*



spade2you said:


> Not really, just the generic HTFU and having to justify what they use or don't use and why.


You guys with triples sure are defensive!


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to actually describe when exactly that little ring would come in handy. All I've talked to who've had one say they've never really needed it, always been able to make it in the middle ring.:


I'll answer (hopefully my last dubious contribution to this dubious discussion.).I have a standard 52/39 double, lowest gear is 39x26, and I rarely use that -- it's a bailout gear, for nasty pitches >15%.

BUT, the hills around here are pretty short, even though sometimes steep. For a mile, or 2 or 3, I can climb just about anything in 39x23.

But if climbs like that went on very long, I'd need some recovery time, riding slower. I could slow the cadence down to 35 and grind for a while, but that doesn't help the legs freshen up much. Dropping to a much lower bailout gear, allowing a low speed with a reasonable cadence, helps a lot.

Several years ago I rode up the Haleakala volcano on Maui. It's not a terribly steep road -- a bit over 5% most of the way, only occasionally a bit worse. But it goes on and on -- 38 miles, sea level to 10,000 feet in one continuous climb. The bike I rented had a triple. I wasn't in the little ring all the time, but I used it a lot. Without it, I would have had to stop for several recovery breaks.

A triple allows you to have that recovery gear, while still having lots of useful cogs in the middle of the cassette. If I lived in a place with real long mountain climbs, I'd probably have one. They have their uses.

But I'm gonna try to hold out a few more years ;-)

Ride on, dudes. I have nothing more to contribute here. Gotta ride home on the fixie (39x16) in a few minutes.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Henri was right, RIP.*



Lotophage said:


> _“I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn’t it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft… As for me, give me a fixed gear!” Henri Desgrange._
> 
> If you're using gears and a freewheel, this guy thought you were a puss.
> 
> You don't like triples, we get it, move on.


Don't be so sensitive!

The history of cycling has been a downward curve into wimpdom. Heroism is dead. Now its all technobabble, by the numbers, refusing to race in all but one event, flimsy lightweight bikes, with granny gears! Oh, the shame!  Once upon a time, men were men. Not anymore. :frown2:

Mark Cavendish proves my point. We'll see if he shows some real character this year, takes it to the next level, instead of just resting on his talent.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> Oh, the shame!  Once upon a time, men were men. Not anymore. :frown2:


Once upon a time, people died at 50 and thought blood-letting was a great way to cure cholera. Leaded gas was a great idea, once. Catalytic converters and pollution controls were going to ruin cars forever...

The old ways are not always the best ways. Time and technology move on.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Stated very well!*



JCavilia said:


> I'll answer (hopefully my last dubious contribution to this dubious discussion.).I have a standard 52/39 double, lowest gear is 39x26, and I rarely use that -- it's a bailout gear, for nasty pitches >15%.
> 
> BUT, the hills around here are pretty short, even though sometimes steep. For a mile, or 2 or 3, I can climb just about anything in 39x23.
> 
> ...


You state the case well, in non-trollish fashion. What you say is not contradicted by anything robdamanii or I have said, however. :biggrin5:

It's in my nature to keep pedaling, no matter what. I've always found rest stops the wrong thing to do, as the muscles start to fill up with lactic acid and tighten up. But I've never gone 38 miles climbing. The 22 miles up Mt. Wilson had places where one could recover, as all the other climbs I've done. It doesn't take much, a slight leveling off of the road, and one is able to recover while still pedaling. :thumbsup:


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> He's saying you'd be spinning out in the granny on any but the steepest grades. Zat you? If not, tell us your experiences. I'm still waiting for someone to actually describe when exactly that little ring would come in handy. All I've talked to who've had one say they've never really needed it, always been able to make it in the middle ring. :biggrin5: Sure, some of that is "pride," as it's put. But that's inevitable in the sport of cycling! Why give up unless you really have to! :thumbsup:


All's I can say is that I use both my 52-12 and my 30-26 on every single ride I make around here. So, yes I do use the gears I have and am always glad to have them. Do I need to document the grade and distance for you, or is it sufficient to say that I have the low gears and use them? And explain this "give up" concept of yours and how it relates to my riding?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> You guys with triples sure are defensive!


