Page 3 of 5

Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:36 pm
by kulivontot
Pro does it one time. Your argument is invalid.

Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:36 pm
by Weenie

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:38 pm
by Kasparz
At some point everyone loses their 'Triple' virginity I'm afraid.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:46 pm
by mattr
Kasparz wrote:At some point everyone loses their 'Triple' virginity I'm afraid.
nah, smaller and smaller doubles is the way forwards. Or upwards.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:08 pm
by Kasparz
Smaller what? I have a compact on my 'spring training' road bike, but I hate compacts.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:11 pm
by prendrefeu
Latvia is mostly flat, no?
Actually, aren't most countries and lands in that area (without counting those across the sea) a bit flat compared to areas where there's pretty much climbing in every direction?

Besides: Kasparz, you put out a ridiculously awesome w/kg ratio. You might not need compacts even on the Angliru.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:21 pm
by Kasparz
There are only two 800m 9% climbs I need to drop on a small chainring. 53/25 could do just fine, but that wouldn't be pretty for my poor chain.
I'm fine with modified/mtb casettes for really tough grades, but no messing around with kids cranksets.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:26 pm
by Valbrona
For a pro to criticize a race by saying something like 'The gradient was just too steep to make racing possible' is not very professional. And if race organizers shy away from anything over 25% or thereabouts, well, that is pants.

And gears on a bike are also about achieving correct cadence.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:41 am
by mattr
Kasparz wrote:Smaller what?
Doubles. 53/42, 53/39, 50/34, 48/34 and so on.

Not long before they start offering 46/30 and smaller for the less fit........

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:31 am
by airwise
I don't understand the snobbery over triples.

Closer ratios are an obvious advantage whilst having a front chainring specifically there just for extreme climbs or (for amateurs) when fatigue kicks in.

You can have any compact you want but you'll still have bigger gaps between your gear shifts.

From an amateur's POV it's a shame that high end triples have been shelved. We don't have the luxury of a bike change just before tackling the Kitzbulerhorn at the end of a long day.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:10 pm
by mattr
airwise wrote:I don't understand the snobbery over triples.
For a mooching round the countryside bike, there is nothing wrong with them. For any sort of spirited riding/racing they just aren't very useful. Too much chain flapping around, bendy front mech and having to ride bandy legged are just the three things that would put me off using one in a race. (actually, the bandy legged thing would put me off altogether, my knees won't take it.)

I think the old D-A triple and a couple of the Campag triples had the same spacing as the doubles (effectively just adding a ring on the inside) this would work. Except for the front mech and flappy chain........

TBH, i would imagine that a good proportion of the bike owners on here would probably be better served by a triple. But they weigh too much.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:49 pm
by Rick
I don't know anyone who can really spin up most of the mtns here in Utah, and although I am nobody, I have ridden with some seriously fast guys.. I have a triple on one of my training bikes and really like it.
Even then I can't really spin up most of the mtns with a 28(front)-27(rear). Yes, I actually go faster by using a bigger gear and mashing at 60 RPM, but sometimes I want to train my spinning against prolonged steep grades.

Also great for the regularly scheduled "easy day" ;)

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:07 pm
by airwise
mattr wrote:I think the old D-A triple and a couple of the Campag triples had the same spacing as the doubles (effectively just adding a ring on the inside) this would work. Except for the front mech and flappy chain........

TBH, i would imagine that a good proportion of the bike owners on here would probably be better served by a triple. But they weigh too much.


I used to ride 7800 triple and found it to be superb. 52/39 with a granny ring to help out. I could run a close ratio 11/21 cassette in the mountains and still have the same bottom gear as my mates on their 34/27. I can't think that my chain length was any worse but I'm sure others know more about that than I.

I'd rather have 3 x 9 than 2 x 11 if I'm honest. It's a shame that I have to go to a very heavy gruppo to do so.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:53 pm
by sawyer
airwise wrote:I don't understand the snobbery over triples.

Closer ratios are an obvious advantage whilst having a front chainring specifically there just for extreme climbs or (for amateurs) when fatigue kicks in.

You can have any compact you want but you'll still have bigger gaps between your gear shifts.

From an amateur's POV it's a shame that high end triples have been shelved. We don't have the luxury of a bike change just before tackling the Kitzbulerhorn at the end of a long day.


I've yet to find anything I can't get up with a compact. No doubt one day I'll be on a triple :wink:

Triple doesn't make sense for me right now therefore, but even leaving aside whether the ultra-low end is needed, it's the additional weight, q-factor, difficulty cleaning, and ... whisper it ... aesthetics that would put me off.

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:21 pm
by airwise
There's nothing most people can't get up with a compact.

It's this macho "oh he needs a triple" attitude rather than thinking of the very real advantages of a 12/21 instead of a 12/27 - both in terms of weight and pedalling fluidity. That's what get's me. Makes me laugh as I pass them on climb after climb. ;)

Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:21 pm
by Weenie

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Re: Pro's Not Clever Enough to Fit Triples

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:35 pm
by sawyer
34 at the front and 11-25 gets up anything. Sure there are 2 tooth jumps at the top end but that's not a big deal IME.