I use a compact double, but don't feel that riders really need to justify a standard, compact, or triple.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

Sorry, no way is any triple as trouble free and as easy shifting as a standard double. I suspect that the standard even outshines the compact though have never ridden a compact, just looking at the gear spread


stumpbumper said:


> I suppose the weight-weenies and the uninformed will always look down their elitest noses at those of us who ride bikes with triple chainrings and I could not care less. The bike magazines are just as bad. I no longer subscribe to Bicycling because its writers seem to take great joy in putting down triples and those of us who use them at every opportunity.
> 
> At the age of 70, I still average 6,000 miles per year on a Cervelo R3 and would have had to have given up cycling years ago if not for the granny gear option of a triple. Nothing you can put on a bike makes it easier on the knees (except, perhaps Speedplay pedals). *With the derailleur properly adjusted a triple is just as trouble-free as any double* and the few ounces that middle ring adds to a bike is insignificant. I actually have four bikes and all have triples. I call the LeMond below my Mount Mitchell bike. In addition to a triple crank, it has mountain bike derailleur and a 12-34 cassette out back.
> 
> ...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

martinrjensen said:


> Sorry, no way is any triple as trouble free and as easy shifting as a standard double. I suspect that the standard even outshines the compact though have never ridden a compact, just looking at the gear spread


I don't suspect that ease/speed of shifting is a terribly huge priority among a lot of triple users. That being sad, it's going to be hard to compete with the likes of Campy Record, Sram Red, and DA. With regards to compact vs. standard, I don't notice a huge difference between my Record 10 (standard) and Record 11 (compact).


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Camilo said:


> All's I can say is that I use both my 52-12 and my 30-26 on every single ride I make around here. So, yes I do use the gears I have and am always glad to have them. Do I need to document the grade and distance for you, or is it sufficient to say that I have the low gears and use them? And explain this "give up" concept of yours and how it relates to my riding?


The day I get into my 52-13 will never come. I've given up on that, oh, about 25 years ago! When descending, I've found going into a nice tuck increases speed beyond the point I'd be spinning out in the 13. But I can't find gear clusters with 14 tooth low cogs. 

Most of the time around here, I'm in the 43-20 or 24, and 52-20-17, but I like to maintain a fast cadence. In a good tail wind or slight downhill, I might be able to handle 52-15 or once in a while the 14. The hills are short enough to handle in 43-24 or 28. The 28 is just fine for the longer ones. I figure a 30-28 would take away all the momentum, my speed would drop to a walk, so I'd much rather just power up at 7-9 mph and suffer until the top! But that's just what I learned back in the day when everyone had to do it. Now they don't. They can downshift, and keep on going, even if they're going so slow, they're barely able to stay balanced on the bike.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

All right... penises and tape measures... let's settle this once and for all!

And while you do that, I'll go ride my 46/34, 12-27


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> The day I get into my 52-13 will never come. I've given up on that, oh, about 25 years ago! When descending, I've found going into a nice tuck increases speed beyond the point I'd be spinning out in the 13. But I can't find gear clusters with 14 tooth low cogs.
> 
> Most of the time around here, I'm in the 43-20 or 24, and 52-20-17, but I like to maintain a fast cadence. In a good tail wind or slight downhill, I might be able to handle 52-15 or once in a while the 14. The hills are short enough to handle in 43-24 or 28. The 28 is just fine for the longer ones. I figure a 30-28 would take away all the momentum, my speed would drop to a walk, so I'd much rather just power up at 7-9 mph and suffer until the top! But that's just what I learned back in the day when everyone had to do it. Now they don't. They can downshift, and keep on going, even if they're going so slow, they're barely able to stay balanced on the bike.


have a nice ride: http://www.everestchallenge.com/


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Sigh. Everything old is new again. We've already had this debate with Frederico... it was determined long ago that the guy just simply does not have any real climbs where he lives. Everything he's ever done was either short and steep, or long n' shallow. Never both long AND steep. 

This is why he thinks the way he does, his own limited frame of reference on the matter. 

To his credit, Fred did vow last time to go to a 'real' climb sometime and report back. Don't think he ever made it. Frederico, what's up? Did you ever go to the REAL mountains? Or are you gonna keep talking about Mt Hamilton from back in the days when you were visiting/living in LA, and which isn't steep at all for most of its length?

Also, your climbing cadence is pretty low. Plenty of ppl prefer to climb 'Lance style', with higher RPMs. Hell, even Hinault learned to change his climbing style, from masher to more of a spinner, later on in his career. 

You gonna tell Bernie to HTFU too? I wouldn't, he tends to throw ppl off of stages n' stuff. :lol:










.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I am old (56), big (6'3", 195 lbs), and climb like Mario Cippolini! I started out with a Tiagra triple, then had an Ultegra 27 speed, followed by an Ultegra 30 speed. This year, I purchased a new ride that came with a compact double (SRAM Apex). I honestly can't tell that much of a difference in my cadence or speed climbing. Maybe I am not as discerning as some here appear to be?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Opus51569 said:


> All right... penises and tape measures... let's settle this once and for all!
> 
> And while you do that, I'll go ride my 46/34, 12-27


Spoil sport! :biggrin5:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hey, go ahead, sniff all you want!*



SystemShock said:


> Sigh. Everything old is new again. We've already had this debate with Frederico... it was determined long ago that the guy just simply does not have any real climbs where he lives. Everything he's ever done was either short and steep, or long n' shallow. Never both long AND steep.
> 
> This is why he thinks the way he does, his own limited frame of reference on the matter.
> 
> ...


Just so happens I have a life, and in it right now there's no time to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest mountain over 5 thousand feet to prove myselt to y'all granny gear boys!

Don't get me wrong about climbing cadence. 58 rpm is bare minimum. Less than that and I'd have to get off and walk. So far, no problem, however. I like to climb "on top of the gear." That means about 80 rpm, and on a good day, 90 rpm. That's what Lance and Bernard did at the end of their careers, wisdom taken. But when the grade gets a bit steep to crank it at 80 rpm, I can still, and this is mentioned in Hinault's book, "spin" at 58 rpm, that is, grind it out in even strokes, using all the muscles in the leg. That's crucial to handling a "big gear" climbing, and something nobody has responded to. I can only conclude this is because nobody here understands the concept. When they climb, they "push" with the quads, thereby wearing them out, so they have to stop for 10 minutes to recover half way up the mountain. :lol:

Wimps.


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Just so happens I have a life, and in it right now there's no time to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest mountain over 5 thousand feet to prove myselt to y'all granny gear boys!
> 
> Don't get me wrong about climbing cadence. 58 rpm is bare minimum. Less than that and I'd have to get off and walk. So far, no problem, however. I like to climb "on top of the gear." That means about 80 rpm, and on a good day, 90 rpm. That's what Lance and Bernard did at the end of their careers, wisdom taken. But when the grade gets a bit steep to crank it at 80 rpm, I can still, and this is mentioned in Hinault's book, "spin" at 58 rpm, that is, grind it out in even strokes, using all the muscles in the leg. That's crucial to handling a "big gear" climbing, and something nobody has responded to. I can only conclude this is because nobody here understands the concept. When they climb, they "push" with the quads, thereby wearing them out, so they have to stop for 10 minutes to recover half way up the mountain. :lol:
> 
> Wimps.


Are you really quoting Lance and Hinault to those of us that have admitted we don't care what you think? I am 50, I use a Compact double and I don't give a s*** if you care. None of us care if you can climb a hill in a big gear! Is it reasonable for you to force your opinion on everyone else? Do we not have a right to ours? Or should we damned for your sake to pretend you are a professional rider and practicing to ride the TdF with the readings of Lance and Bernard? I'll be riding in my 39/27 this weekend and enjoying my ride!
View attachment 229753


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hey, I'm lightened up!*



rward325 said:


> Are you really quoting Lance and Hinault to those of us that have admitted we don't care what you think? I am 50, I use a Compact double and I don't give a s*** if you care. None of us care if you can climb a hill in a big gear! Is it reasonable for you to force your opinion on everyone else? Do we not have a right to ours? Or should we damned for your sake to pretend you are a professional rider and practicing to ride the TdF with the readings of Lance and Bernard? I'll be riding in my 39/27 this weekend and enjoying my ride!


Yer not that far from me, pal, in your 39-27! :biggrin5: So why do you feel insulted? :frown2:

This is a give and take discussion on the desirability and or uses of a triple ring crank. I was merely trying to defend those of us who dismiss triples as complicating shifting and gear selection, and unnecessary in all situations except steep mountain climbing or weighted touring. I have attempted to address specific issues with those who disagree. This is all in the fun of debate. Sorry if you take it as personal insult. Pop a beer out of the refrigerator, pal, and relax.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Yer not that far from me, pal, in your 39-27! :biggrin5: So why do you feel insulted? :frown2:
> 
> This is a give and take discussion on the desirability and or uses of a triple ring crank. I was merely trying to defend those of us who dismiss triples as complicating shifting and gear selection, and unnecessary in all situations except steep mountain climbing or weighted touring. I have attempted to address specific issues with those who disagree. This is all in the fun of debate. Sorry if you take it as personal insult. Pop a beer out of the refrigerator, pal, and relax.


OK I know you're trying (yes, very trying  ).

Insulted? No. Angry? Maybe. Maybe angry or at least irritated that anyone would presume to "know" what anyone else actually wants or needs in terms of gearing. That is just arrogant and sometimes some of us get pissed at arrogance.

Because, you see, you're only displaying ignorance and arrogance when you say triples are "unnecessary in all situations except steep mountain climbing or weighted touring." Because that's just false. Therefore, if you truly believe it, you are just ignorant.

But don't worry, there's nothing shameful about being ignorant, so don't feel insulted. It's just a matter of being open to new knowledge in order to overcome the ignorance.

Just so you know, the proper answer - from what I understand to be your perspective - is "I've found it to be unnecessary in all situations except steep mountain climbing or weighted touring. I don't know about you."

Just as my answer would be: "I use my lowest and highest gears on every ride where I live, but I don't know if you'd need them."

OK are we ready for Kumbaya yet?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Not quite.*



Camilo said:


> Ok, are we ready for Kumbaya yet?


I just wanna know where you live, where you can actually use a 30-27 and a 52-11 on every ride!  Where do you live, Monaco? :shocked: If you can power the high gear, why can't you climb in something a bit larger than that wimpy granny gear? Or, conversely, if you need that wimpy gear, how often can you summon the strength to turn the high gear? Descending mountains?


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> I just wanna know where you live, where you can actually use a 30-27 and a 52-11 on every ride!  Where do you live, Monaco? :shocked: If you can power the high gear, why can't you climb in something a bit larger than that wimpy granny gear? Or, conversely, if you need that wimpy gear, how often can you summon the strength to turn the high gear, descending mountains?


I'm quite old and weak, I use the 52-12 going very fast downhill only, but I like to do that every ride. I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy with a 13 or maybe even a 14 small sprocket, but I have a 12. 

I like the middle ring for a great majority of my normal rides.

I use the 30X 26 sporadically out on the road, but I always use it on the last few short, very steep hills up to my neighborhood and sometimes wish I had MTB gearing. They are not only steep, but loose gravel and therefore are much easier to ride seated than standing on a road bike. If they were paved I have no doubt I could get up them on a 34X25 or such by just grunting it out. 

I'm going to be changing over to Sram compact this summer and am interested to see if I am OK with the slightly different low gear and different front-rear shifting patterns. Never too old to try something new.

KUMBAYA!


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

You could be right on both counts. As I said, I have not ridden a compact. I did have a bike that was 52/42 and that was a much quicker shift then my current 53/39, that's why I mentioned the difference in shifting with the compact. Obviously to people who it's not that important for, then those people may not notice the difference but I really did. Still I had a triple for a while and the double is way better shifting. My triple was adjusted as well as it could be too. While it was Shimano and I am currently riding Campy, I doubt if that was the difference. 
Actually now that I think about it, my current rain bike is still a triple. I totally forgot about it but then again it only gets ridden in the winter.


spade2you said:


> I don't suspect that ease/speed of shifting is a terribly huge priority among a lot of triple users. That being sad, it's going to be hard to compete with the likes of Campy Record, Sram Red, and DA. With regards to compact vs. standard, I don't notice a huge difference between my Record 10 (standard) and Record 11 (compact).


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> But when the grade gets a bit steep to crank it at 80 rpm, I can still, and this is mentioned in Hinault's book, "spin" at 58 rpm,


No. I have Hinault's book, and it says a good climbing cadence is 70 to 90 RPM. Might wanna re-read it.



Frederico said:


> _Wimps._


Hey, _you're_ the one who's too afraid to drive out and experience some REAL climbs. :lol:
.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Cool!*



Camilo said:


> I'm quite old and weak, I use the 52-12 going very fast downhill only, but I like to do that every ride. I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy with a 13 or maybe even a 14 small sprocket, but I have a 12.
> 
> I like the middle ring for a great majority of my normal rides.
> 
> ...


Have to admit a similar situation to yours climbing gravelly roads. The other day, had to take a dirt detour off the MUT, and actually spun out the back wheel on loose dirt in the 43-28. The slick tire wouldn't grab. I suspect in a 30-28, I could have spun it more gently up that rise and the tire wouldn't have lost grip.

Well, I "know" you'll be just fine with that SRAM compact double. :biggrin5: I don't think you'd be "grunting it out" on a 34-25! Even if you're as old as you claim!

Peace out, bro! :thumbsup:

From another old man.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*WEll, ok, I'm not Bernard Hinault.*



SystemShock said:


> No. I have Hinault's book, and it says a good climbing cadence is 70 to 90 RPM. Might wanna re-read it.
> 
> 
> Hey, _you're_ the one who's too afraid to drive out and experience some REAL climbs. :lol:
> .


Didn't I just post above the exact same thing Hinault said? That's where I got it, and followed through over the last 25 years! :biggrin5: Like I said, I try to power up the hills at least 70 to 90 rpm! I'll go way into anaerobic to stay on top of 42-23 or 43-28, depending on which bike, to maintain that range of cadence.

But when the grade steals momentum and the best I can do is 58 rpm, as Hinault also says, spinning rapid cadences not only teaches how to power bigger gears on the flats, as in TT, but also how to handle slower cadences in a climb, when ya don't have that prissy granny gear to wimp out on. :wink5:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

In one ear, and out the other, eh? 

I read Hinault book, Fred, cover to cover. Nowhere does he recommend 58rpm as a good cadence, on climbs or flats. He does talk about how you need to pedal differently in a big gear/lower cadences, but trust me, he did not win the Grand Prix des Nations or any Tour stages by pedaling 58 rpm the whole way, or averaging same. He does recommend higher than that, explicitly, in the book.

And Freds, while I loves ya, go do some REAL climbs, and then you can play sensei to everyone else, mmmkay?

Out.
.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Wow. Just read through all the pages and comments! I honestly am surprised at how long this thread has gone. Use whatever setup required to most efficiently get you up that summit climb or that neighborhood hill. 

I personally prefer not to use a triple b/c I can (at this point in my cycling years) get by without one. BUT if I needed one for whatever reason, I wouldn't hesitate to get one.


----------



## w-g (Mar 9, 2006)

Lotophage said:


> Oh for f*cks sake.
> 
> Any drivetrain is a compromise. There is no perfect setup for everyone. That's why there are so many choices.
> 
> ...


That's one of the better comments I've read in a long time.
Try "oferfuxache"


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I was merely trying to defend those of us who dismiss triples as complicating shifting and gear selection


Complicated? :lol: 

Its a standard crankset.. plus one. If you dont like the plus one, dont use it.. and you're left with a standard double. 39/53. 

Bizarre claim. Thats like saying drop bars are complicated because theres too many confusing hand positions.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hahahhahahahhaaa!!!*



SystemShock said:


> In one ear, and out the other, eh?
> 
> I read Hinault book, Fred, cover to cover. Nowhere does he recommend 58rpm as a good cadence, on climbs or flats. He does talk about how you need to pedal differently in a big gear/lower cadences, but trust me, he did not win the Grand Prix des Nations or any Tour stages by pedaling 58 rpm the whole way, or averaging same. He does recommend higher than that, explicitly, in the book.
> 
> ...


You have an endearing way of twisting words and thoughts to.....WIN. :biggrin5:

I could ask you to "please re-read my posts above" but that would be asking too much. So I'll repeat, I climb at cadences above 70 rpm, as Hinault approves. I champion high cadences in these forums, following Hinault and Armstrong, to name just two, and as a way of preserving my knees into old age. Admitting that once in awhile, a grade is so steep that these 67 year old legs go into anaerobic and drop below 70 rpm is no embarrassment, because they can turn the crank at lower cadences without blowing up. This may be difficult for some to believe, hence some of the snarkey responses. :frown2:

Nobody said Hinault was winning 400 K races at 58 rpm. Where do you get that? :shocked: I believe he said 90-95 rpm was optimal, and he was fit enough to turn his 53-13 at that cadence. I have no pretensions about that. Nonetheless, I sure don't need no granny gear.

So there. Peace out. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Duh..*



TomH said:


> Complicated? :lol:
> 
> Its a standard crankset.. plus one. If you dont like the plus one, dont use it.. and you're left with a standard double. 39/53.
> 
> Bizarre claim. Thats like saying drop bars are complicated because theres too many confusing hand positions.


The little granny gear places all the rear gears too low to be of any use at speeds greater than 8 mph.  The shift from the 30 to the 39 is too far, so you have to shift up the back, too. Same really with 39 to 53. There's almost no gear overlap. The rear cogs are in separate ranges. That's ridiculous. Much better to put the two chainrings closer together, like 42-50 or 44-53, so that a front shift doesn't also require a rear shift. Just throwing that out. :biggrin5:

Come to think of it, hey, a 53-44-38 might just rock! :thumbsup: Except hitting that middle ring would still be a problem if yer clicker weren't just right. I never worry about that. With two rings, it's either one or the other. You just set your limit screws and go. :wink5:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> You have an endearing way of twisting words and thoughts to.....*WIN*. :biggrin5:


I'm not this guy. It's just that yer bein' silly. 











.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Have to admit a similar situation to yours climbing gravelly roads. The other day, had to take a dirt detour off the MUT, and actually spun out the back wheel on loose dirt in the 43-28. The slick tire wouldn't grab. I suspect in a 30-28, I could have spun it more gently up that rise and the tire wouldn't have lost grip.
> 
> Well, I "know" you'll be just fine with that SRAM compact double. :biggrin5: I don't think you'd be "grunting it out" on a 34-25! Even if you're as old as you claim!
> 
> ...


damn, this calls for a group hug!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Camilo said:


> damn, this calls for a group hug!


:biggrin5: Or a group ride of "half wheel hell!"


----------

